Chinese university students told to spy on classmates, report says
The regulator, the Office for Students (OfS), says freedom of speech and academic freedom are "fundamental" to higher education.The new legislation, which came into force last week, says universities should do more to actively promote academic freedom and freedom of speech, including in cases where institutions have agreements in place with other countries.Universities could be fined millions if they fail to do so, the OfS has said.However, the UKCT report says some universities are reluctant to address the issue of Chinese interference because of their financial reliance on Chinese student fees.
The report alleges that some Chinese academics involved in sensitive research had been denied visas by the Chinese government, while others said family members back in China had been harassed or threatened because of their work in the UK.Those sensitive topics can range from science and tech to politics and humanities, the report says, such as alleged ethnic cleansing in China's Xinjiang region, the outbreak of Covid or the rise of Chinese technology companies.Some academics reported intimidation by visiting scholars or other Chinese officials, as well as by staff at Confucius Institutes.These are partnership organisations operating at several UK universities, which bring together institutions in the UK and China, as well as a Chinese government agency which provides funding.They promote Chinese culture and language on UK campuses, but have been criticised over alleged ties to the Chinese Communist Party. OfS chief executive Susan Lapworth previously said she expected Confucius Institutes to be looked into under the new free speech laws, over concerns that they could present a threat to free speech on campuses.The OfS already has powers to ensure free speech is upheld by universities, including against any threats from the influence of foreign states or institutions.Those powers are due to be strengthened with a new complaints system, in which university staff members and visiting speakers will be able to raise issues directly with the OfS.The regulator also said universities should amend or terminate any agreements which threatened free speech on campus, including scholarships or schemes funded by foreign countries.The BBC understands the OfS expects universities to have "an appropriate level of curiosity" about any such arrangements, regardless of any potential loss of income for the university.A Chinese embassy spokesperson said the country had always adhered to its policy of not interfering with other countries' internal affairs.However, the UKCT says its survey responses from academics suggested some students from China had told their lecturers they had been asked to spy on their peers by Chinese officials.Other students, of various nationalities, reported being uncomfortable discussing issues in class deemed sensitive to the Chinese government, and were reluctant to pursue further academic interest in these subjects, the report says.Skills Minister Jacqui Smith said any attempt by a foreign state to intimidate, harass or harm individuals in the UK "will not be tolerated". "We are also working directly with the Office for Students to support universities in safeguarding free speech and tackling any form of harassment on campus," she added.She said academic freedom was "non-negotiable in our world-leading institutions", adding that the implementation of the new legislation made that "explicitly clear".The record £585,000 fine handed down by the OfS earlier this year has "put universities on notice" that they must do their part to protect these freedoms, she added, or they will "face the consequences".Additional reporting by Education Editor Branwen Jeffreys
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
Reform's 19-year-old council leader risks contempt of court over rape case comments
A Reform UK council leader risks being found in contempt of court after making a number of statements about the alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl during a press conference in London. It comes after Ahmad Mulakhil, 23, was charged with the rape of a girl in Nuneaton last week. Meanwhile, Mohammad Kabir, also 23, was charged with kidnap and strangulation. Warwickshire Police has not released the immigration status of the two suspects. George Finch - the 19-year-old Warwickshire county council leader - risks having broken the law with a comment he made about the case. Contempt of court refers to behaviour that interferes with the administration of justice or undermines the authority of the court. The Independent is not able to repeat a number of claims Mr Finch makes in the press conference without the newspaper risking contempt of court. At one point during the press conference, Mr Finch acknowledged the risks attached to talking about a live legal case, saying: 'I was told if I released this, I'd be in contempt of court.' The youngest council leader in the country claimed there has been a 'cover-up' of details about the case. It came as Nigel Farage suggested police forces should release information including immigration status about people who are charged with crimes. The Reform UK leader said that he 'absolutely' believes that information should be made available by police forces. In a statement, Warwickshire Police said that once someone is charged with an offence, they follow national guidance, which 'does not include sharing ethnicity or immigration status'. Mr Finch told Monday's press conference that he was 'begging' for information about the two to be released in the wake of the charges. He said he had emailed the council's chief executive to say that he wished to speak to the police force and urge them to release information about the men's immigration status. Mr Finch also said he had later written a letter to home secretary Yvette Cooper and the chief constable of Warwickshire Police calling for the immediate release of the immigration status of the two. Mr Finch also claimed that Reform UK needs to 'change things' and is 'the last line of defence against the blob, the cover-ups'.
The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why has Kemi Badenoch fallen out with Liz Truss?
Dearie me, they're at it again. Former Tory leader Liz Truss and current Tory leader Kemi Badenoch are involved in another nasty spat, mainly about the infamous mini-Budget introduced by then Prime Minister Truss in September 2022. Badenoch has invoked that calamitous – and deeply Conservative – fiscal event in an otherwise routine attack on the government. Truss, ever ready to defend her record, because no one else will, has hit back and told Badenoch she's wrong and needs to do some more thinking, a particularly hurtful jibe when Badenoch thinks herself one of the brainier kids in the Westminster playground. Amusing and mildly diverting as it may be, this minor row also tells us some much bigger things about the Tory dilemma. What did Badenoch say? That Labour is even more incompetent than Truss was: 'For all their mocking of Liz Truss, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have not learnt the lessons of the mini-Budget and are making even bigger mistakes. They continue to borrow more and more, unable and unwilling to make the spending cuts needed to balance the books.' Is that new? Not really. Only a few weeks ago, the shadow chancellor, Mel Stride, evicted from ministerial office by Liz Truss when she formed her short-lived government, laid into the mini-Budget and apologised for it. Badenoch, meanwhile, has said she doesn't know whether Truss is still in the Conservative Party, and implied she doesn't really care either way. She's long let it be known she'd prefer Truss to just go quiet for a while. Badenoch has also been disobliging about the Sunak administration 'talking right but acting left'. But Sunak, like Johnson, May and Cameron, has, so far, preferred to ignore the present controversies and policy shifts, such as Badenoch's 'net-zero sceptic' stance. What's the Truss defence? The usual – her supposedly brilliant plan to turbocharge the British economy was thwarted by a terrible econo-bureaucratic blob and those, to the visionary Truss, idiots at the Bank of England. But increasingly she is having to adapt her line because of attacks from her own party (if she is indeed still in it), which means slagging off the administrations that came before her – Cameron, May, Johnson – and after, Sunak and now Badenoch's performance as leader of the opposition: 'It is disappointing that instead of serious thinking like this, Kemi Badenoch is instead repeating spurious narratives. I suspect she is doing this to divert from the real failures of 14 years of Conservative government in which her supporters are particularly implicated.' Er... weren't they both members of these dreadful governments? Yes. Truss continuously from 2012 to her ousting in 2022, and Badenoch from 2019 to 2024. Indeed, it was Truss who promoted Badenoch to the cabinet as international trade secretary. Neither showed much dissent, publicly or privately. Why are they scrapping? Neither wants to take responsibility for their own failures as a party leader, and that can inevitably lead to blame throwing for their disastrous showing at the election, and subsequently. But all politicians in all parties who find themselves thrashed by the voters are faced with this excruciating dilemma as they enter the wilderness of life in opposition: Do they denounce the record and policies of the government they were apparently happy to be a part of? Or do they defend their record instead? Do they agree with the voters' verdict or not? And if they want to, or have to, admit 'mistakes', are they going to be big or smaller ones? How to play it? By ear – there are no hard rules. Back in the 1970s, Margaret Thatcher, as leader of the opposition, did well out of renouncing most of what the Heath government had done because it ended in such chaos, and Thatcher was (like Badenoch today) a relatively junior cabinet member who could claim some innocence. In due course, because public opinion had shifted during the Blair years, David Cameron found that he'd have to criticise Thatcher herself, so he declared that 'there is such a thing as society' and told his fractious party to 'stop banging on about Europe'. Ed Miliband, after Labour's defeat in 2010, never seemed able to make up his mind about whether the Brown administration (in which he served) had failed, and, if so, how and why. Try as he might, Nick Clegg could never grovel sufficiently for what he did on tuition fees in the coalition government, and the Lib Dems were so punished at the 2015 general election that they were left with eight MPs compared to the 56 elected in 2010. At the moment, the Conservative-led government of 2010 to 2024 has few friends and many critics, the most vociferous being some of its leading lights. In this respect, the party is behaving more like Labour traditionally does after a defeat. Thus, after the 1974-79 Labour government fell from power, it was attacked by the Bennites on the Labour left for being too right-wing, and by the social democrats on the right for being too left-wing. Eventually, the long passage of time made arguments about pay policy, union power and unilateralism irrelevant. One day, when people have forgotten who Truss and Badenoch were, they may be ready to give the Tories a hearing. But, with Farage on their right flank, with no qualms about slagging off the last government, the Conservatives may not have the luxury of time to settle their differences and focus their attacks on him.
Daily Mail
16 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Study: Avoiding ultra-processed foods while dieting can double weight loss
By Consuming a diet low in ultra-processed foods could help supercharge weight loss , promising research suggested today. Additive-laden foods such as crisps and sweets have been vilified for decades over their supposed risks, with dozens of studies linking them to type 2 diabetes , heart disease and cancer . Experts have even called for UPFs—typically anything edible that has more artificial ingredients than natural ones—to be slashed from diets. Now, British scientists who tracked dozens of adults have discovered those who ate a diet rich in minimally processed foods and avoided UPFs, lost twice as much weight as those who often consumed UPFs. Sticking to meals cooked from scratch could also help curb food cravings, they also found. However, diets high in UPFs had little impact on blood pressure, heart rate, liver function and cholesterol. 'But not all ultra-processed foods are inherently unhealthy based on their nutritional profile.' In the study, the researchers tracked 50 people who were already consuming diets packed with UPFs and split them into two groups. Half were given an eight-week diet plan comprising minimally processed foods, such as overnight oats and spaghetti bolognese, while the other half were given foods like breakfast oat bars or lasagne ready meals. After completing one diet, the groups then switched. Researchers matched the two diets nutritionally on levels of fat, saturated fat, protein, carbohydrates, salt and fibre using the Eatwell Guide, which outlines recommendations on how to eat a healthy, balanced diet. They found those on the minimally processed diet lost more weight (2.06 per cent) compared to the UPF diet (1.05 per cent loss). The UPF diet also did not result in significant fat loss, the researchers said. Dr Dicken added: 'Though a 2 per cent reduction may not seem very big, that is only over eight weeks and without people trying to actively reduce their intake. 'If we scaled these results up over the course of a year, we'd expect to see a 13 per cent weight reduction in men and a 9 per cent reduction in women on the minimally processed diet, but only a 4 per cent weight reduction in men and 5 per cent in women after the ultra-processed diet. 'Over time this would start to become a big difference.' Those on the trial were also asked to complete questionnaires on food cravings before and after starting the diets. Those eating minimally processed foods had less cravings and were able to resist them better, the study suggests. However, researchers also measured others markers like blood pressure, heart rate, liver function, glucose levels and cholesterol and found no significant negative impacts of the UPF diet. The Eatwell Guide recommends the average woman should consume around 2,000 calories a day, while an average man should consume 2,500. Both diet groups had a calorie deficit, meaning people were eating fewer calories than what they were burning, which helps with weight loss. However, the deficit was higher from minimally processed foods at around 230 calories a day, compared with 120 calories per day from UPFs. Professor Rachel Batterham, senior author of the study from the UCL centre for obesity research, said: 'Despite being widely promoted, less than 1 per cent of the UK population follows all of the recommendations in the Eatwell Guide, and most people stick to fewer than half. 'The best advice to people would be to stick as closely to nutritional guidelines as they can by moderating overall energy intake, limiting intake of salt, sugar and saturated fat, and prioritizing high-fibre foods such as fruits, vegetables, pulses and nuts. Tracy Parker, nutrition lead at the British Heart Foundation, also said: 'The way this study was designed means it is more reflective of real-world conditions than previous research on UPFs. 'The small size of the study is a limitation, and the fact that most participants were women limits how much we can generalize the findings to the general population. 'We also can't be certain how closely the diets were followed, as participants self-reported what they ate during the study. 'Larger, longer-term studies will be needed to see if the greater weight loss on the minimally processed diets seen here translates into bigger improvements in risk factors, including blood pressure and cholesterol and blood sugar levels, and a reduced risk of developing heart and circulatory diseases.
