New guidance on security threats to internationalisation

Universities can introduce ‘Chatham House rules’ of non-attribution in relation to seminars and tutorial discussions and allow students to submit coursework anonymously under new guidance issued by Universities UK (UUK) to combat the growing impact of security threats on academic freedom and internationalisation.

Of particular concern is the impact of the threats on international partnerships and international researchers and students, which MPs have separately warned are growing due to the rise of authoritarian regimes.

“The sector has historically done a good job of managing the risks associated with internationalisation. However, the risks are increasingly dynamic and growing in complexity,” wrote Professor Sir Peter Gregson, chair of a UUK-convened task force which drafted the guidance, and Professor Anthony Finkelstein, in the foreword to the guidance.

“In this context, institutions will need to review and adapt their risk-management processes.”

Gregson added in a press statement that, while every university has mechanisms in place to handle risks associated with international partnerships, the threats posed are “growing in number” and UK institutions must remain vigilant and continue to develop their own understanding and practices.

The report highlights a growing concern that students and academics in the UK may be subject to laws passed by other countries that are not enforceable in the UK but may pose challenges to future international travel, activities in, or in the case of international students and academics, return to certain countries.

Although the countries are not named, a clear example of the type of threat this refers to is the Hong Kong Security Law imposed by China on 30 June, which gives the Chinese government extraterrestrial powers to arrest individuals who are not Hong Kong residents for actions or comments outside of the territory.

This has led to widespread concern that it could adversely affect students studying in the UK who come from or have personal ties with China or Hong Kong. More than a third of UK non-EU international students – some 120,000 – come from China.

Oxford University has already agreed to ask students specialising in studying China to submit some papers anonymously to avoid their being left open to charges under the sweeping new security law introduced in Hong Kong on 30 June, The Guardian reported.

Anonymity was to be applied in classes, and group tutorials were to be replaced by one-on-ones. Students were also to be warned that taping classes or sharing them with external organisations would be viewed as a disciplinary offence.

The new guidance issued by UUK refers to protections already introduced by some UK higher education institutions, including “for example, identifying without modifying course material to students that might be considered politically sensitive in certain states”.

Protecting students

“Institutions could also take steps to protect students by introducing the Chatham House rule [of not attributing sources to anything said] to seminars or other oral discussions, and otherwise introducing measures that allow students to submit coursework anonymously.

Professor Sir Peter Gregson, who is also vice-chancellor of Cranfield University, said: “These guidelines will help universities protect their students and staff and ensure we are able to pursue and develop secure and sustainable partnerships across the world.”

The new guidance is aimed at helping university leaders better protect themselves, their staff and students and protect the values of UK higher education while “better understanding and managing risks associated with international partnerships”, he said.

“Our universities are a cultural and research superpower because of our international collaborations and they have a leading role to play in the future prosperity and security of the UK. The UK government’s International Education Strategy makes clear the value of international students and these guidelines will help assure a future for extended international working, safeguarding the excellence of the sector,” Gregson said.

UUK said that, given the developing threats – including cybersecurity, the theft of intellectual property and data, research collaborations and the security of university campuses – and the value of international partnerships to UK higher education, it is important that universities are equipped to mitigate risks so that they are able to work together internationally with confidence.

“It is also important that the values of universities are upheld, including the principles of academic freedom, freedom of speech and institutional autonomy. University leaders are encouraged to develop positive reporting processes and build a culture of collective responsibility for upholding them,” UUK said.

The guidelines, which have been created with input from the UK government, have been sent to each of UUKs 139 members and focus on four key areas that UUK believes institutions must work on. They are:

• Protecting your reputation and values, including building resilience to security-related issues, conducting due diligence, promoting the values of UK higher education.

• Protecting your people though communications and knowledge-sharing as well as those staff and students travelling and working overseas.

• Protecting your campuses from cybersecurity attacks, and developing estate and visitor policies.

• Protecting your partnerships, including research, intellectual property and transnational education (TNE) partnerships.

Gregson and Anthony Finkelstein said there is increasing awareness of the potential impact of threats.

In the past couple of months, attempts to access UK-based research related to COVID-19 have been widely reported. The Australian National University has released a report into the impact of a data breach that took place in late 2018, which was the consequence of a successful and sophisticated cyber-attack.

“Other threats are less well-defined and understood, but are clearly in evidence, such as activities intended to interfere with or undermine the values that underpin the success of the UK’s universities,” they said.

The guidelines are not intended to inhibit a bold and outward-looking higher education sector, UUK said. Rather, it is seeking to equip universities with the tools to pursue their goals in a “clear-sighted and risk-managed manner”.

The guidance warns that institutional policies and processes will help protect an institution, but they will not be effective without a culture of awareness, in which individuals understand their responsibilities to identify, report and manage security-related risks.

“You should promote transparency and, in doing so, build confidence in your institution’s ability to undertake mutually beneficial international collaborations,” it says.

To this end, the guidance strongly recommends that the governing body of the higher education institution receive an annual report on how the institution is managing security-related risks associated with internationalisation, describing the risks faced by the institution and how the risks are being mitigated.

‘More transparency needed’

Christopher Hughes, professor of international relations at London School of Economics and Political Science, told The Times that universities needed to be far more transparent and accountable. “A good example would be making all agreements public, such as with Confucius Institutes [partnerships with institutions in China], which are kept secret.”

He also questioned whether asking students to submit work anonymously was the right approach. “Are we really going down the route of self-censorship?” he asked.

The guidance includes references to resources that universities can use, including from The Centre for Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI) and the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), which have published material that will support institutions to make decisions and mitigate risk.

Risk from ‘autocracies’

Last year a House of Commons inquiry into defending democracy “in the age of autocracies” found mounting evidence of foreign influence in United Kingdom universities, including “alarming evidence” about the extent of Chinese influence on UK campuses.

It accused the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) of failing to take the lead across government on this issue, failing to make detailed assessments of how UK universities should respond and failing to engage with counterparts in other counties such as Australia, New Zealand and the United States to share best practice.

“The FCO’s role in advising universities on the potential threats to academia from autocracies is non-existent. There is no evidence that it has considered the threat from autocracies to academic freedom, which underpins the quality of UK higher education, nor engaged sufficiently with other departments to develop a coordinated response,” the report by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee concludes.

But the report also accused universities of failing to acknowledge the problem.

The committee’s report, A Cautious Embrace: Defending democracy in an age of autocracies, voiced concern that, despite there being more than 100,000 Chinese students on UK campuses, the issue of Chinese influence has been the subject of “remarkably little debate compared to that in Australia, New Zealand and the United States”.

The MPs warned that, while universities have a strong incentive to establish overseas partnerships to secure funding and enhance collaboration on research projects, this should be balanced with potential risks to academic freedom.