UK publisher reposts blocked China articles after outcry

BEIJING — A leading British academic publisher that bowed to pressure from Beijing to block online access to hundreds of scholarly articles in China has reversed its position and reposted the material, following an outcry over academic freedom.

Cambridge University Press (CUP) said late last week it had removed some 300 papers and book reviews published in The China Quarterly journal from its website in China following a request from the Chinese government. It said it had blocked the articles, which covered topics including the 1989 Tiananmen Square democracy protests, the 1960s Cultural Revolution and Tibet, in order to keep its other academic and educational materials available in the country.

The move sparked an outcry on all sides, with academics attacking the decision as an affront to academic freedom, while the state-run Global Times tabloid said publishers could leave the country if they did not like the “Chinese way”.

Cambridge University and Mr Tim Pringle, the editor of the China Quarterly, confirmed the decision to repost the articles. “As editor, I would like to express my support for CUP’s decision,” Mr Pringle said in a statement on Twitter. “Access to published materials of the highest quality is a core component of scholarly research. It is not the role of respected global publishing houses such as CUP to hinder such access.”

Cambridge University said the move to block content had been a “temporary decision”. It said in a statement: “Academic freedom is the overriding principle on which the University of Cambridge is based.”

Yesterday, searches for potentially sensitive topics such as “Tiananmen” on CUP’s webpage for The China Quarterly indicated that many papers and reviews were now downloadable free of charge, including in China.

Now, though, CUP might have to prepare itself for potential repercussions from the Chinese censors, who are unlikely to be happy with the public rebuke and reversal.

It was unclear how the 315 academic articles that they said offended official sensibilities would now be censored, if at all. “If China perceives the reversal as a matter of face or a challenge or whatever, I imagine it will escalate upward and Cambridge University Press will face further issues with China,” said Dr Jonathan Sullivan, a China studies scholar at the University of Nottingham who is on The China Quarterly’s executive committee.

The China Quarterly has long been one of the world’s most prestigious venues for research on modern China. Increasingly it has published work by scholars in or originally from China. The latest issue of the journal includes papers on ideological currents in journalism education and on political tension in Hong Kong.

The decision to remove the articles had sent shock waves through the academic community, with an open online petition calling for CUP to refuse all censorship requests from the Chinese government garnering more than 700 signatories before the publisher’s change of heart.

Professor Hans van de Ven, a scholar of modern Chinese history at Cambridge University, said the reversal was “absolutely the right decision”.

CUP’s presence in China has been a positive thing, even if it comes with some imposed restrictions from China, “but you do not censor yourself — that’s a basic principle”, he said.

Professor Reza Hasmath of Canada’s University of Alberta, who has written on sensitive subjects such as ethnicity and civil society in China, said the reposting of the articles was a positive symbolic move.

“The deep story here is that when the state does such actions, it fosters greater self-censorship among academics.” AGENCIES