<p>Major differences is that unlike in China, the majority of Americans are concentrated in urban areas and their surrounding suburbs. </p>
<p>That’s NOT the case for the majority of Mainlanders. Moreover, from reading/being observant during my visits to Beijing in the late ‘90s and my friends’ recent fieldwork in rural China, the US has much more substantive discussions considering the views of impoverished and poorly educated segments of our own population…even if some of the policy implementations are woefully misguided. </p>
<p>In Mainland China’s case…other than some slogans and Potemkin efforts by CCP officials…the issue is largely ignored among a large percentage in the midst of the upper/upper-middle class’ elitism and self-absorption about economic growth which mostly benefits them. </p>
<p>A reason why resentment towards those very classes have gotten to the point that it is estimated around half the wealthy Mainlanders are looking to emigrate to Western countries like the US to escape a repeat of 1789 or the Cultural Revolution with all of its destructive excesses.</p>
<p>In contrast, we still have upper/upper-middle class folks here in the US who do openly express concerns that current income/wealth distribution inequality is not only wrong, but bad for the nation in the longer term.</p>
<p>Your information on the urban/rural breakdown in China seems to be out of date: [China?s</a> Urban Population Exceeds Countryside for First Time - Bloomberg](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?)</p>
<p>There are plenty of upper/upper-middle class people in china who express concerns, however they can, for the poor. Most of the millions people on Weibo poking on the government on all sorts of issues are middle/upper-middle class. </p>
<p>The problem is, the political structure in China (a de facto oligarchic capitalism) is badly out of whack with its economic and societal needs. The communist party has been successful in using economic favors to co-opt in some degree the country’s intelligentsia (especially those in the academia), but by no means the middle and upper-middle class are comfortable about the widening inequality of the country --for one thing, they won’t feel safe if everyone around them are dirty poor.</p>
<p>To its credit, the Chinese government has in recent years implemented some policies to reduce poverty. Examples are the elimination of agricultural taxes (the first time ever in Chinese history) and providing social security income to the extremely poor. But that does not change the fundamental unfairness rooted in one-party oligarchic capitalism.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the country is so much more complicated and difficult to govern than most people realize or willing to admit. With 1.3 billion people and not much resources, no one will have a easy job running China.</p>
<p>I was under the impression that Princeton, Penn and Cornell have had ROTC for years, and that Yale, Harvard and Columbia recently re-introduced it. Am I mistaken? </p>
<p>Only within the last year. Moreover, from what I’ve seen about this issue at Harvard and Columbia, there’s been much controversy about its reintroduction due to issues derived more from the Vietnam War legacy rather than “Don’t ask, don’t tell”. </p>
<p>The ROTC issue has long been a culture war issue between the extreme right and extreme left over the 50 odd years. </p>
<p>Personally, I’m glad students get a choice to decide to participate…even if I felt some of the pro-ROTC arguments I’ve seen in editorials at Columbia and IRL minimize legitimate issues such as ROTC/pro-military groups/individuals being just as intolerant of anti-ROTC/anti-military dissent as extreme-left were of anti-left dissent at my then genuinely radical lefty undergrad.*</p>
<ul>
<li>A reason why every time I hear/read about Columbia U being regarded as “too radically left”, I have to laugh. It’s actually pretty evenly split between various liberal/left groups and hardcore libertarian-right folks from what I’ve seen.</li>
</ul>
<p>There is little doubt Wen Jiabao’s family members have made boat loads of money. And this is largely because his position as a top government leader–even if he does not get involved personally with the business deals. But this is not out of norm in the pervasively corrupted political structure in today’s China, at all levels of government. </p>
<p>Ironically, Wen is among the most vocal in advocating reforms of the political system. Of course, he is not the first one in history who laments a system that benefit his family. However, the timing of the NYT article is very intriguing, as the fractions of the party are engaged in fierce struggles at a time of power transition, and the foreign press has become part of the battle field.</p>
<p>No, they only say that if their favored politicians are in power. Otherwise, it is gloom and doom (and all the fault of politicians they dislike).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That used to be more true than it is now. While the left and center are still in a relatively narrow ideological band, the right in the US has moved significantly away from the center.</p>
<p>(bolding as it is on the above web site which is based in China)</p>
<p>They may not want exactly what we have here, but do you think that they really like the current situation where any rights and freedoms are only at the convenience of the government with no extra high barrier against the government infringing on them? (Note that this is different from general satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the government.)</p>
<p>Perhaps they do approve of that article, but no one will ever really know, due to limitations there on discussing, polling, and voting.</p>
<p>There is nothing wrong with having a system which formally puts the well-being of the collective ahead of the individual, which is what that constitutional article is saying. Since the state is supposed to represent the collective (whether it does in all cases could be argued forever), this clause is neither surprising nor troubling to anyone who accepts that premise.</p>
<p>Americans have been taught that the individual’s rights fundamentally supersede government authority, even though that is obviously not the case with the thousands of laws that punish a person for acting against the government or the interests of society. It is really just a matter of degree in the U.S. which naturally gives rise to continual debate on this question (clearly a good thing in the eyes of Americans).</p>
<p>The suppression of government criticism in China is meant to ensure stability and avoid disruptive political movements that would slow progress toward many other goals. I have no figures, but I remember seeing a while ago a survey or something that indicated that most Chinese agree with the trade off of giving up political freedom in exchange for stability.</p>
<p>So while it may be inconceivable to Americans that people are willing to give up their “right” to political freedom, other cultures have fundamentally different values and priorities. For example, did you notice that, according to the Pew survey, three quarters of the Chinese respondents agreed with the one-child policy–something, it seems, many Americans can’t fathom.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So the NYT and other U.S. media like it wasn’t blocked before that?</p>
<p>I think the OP raises a good point in asking whether an institution that claims to have a commitment to human rights etc. should then admit people who quite publicly do not have the same commitments.<br>
As to the naive comment that it’s important for children of communist party officials to have the opportunity to be exposed to democracy, couldn’t we similarly argue that Harvard and Yale should take more domestically raised neo-Nazis and white supremacists for the same reason? Frankly, I don’t see that happening. Therefore clearly admissions isn’t actually looking to expand the communist offspring’s horizons or they would have the same commitment to domestic unpleasant people.</p>
<p>As a college professor, I found myself wondering if having a Kim Jong Il or a Belorussian Stalinist in my classroom would really expand the dialogue and offer all my students the opportunity to experience this unique viewpoint firsthand. My only experience thus far has been with Saudi men students who didn’t see the female students in class as equals. Anything they might have contributed to the class was somewhat negated by the poisonous atmosphere they created just by being there. I also think it’s entirely possible that such individuals will ultimately only come away from America hating it more through having seen it firsthand, rather than being gradually wooed by its many charms.</p>
<p>I’m with the OP. It’s not like Harvard is having trouble filling its seats. Incidentally, the UK student visa questionnaire asks questions about having committed human rights violations, genocide, etc. Doesn’t ours as well? Also, if tuition is being paid with money that was stolen from state coffers, shouldn’t a US university think twice about accepting it and spending it?</p>
<p>Threadjack, but could you elaborate more on this? I’ve traveled to Saudi Arabia on business (wearing the burqa and all) and would be interested in how this played itself out in your classroom.</p>
<p>On the other hand, other countries where this may be the case (e.g. Singapore and ROC / Taiwan) do place higher than normal barriers on the limitations of civil liberties. Certainly not as high as in the US, but perhaps they do recognize (at least theoretically) that the collective is made up of individuals, and that the collective good cannot be advanced if the government is too abusive of civil liberties.</p>
<p>Also, when the people grumble about corruption and other problems, but such grumbling is censored, is the state really acting in the interests of the collective?</p>
<p>Actually, in the case of the ROC(Taiwan), they are actually more freewheeling and open about certain matters than the US. A reason why there’s seemingly more protests of the rowdy type with police being more reluctant to put them down as opposed to US law enforcement in many areas and a reason why ROC folks/immigrants…especially those of my parents generation feel that the ROC has become chaotic to the point of being anarchic compared with here in the US. </p>
<p>Did I mention that unlike the relatively sedate legislators we have in Congress/Senate that in the ROC legislature…people will actually watch them because they bear a much closer resemblance to a more vicious form of WWF matches?</p>
<p>Harvard is interested in perpetuating itself and that means maintaining and enhancing its image worldwide and its connections at the top levels of societies. This chase is why schools like that - a topic recently hot at Yale - have invested in facilities in countries that can be openly hostile to human rights, let alone academic freedom. They want money and prestige. I think it’s important to remember this: the schools are interested in themselves. They sometimes believe and sometimes use as justification that their presence improves the world but that occurs through a lens that what is good for Harvard, for Yale, etc. is good. They are as self-interested as anyone.</p>
<p>BTW, my elementary school had pen pal arrangements with a prestigious exam school in China. (Related to a long-running exchange program.) The letters from the kids were revealing: “mother is cadre, father is army” or “father is cadre, mother is army” was the commonality. Yes, some kids got in because they scored really high on tests - Chinese society has always made room for brilliance - but connections counted for most. It’s all about being in the Party and/or the Army.</p>
<p>Prestige with being associated with the military has been an extremely recent phenomenon. Even as late as the early-mid 20th century, being in the army was socially disdained as illustrated by the old saying “It’s a waste of good steel for it to be turned to nails, it’s a waste of good men for them to become soldiers” and the fact Chiang Kai-Shek’s marriage to one of the Soong sisters almost failed to happen because even as a commanding general…that disdain for soldiers was still strong among more socially elite Chinese families of the period. </p>
<p>A microcosm of this played out in a branch of my extended family as I have a much older uncle who was an early graduate of the prestigious Whampoa military academy and rose to a high-ranking officer’s position within the Nationalist Army before dying while fighting the Imperial Japanese Army. </p>
<p>However, most family members still regard him as the “black sheep” of the family to this day because of the circumstances which prompted him to attend that academy…getting expelled from university in the 1920’s for concentrating more on partying/alcohol rather than his studies. To be fair, the disdain was much more due to the latter mentality rather than his soldierly occupation…though the disdain was there.</p>
<p>Corruption comes in many forms. While it may be rampant in China–and I am not knowledgeable enough to be able to separate reality from foreign media hype–outsiders can look at the American system and be just as shocked/disgusted with what they perceive as corruption. Where else can billionaires and corporations contribute unlimited amounts of funds to get a candidate elected without revealing themselves?</p>
<p>I don’t mean to make this discussion political so I won’t go further to describe all the ways that the U.S. system can be seen by a foreigner to be highly corrupted (but think Iraq spending). My point is that it’s easier to knock a whole system based on selective reporting from the outside without understanding the nuance and fundamental beliefs of those who live within it. I just feel like many of my compatriots just don’t get that many (most?) people around the world don’t believe the U.S. has a model system that they wish to emulate–and that is certainly true of the Chinese.</p>
<p>Back to the original question–I don’t know if these children of Chinese elite are good at articulating the reigning political philosophy of their home country or not, but I think in theory it is important for students to have exposure to real alternative viewpoints.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure, but I imagine some elite institutions would be fine with admitting these U.S. kids with extremist views, as it would be an opportunity for other students to engage and understand what made them that way firsthand. However, it is unlikely that there are many top students that fall into that category or who would apply to those schools revealing their beliefs.</p>