The University’s priorities from the outset have been the safety and security of our staff and protecting academic freedom by ensuring the forced labour research from our Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice could be published.
On learning that staff in our China office had been subjected to questioning about this research, we had to use informal channels to identify the right route for advice and support from government, as there was no official guidance at the time for universities to raise concerns about overseas state interference. This was challenging and caused unnecessary delays. We are therefore pleased that the Department for Education has since set up a Higher Education State Threats Unit and recently announced new funding to support universities and encourage greater collaboration with government where needed. We are actively engaging with the Unit and the wider HE sector to share our learning and contribute to the development of guidance and advice.
An ongoing litigation case for an earlier research report on forced labour meant we subsequently did not have indemnity insurance for this work. This was a significant factor in our decision to find an alternative organisation to publish this particular research report, thereby protecting academic freedom. Without indemnity insurance, publishing it under the University’s name could have exposed us to significant financial risk. The final report was published by Global Rights Compliance, a US-based NGO.
Contrary to some media reports, this decision was never driven by commercial considerations in China. We have fewer than 100 Chinese nationals studying at Sheffield Hallam and that number has been declining in recent years, as is the case at many other modern universities in the UK. It is also important to be absolutely clear that there has never been any direct communication between University leadership and Chinese State Security at any point.
The Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice remains a key asset for the University and we are proud of the important work it undertakes on human rights and social justice. Our focus now is on learning and strengthening our relevant processes. We accept there are areas where these could have been stronger, and have commissioned an external independent review and will publish a summary of its findings.
We are actively working with the sector and government to ensure there is a better understanding of the complexities of managing overseas state interference, particularly where this intersects with academic freedom and staff safety. These were our key priorities throughout this case.
