PKU under fire for building 'elite' program in historic, public space(2)

The choice of Chinese studies as a focus of study also struck many as dubious. "Judging from the six broad concentrations, [the program has six entirely distinct] research focuses. It has humanities courses, sociology courses and public policy courses. So it's clearly a problem here how they've defined the scope of 'Chinese studies'," Gao said.

Liu He, professor at Columbia University, agreed, saying that Chinese studies is an academic specialty that was created by the US army to help conduct focused study of adversaries, including the Soviet Union, East Europe and China, during the Cold War, and that it cannot be counted as an academic discipline.

"It is ridiculous to set up a discipline that has no research goals or academic aims, and uses English to teach Chinese studies," Zhang Ming, a professor of Chinese literature at PKU, said.

In recent years, PKU has poured enormous amounts of resources into "internationalization," including efforts to attract more foreign academics and senior visiting scholars, a 2003 reform of the school's personnel system that was meant to bring in fresh blood for the faculty from other universities and foreign countries, and an emphasis on testing the faculty to ensure good command of the English language.

As part of PKU's internationalization, the Yenching Academy also planned to bring in at least 20 preeminent international scholars and 20 globally recognized visiting fellows to serve as faculty.

However, a commentary published in July in the 21st Century Business Herald, a prominent Chinese newspaper, noted that the very definition of Chinese studies remains problematic, to say nothing of the question of whether foreign scholars are needed to lead such a course of study.

An online uproar

The letter penned by Gan, the Renmin University scholar and PKU alumnus, received wide circulation online, resonating especially with PKU faculty and students. This discontent quickly coalesced into online campaigns opposing the program.

On June 6, the Weibo account "Jingyuan Group" was registered to voice students' doubts about the program. The date coincided with the first Yenching Academy admission session.

On June 19, the Weibo account released the results of an online survey that saw participation from over 3,000 PKU students. 46 percent of respondents opposed the program, while 44 percent were neutral. A whopping 88 percent, however, were opposed to Jingyuan as the chosen location for the program's student residences.

On June 22, Jingyuan Group wrote a petition letter to PKU leaders, including the survey results and calling on PKU to abandon the renovation of Jingyuan and maintain it as a public venue.

Another student group, "Jingyuan Voices," created another Weibo account that vocally campaigned against the program. Among other content, the account posted a number of photos of students' protests, with slogans calling for the preservation of the Jingyuan area.

PKU backs down

In response to the online uproar, PKU administrators hosted a meeting on July 9 to address student and faculty grievances, which saw participation by 30 students and faculty members, along with a number of reporters.

The forum was the first in a series of meetings between PKU leadership and faculty and students.

Finally, on July 25, the administration announced that it would change the location of the proposed student residences, and extend the program's course of study from one year to three years, news which came as a relief to Gan and other critics.

The announcement brought down the curtain on the two-month dispute over the controversial initiative, and brought peace back to PKU. Despite the satisfactory outcome, however, many of those who participated in the criticism say that there's still much to be learned.

As Huang puts it, "We need reform. But what we need more is introspection. As academics, we should always be thinking about how a university education can serve the public. If the public needs the program, we should do it. If they don't need it, then we shouldn't."