Tiwald from San Francisco State to Hong Kong
Justin Tiwald, currently professor of philosophy at San Francisco State University, has accepted an offer from the Hong Kong University Department of Philosophy.
Professor Tiwald works in Chinese philosophy, ethics, and political philosophy. Author of the forthcoming Well-Being as an Object of Moral Concern: Dai Zhen on Ethics and Welfare, as well as many articles on various topics in Chinese philosophy, Tiwald is also the editor of the Oxford Handbook of Chinese Philosophy and series editor the Chinese Thougt book series for Oxford University Press. You can learn more about his work here and here.
Tiwald will take up his new position as full professor at Hong Kong University in August, 2022.
Has Tiwald secured a visa yet? There is a crackdown on academic freedom in Hong Kong. Last week someone hired by the University of Hong Kong law school to teach human rights law as a tenure track assistant professor was denied a visa without explanation. See the following pieces:
– https://www.facebook.com/natalie.hui.562/posts/10158478292152231
– https://www.facebook.com/david.stephen.law/posts/10158108573276402
The individual (Ryan Thoreson) does not write about Hong Kong or China at all – https://www.facebook.com/david.stephen.law/posts/10158108038416402
Intellectuals accepting work in Hong Kong are at risk of either running afoul of the draconian national security law for what they say or write (e.g. this Australian – https://www.facebook.com/standwithhk/posts/1387864318310899) or being complicit with a genocidal totalitarian regime that lied and broke its promises on Hong Kong, brutally occupies Tibet, regularly threatens Taiwan, and which crushes and censors all political dissent.
C’mon, why post this rant here? Chinese scholars in the US are also faced with witch hunt-to a much larger extent than US scholars in China. Geopolitical interests are behind what you describe, human right issues are by far secondary, and intentionally exaggerated to serve the geopolitical interests. Justin will be fine.
Can you post some examples of this witch hunt of Chinese scholars in the US?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/science/gang-chen-mit-china.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/04/27/chinese-american-professor-bias-fbi-attacks-government-column/7385996002/
“human right issues are by far secondary, and intentionally exaggerated”
—
While the NSL does not seem to be directly related to Professor Tiwald’s research area, I think the worry about HK’s deteriorating academic freedom in general is legit. (To compare this with the US’s targeting of Chinese academics, itself another legit worry, is whataboutism.) I am not sure about the above quotation either. It might be that the US government’s position on China issues is motivated by geopolitical interests, but this doesn’t mean that these issues themselves are of secondary importance, nor does it mean that they are “intentionally exaggerated”. In fact I think their seriousness makes them deserve more attention and situated coverage from the international society, beyond analyses based on a geopolitical perspective.
I am just saying that since the US could significantly further its own interest in defaming and demonizing China, the reports of “human rights violations” in China made by the US should be taken with some doubt. (Cf. the Nayirah testimony).
Ah yes, because the US has a questionable HR record it must mean China is the shining beacon of light. All we have to do is read the reports out of HK or their treatment of Uighurs to know China’s record.
While this is not a place for politics, I don’t think Grad in US’s comment is interpreted charitably here. The implicit point is that China’s issues as reported were weakly-evidenced (arguably) and (seem to me) riddled with mistakes. If there is strong evidence, then the motivation should not be important. As for whataboutism, I suppose Grad in US is just trying to calling out the disparity: should we also warn Chinese scholars against working in the US? Some people might already have done that. But my personal answer is no. I think the political effect on individual philosophers is still very mild, and no larger than any other obstacle and difficulty of life. I suppose the same goes for US philosophers in China.
Speaking of overseas Chinese (also Tibetans, Uyghurs, Taiwanese, Hong Kongers), perhaps a word could also be said for those of them threatened and silenced by the long arm of an authoritarian one party state:
– https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/31/technology/china-internet-police-twitter.html
– https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2021/09/18/a-chinese-student-in-canada-had-two-followers-on-twitter-he-still-didnt-escape-beijings-threats-over-online-activity.html
– https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/china-tibet-student-election-1.5019648
– https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/world/australia/hong-kong-china-queensland-protests.html
Frankly, it seems to me that the actual “geopolitical interests” of many Americans (especially powerful ones) has been to ignore or downplay genocide and human rights as much as possible to get rich from Mainland China. The examples are legion.
Congratulations, well-deserved!
I understand and support the human rights concerns about Hong Kong and China, but I do not think they are quite relevant to the news here. You don’t see this kind of rant under news about international scholars coming to the US. But perhaps international scholars and students should stop coming to the US, for it means they’d be complicit with a regime with systematic racism, mass incarceration, and abortion bans. It’s also a regime that regularly threatens… the rest of the world?