Podcast Summary: New Books Network – Sarah McLaughlin on "Authoritarians in the Academy"

Episode Date: September 7, 2025
Host: Caleb Zakrin
Guest: Sarah McLaughlin, Senior Scholar of Global Expression at FIRE
Book Discussed: Authoritarians in the Academy: How the Internationalization of Higher Education and Borderless Censorship Threaten Free Speech (Johns Hopkins UP, 2025)

Overview

This episode dives into Sarah McLaughlin’s new book, exploring how authoritarian regimes—most notably China—exert influence on free speech in U.S. and Western higher education. McLaughlin and host Caleb Zakrin detail how the internationalization of higher education, financial incentives, and the desire to create global brands have opened the door to borderless censorship and threats to academic freedom. The conversation spans real incidents affecting students and scholars, the complicity of university administrations, global trends outside the U.S., and broader principles for the defense of free expression on campuses.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

McLaughlin's Background and Motivation

• Experience at FIRE: McLaughlin has worked at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) for over a decade, dealing with campus censorship and researching international free expression issues. Her experiences revealed how globalizing academia brings foreign censorship pressures into the U.S. (02:54).

  "The world is a lot more interconnected than we sometimes realize. These censorship fights... don't stay there." – Sarah McLaughlin (03:27)

The George Washington University Poster Incident (Central Case Study)

• Incident Recap: Ahead of the Beijing Olympics, students at GW anonymously put up satirical posters criticizing China’s human rights abuses. Instead of defending free speech, the university president sided with complaints from Chinese student groups, ordered the posters removed, and initiated an investigation to unmask the posters’ authors (04:39).
• Core Issue: International Chinese students—hoping for free expression—are instead put at risk by U.S. institutions that sometimes protect the sensibilities of foreign regimes over free speech.

  "[The university president] said, I agree these posters personally offended me... directed the university... to also investigate who put them up and try to find out who posted these flyers." – Sarah McLaughlin (06:26)

Surveillance and Chilling Effect on Chinese Students

• Surveillance Reality: Chinese students in the U.S. perceive themselves as under surveillance from their government, classmates, and local consulates, making them fearful of dissenting or even speaking freely (09:21).

  "They know that what they say online, there's probably someone watching them... there's even the fear that some of their classmates are going to watch what they say, report back." – Sarah McLaughlin (09:27)

• Concrete Example: At Purdue, a student who attended a Tiananmen memorial was threatened with being reported to Chinese authorities by classmates (09:49).
• Methods: Surveillance happens via both technology (online monitoring, facial recognition) and old-school peer reporting.

The Role of Confucius Institutes and CSSAs

• Confucius Institutes: Once widespread, these university partnerships with Chinese state institutions have declined due to scrutiny. While billed as benign cultural programs, they present risks by involving American institutions in Chinese government-funded relationships, which can influence campus speech and invite pressure (11:46).

  "When they walk down campus and see a Confucius Institute in a hallway, they feel like the Chinese government is there." – Sarah McLaughlin (13:02)

• Chinese Students and Scholars Associations (CSSAs): While ostensibly ordinary student groups, CSSAs have organized campaigns for speaker disinvitations and censorship, especially for events involving critics of the CCP (13:24). Example: At University of Chicago, CSSA tried (and failed) to have Nathan Law, exiled Hong Kong activist, disinvited (14:08).

Academic Self-Censorship and Visa Threats

• Scholar Pressures: Researchers studying Tibet, Uyghurs, or sensitive topics risk visa denials, making fieldwork or visiting family difficult. Even the possibility of such retaliation is enough to steer many away from controversial research—especially those earlier in their careers (17:55, 21:24).

  "They have punished enough of them and they have targeted enough of them that scholars understand that it is a risk if you choose a field... that the Chinese government will dislike." – Sarah McLaughlin (18:02)

U.S. Universities' Complicity and the Corporate University Model

• Why Do Universities Give In? Financial incentives, pressure to maintain global partnerships, and brand management drive American universities to sometimes appease authoritarian governments (22:40).

  "The more that universities act like businesses... the more they're going to act like them." – Sarah McLaughlin (23:07)

• Broader Implications: As universities increase their reliance on international funding and students, the incentives to self-censor or placate foreign governments grow.

Global Trends Beyond China & the U.S.

• Other Countries: Canada, Australia, the UK, and elsewhere experience similar issues—threats, intimidation, and censorship targeting critics of authoritarian regimes, mainly from Chinese state actors or pro-CCP students. Even candidates for student government have faced harassment (25:02).
• Core Message: Authoritarianism follows students internationally; freedom of expression is threatened globally in interconnected higher ed systems.

Sensitivity Exploitation and Administrative Shortcomings

• "Sensitivity Exploitation": University administrators sometimes lack political fluency, making them vulnerable to calls for censorship disguised as protecting student sensitivities. This can be manipulated to silence dissent, especially when "offensiveness" becomes grounds for censorship (27:48).

  "If you're a university and you have a policy against offensive speech... people can demand censorship... of critics of the Chinese government." – Sarah McLaughlin (28:49)

American Campuses Abroad and Transparency Problems

• International Expansion: Universities like Northwestern and Georgetown operate in places with strict speech controls (Qatar, China, UAE), often failing to transparently inform students and faculty of local restrictions. This misleads students about what "free expression" actually means on branch campuses (32:16).

  "If you're not going to be upfront about what rules are on the ground... maybe it's not so wise for you to be expanding there in the first place." – Sarah McLaughlin (34:40)

The Broader Case for Free Expression in Higher Ed

• Core Defense: McLaughlin stresses that academic and speech freedoms are not partisan, but foundational to a free society. Authoritarian pressures from abroad and at home threaten the baseline upon which knowledge and critical debate are built (36:24).

  "The more you protect [free expression] for other people, the more you protect it for yourself too." – Sarah McLaughlin (40:41)

• Chilling Global Trend: The past few years have seen alarming increases in efforts—some by U.S. government actors, some by universities—seeking to curtail speech both externally and internally (36:24).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the threat to free speech posed by partnerships:
  "When you have a university that is taking money from a foreign government, it can create pressure... to abide by that government's preferences." (13:46)
• On the universal value of academic freedom:
  "Free universities are... not a left or a right thing. They are just a basic thing that all of us need if we're going to have knowledge that we can trust." (38:19)
• On censorship as a collective risk:
  "It's kind of like a branch that we're all sitting on and you can't just saw off one person. Eventually we're all going to get sawed off too." (40:53)
• On the freedom to debate "offensive" ideas:
  "Universities just need to be honest... if you're not going to be upfront about what rules are on the ground... maybe it's not so wise for you to be expanding there in the first place." (34:38)
• On sensitivity exploitation:
  "That kind of reflexive desire to be seen as conscientious of student sensitivities can go to a bad place if universities are careless about it." (29:52)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 02:54–04:27 – McLaughlin’s background and convergence of global/expression work
• 04:39–08:50 – GWU Beijing Olympics poster incident and fallout
• 09:21–11:36 – Chinese international students' surveillance and risks
• 11:46–16:06 – Confucius Institutes, CSSAs, and campus censorship
• 17:34–22:02 – Academic self-censorship, visas, and career risk
• 22:40–24:22 – U.S. university incentives and complicity
• 25:02–27:48 – International cases: Canada, Australia, UK
• 27:48–30:06 – Exploiting administrative "sensitivity" and policy pitfalls
• 32:16–35:26 – U.S. university expansion abroad and transparency
• 36:24–41:40 – The case for free expression as foundational, urgent calls for academic freedom

Conclusion

This interview offers a compelling, research-driven look at borderless censorship in higher education, emphasizing real threats faced by students and faculty, and calling for principled—rather than transactional—defenses of free expression. McLaughlin urges honesty, vigilance, and a global outlook, reminding listeners that the struggle for academic freedom transcends politics and borders.