Bill Overview
Title: To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require institutions of higher education to disclose certain ties to China-affiliated organizations, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill requires institutions of higher education (IHEs) to disclose information regarding gifts from and contracts with China-affiliated organizations. China-affiliated organization refers to any entity that receives support directly or indirectly from the Chinese government, including certain educational institutes or programs, think tanks, and business entities. Under current law, an IHE must disclose to the Department of Education (ED) a gift or contract from a foreign source that is valued at $250,000 or more, considered alone or in combination with all other gifts from or contracts with that foreign source in a calendar year. This bill establishes a special disclosure rule relating to China-affiliated organizations. Specifically, the bill requires an IHE to disclose a gift from or contract with a China-affiliated organization that is valued at $5,000 or more, considered alone or in combination with all other gifts from or contracts with that organization in a calendar year. Additionally, the bill requires an IHE that receives federal grants to annually file a report with ED that identifies any activities conducted pursuant to a contract or other agreement between the IHE and a China-affiliated organization, including any joint research or academic exchanges. Such a contract or other agreement must be made available on a publicly accessible website of the IHE.
Sponsors: Rep. Pfluger, August [R-TX-11]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals impacted by higher education's ties to China-affiliated organizations
Estimated Size: 22500000
- There are approximately 20 million students attending colleges and universities in the U.S., as per the National Center for Education Statistics.
- Around 5,000 higher education institutions in the U.S. may be affected, considering both small colleges and major research universities.
- The number of faculty members in U.S. institutions of higher education is roughly 1.5 million, as per the American Association of University Professors.
- The bill addresses agreements related to educational activities, which would also involve education administrators and potential employees at these institutions, numbering another few tens of thousands.
- Students, faculty, and institutions around the world may similarly be affected, given the global nature of higher education and academic collaborations which are not limited to the U.S.
Reasoning
- The budget for policy implementation suggests that a significant portion of the funding will need to be allocated to setting up compliance structures and ensuring transparency across the approximately 5,000 impacted institutions. This includes setting up systems for reporting and public disclosure, legal consultations, and training sessions.
- The primary group directly impacted by the policy will be administrators and faculty involved in international collaborations, particularly with China-affiliated organizations. The need for additional resources and time for compliance will be a concern for these individuals.
- Students may experience indirect impacts through changes in the availability of research opportunities, collaborations, and overall learning environments.
- The policy will primarily affect urban institutions and research universities, where international collaborations are more frequent.
- Since most institutions already report international funding, the additional burden might be perceived as manageable but possibly leading to a shift in administrative workload or costs.
Simulated Interviews
University Administrator (Boston, MA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy increases our administrative burden, especially as we have numerous partnerships with China. We ensure transparency already, but this will tighten our timelines and force us to hire more compliance staff.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Research Scientist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I fear our ongoing projects could face interruptions or increased scrutiny, affecting research outcomes. Reporting will take more time from my research focus.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Undergraduate Student (New York, NY)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am worried about potential restrictions to study abroad programs and collaborations with Chinese universities. It might limit my exposure and learning opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Dean of Sciences (Austin, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy galvanizes the need for us to ensure compliance and transparency. While noble, the resource allocation is concerning. We might need to reallocate budget from research funding to compliance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Faculty Member (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 31 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While transparency is important, I fear that administrative constraints will harm academic freedom and slow project innovation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Graduate Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might create unnecessary hurdles in accessing data and collaborating with peers internationally, especially in tech fields.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
University Compliance Officer (Durham, NC)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our department will certainly have an increased workload, necessitating additional staff or contracting out some compliance duties.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Retired Professor (Seattle, WA)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reflecting on my past work, this policy, if implemented judiciously, could emphasize needed transparency but should avoid stifling academic discourse and collaboration.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Policy Analyst (Miami, FL)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Substantive tuning of policy is essential as cross-cultural academic collaboration is vital for innovation, but transparency and fairness must anchor it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Higher Education Consultant (Houston, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I recognize the intent to foster transparent affiliations, the scope feels broad, risking unintended consequences on beneficial academic alternatives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $45000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $65000000)
Year 3: $45000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $65000000)
Year 5: $40000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $60000000)
Year 10: $40000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $60000000)
Year 100: $40000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $60000000)
Key Considerations
- The potential geopolitical ramifications of increased scrutiny on international academic collaboration, particularly with China.
- The burden on institutions, especially smaller colleges that currently do not have robust compliance systems.
- The definition and interpretation of 'China-affiliated organizations' as it could lead to ambiguities about compliance.
- Potential chilling effects on academic freedom and collaboration with international entities due to increased oversight.