Open Letter To Cambridge University Press About Its Censorship Of The China Quarterly
CUP may be anxious about its English-language pedagogical supplies and other enterprises being banned in China, but it shouldn’t be. Even outdoors of Chinese language universities, huge numbers of non-teachers know and respect the identify “Jianqiao.” China is not going to ban all the pieces branded “Cambridge” from the Chinese language realm, as a result of to take action would flip this into a giant, public difficulty, and that’s exactly what the authorities hope to avoid. To take action would, moreover, pit the CCP towards a family title that each Chinese language person who knows something about training reveres as one of many world’s oldest and finest universities. And Chinese, probably greater than anyone else, revere universities, particularly name-model ones. Cambridge College, like Stanford – or Calgary, for that matter! – can safely afford to say, “Sorry, China Quarterly is a package deal deal. Take it or go away it.” And if China chooses to go away it, we will trust resourceful Chinese colleagues and students to search out workarounds to get and distribute the material, as they do for plenty of English-language publications already (although that will likely be more durable if good VPN’s disappear. #Thanks, Apple).
The auction committee did the onerous work last year, examining, photographing and creating the catalog listing for the March All-Cambridge Auction, solely to have it cancelled. For 2021, we will merely use the glass that was initially scheduled for final year. Visit our Public sale page for the catalog, and be certain to go to the Miami Valley Research Group page for particular person pictures of each merchandise in the public sale. Due to all who helped on check this site out group effort.
Simply say “no” to China’s self-defeating censorship calls for, CUP, and I’ll happily continue to review books and manuscripts for you, essentially free of charge, as I do now. That’s the bargain you will have with us, your readers and contributors from the scholarly world exterior in addition to in China. You maintain your press’s educational integrity, and we work to supply and overview your content material for only symbolic remuneration (just a few hundred dollars for a ebook that takes 10 years to write down, or $150 for 2-3 days’ work reviewing a book manuscript). We are not on this enterprise for the money. When you, a longtime, world-renowned instructional establishment sacrifice your academic integrity on venal or faux-pragmatic grounds, you can not depend on our continued respect and cooperation.
The e-mail, which is dated 21 September 2017, also confirms my claim here that the push for DC for future service was motivated by ‘last man standing’ fears. The Sub-Committee “advocates a powerful transfer to DC now”, with the upshot that “future investment risk and return would fall on the employees”. The Sub-Committee additionally refers to a advised widespread line of reply to the session, which expresses a strong preference for “Sectionalisation of the Scheme, whereby the stronger covenants within the Sector such as the Faculties and College would now not act as ‘last men standing’ within the worst case, and which would actually be achieved for future service by a move to DC” [my emphasis].
The reply is that this may value more than they are keen to pay, as it will trigger the need to buy out their liabilities on a ‘section 75’ foundation. That is the cost of purchasing annuities from an insurance firm which can be on a par with the DB pensions they’ve promised their employees. This can be very costly, since insurance coverage corporations fund annuities out of ‘liability-matching assets’ comparable to bonds, which have a lot decrease expected returns than USS’s portfolio. USS has estimated that the acquisition of such annuities would require the equivalent of about 60% of pay, versus the current 26% contribution stage for DB pensions.