March 23, 2026, Elliott School of International Affairs. Working Group Report launch.
This event was a bit of a snoozefest, for two reasons.
- Each panelist used their time to explain the same findings over and over again.
- The working group went to China, met with officials, got a grant to fund the paper, and published it in 2026. 80% of the information they discuss is already covered in this student article written in 2025.
I have some additional gripes with the report. Appendix A lists all the groups, schools, and organizations that the working group specialists consulted with. It features mainly universities, ministries/committees/departments, and Foundations/NGOs/Private Sector entities. This is a great list of institutions that students should know about, especially as it lists many universities with great exchange programs! However, there is no mention of China’s very active independent study scene, which is mind-boggling.
Type “Study Mandarin in (Province)” into any search engine. There are dozens of Chinese schools in tourist favorites like Beijing and Shanghai. There are more in scenic parts of China, like Yunnan and Guizhou. When people search up ‘Where do I learn Chinese?’ these programs are the things that pop up, not government fellowships and government programs. If they do another edition of this report, it would be great to include insight from them.
You can read USCET’s entire report (it’s so short!) here, but let’s briefly go over their recommendations for ameliorating American understanding of China.
- The US Government should state publicly that it wants more people with PRC expertise.
- The Chinese Government should encourage American social science and humanities researchers to come to China and facilitate their research efforts.
- The US Government should make it clear that students can go to the PRC and still get a security clearance.
- Higher education and the US government should develop pre-departure guidelines to prepare students for life in a different system (and how to protect themselves and their data from “theft, loss, and compromise” (USCET, 9). Some institutions already do this, like the Hopkins-Nanjing Center.
- Yes, the US needs research security protocols to prevent nefarious stealing of scientific secrets, but these security protocols should vary depending on the discipline. The STEM fields are at higher risk, but security concerns in the STEM field should not prevent students from going to China to study social sciences and humanities.
- Support existing US academic programs based in China. (Places like Duke Kunshan, the Hopkins-Nanjing Center, NYU Shanghai, etc…)
- Individually, American institutions in China don’t have much bargaining power. When there are issues in the US-PRC academic relationship, American universities and the government should collectively advocate for their academic demands. Also, it would be good to have more diplomatic talk going on about education.
- “Restore and expand” exchange programs, AKA “un-cut the federal funding, please.”
Things that this article did not mention that are worth looking into:
- The National Science Foundation’s SECURE Center (Safeguarding the Entire Community of the U.S. Research Ecosystem).
- Committee on Scholarly Communication with the People’s Republic of China (CSCPRC): Given the rise in US-China tensions, many of the working group members said that this Cold War-era US Government committee should be revived.