The US needs to restart the Fulbright programme in China

It is unlikely that relations between China and the West are going to dramatically improve in the foreseeable future. Indeed, current election-induced anti-China US congressional activity is a move in the wrong direction. This has harmed educational and academic exchanges, for one thing.

The number of Hong Kong undergraduate students studying in the United States, for example, dropped from 5,272 in 2015-16 to 3,021 in 2022-23. Over the same period, the number of graduate students rose from 1,041 to 1,589. The United States has the most influential and one of the largest university systems in the world. Meanwhile, Hong Kong has multiple universities that are globally ranked.

Regardless of the geopolitical uncertainties, universities remain crucial institutions for mutual peace, understanding, research and security, especially with regard to health and climate-related issues.

US-China relations are unlikely to return to the ‘good old days’ any time soon, but now is the time to immediately restart the Fulbright programme, which was terminated during the Donald Trump administration after it had operated in Hong Kong for many years.

In the four years prior to the programme being shut down, some six to seven young Hong Kong scholars lectured or undertook research in the US annually. A bill to restore the Fulbright programmes for Hong Kong and mainland China was introduced on 29 March 2023, but has yet to be passed.

Some recent background

Between 2015 and 2021, US agencies supported nearly US$30 million worth of research in Chinese universities and other institutions. Funded research programmes can be an important tool for building trust. In recent years, China and the US have co-published more research articles than any other country.

However, in recent years, there has been a decrease in US-based scientists citing research papers by Chinese scientists in fields such as artificial intelligence. While the reasons are varied, the lack of American citations of Chinese research is perhaps due to a fear of being investigated for ties to China. This is, of course, detrimental to global science and innovation.

The number of Americans studying and researching in mainland China and Hong Kong has declined precipitously. In 2024, fewer than 1,000 Americans were enrolled in long-term study courses in China, down from a peak of nearly 25,000. While almost 290,000 Chinese are studying in America, the number of students has declined from a high of 372,000 in 2019-20.

Meanwhile, the China Scholarship Council will fund up to 240 outstanding new graduates to pursue a masters degree or doctorate at seven US partner universities in 2025. It is no wonder that former US ambassador to China Max Baucus called for the Fulbright programme to be resumed.

Reversing the damage

Resuming Fulbright programmes is a good place to start reversing the damage to mutual understanding among the next generation of leaders who are now studying at university. It can also help to boost scientific research that focuses on the health of the planet.

Recognising the hardline position of both governments, the best way to restart the Fulbright programme would be to focus only on areas like climate change, community health and perhaps non-controversial cultural studies.

At the same time, both governments have to take a more rational approach to granting study visas. One step would be for Beijing to allow highly qualified young American students and scholars visa-free travel to mainland China.

President Xi Jinping’s invitation to 50,000 American students has to come with a welcoming environment that is not too securitised.

That means ending the harassment of Chinese scholars and scientists at US universities, as well as Chinese students seeking a student visa.

The next global challenge

The world’s two major powers cannot afford to drag their feet in averting the next global challenge, especially after the COVID-19 global health crisis.

Working together to meet that challenge requires cooperation between their universities. At a time when higher education should be promoting people-to-people exchanges, mutual understanding and research cooperation to head off the next global crisis, relations between China and the West have become a major obstacle.

It is time to re-emphasise the importance of a mutual understanding between the two cultures, economies, political systems and societies. Programmes such as Fulbright are intended to do just that.

It is perhaps even more important when countries or civilisations may not be on the friendliest of terms. And there is no substitute for direct cultural contact and understanding, perhaps especially in the age of Zoom and artificial intelligence.

While we have focused here on the American-sponsored Fulbright programmes and the importance of both sides restarting them, it is clear that the US – and the West generally – needs to be open to Chinese-sponsored programmes.

Many US universities have closed Confucius Institutes, not for national security reasons but due to concern over losing government-funded research grants that are their lifeline to knowledge creation.

But there are other possibilities. Some examples, such as the Public Intellectuals Program of the National Committee on US-China Relations and the one-time China-US Scholars Program, have been funded by a consortium of US private foundations.

Now may not be the most propitious time to argue for the re-establishment of a small but historically important contribution to international exchange and mutual academic understanding, but it is important to start somewhere and the Fulbright programme is a good beginning.

Philip G Altbach is founding director and research professor at the Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, United States. Dr Gerard A Postiglione is an emeritus professor at the University of Hong Kong and coordinator of the Consortium for Higher Education Research in Asia. This article was first published in the South China Morning Post.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.