陈凯在哈岗学委抗议孔学堂 Kai Chen with his Olympic Freedom T-shirt at the School Board Meeing in Hacienda

陈凯访谈/【禁聞】美國罕見通告 孔子學院教師簽違規
Finally US is Taking Actions against Confucius Institutes/Classrooms

http://www.ntdtv.com/xtr/b5/2012/05/24/a...5%E8%A6%8F.html

【新唐人2012年5月24日訊】

中共在世界許多國家開設「孔子學院」，但海內外學者質疑設立的目地，批評者認為，開設「孔子學院」會成為中共外交政策的宣傳工具。日前，美國國務院向附設「孔子學院」的各所大學發出通告，指出，在學院教授中文的教師違反了美國的簽證規定。外界認為，美國國務院對贊助大學就簽證規定發出通告是相當罕見的作法。前中國男籃國家隊隊員陳凱認為，中共利用「孔子學院」滲透「黨文化」的政治目地，已經引起了美國政府和民眾的關注。

美國國務院向附設「孔子學院」的各所大學發出通告，通告中說，學院內教授中文以及文化的教師是以J-1簽證入境。雖然「孔子學院」教師是以教授、教師以及研究學者的身份到美國，但是他們教授的對像是小學和初中的學生，違反了J-1簽證持有者不得在公私立高中、初中以及小學教書的規定。

「反共、反專制」的前中國男籃國家隊隊員陳凱表示，單一的從簽證技術方面看，中共是一個不遵守法律的專制體制。

陳凱：「因為中共它是不擇手段的，它並不遵守任何國家的法律，它也不遵守它自己國度裡的法律，它沒有法律的概念。」

陳凱認為，美國發出這樣的通告，說明美國政府和美國民眾對中共開設「孔子學院」背後的目地，已經引起了關注。

陳凱：「在美國用這種非法的手段，把老師帶到美國來，做政治方面的滲透，為中共物色將來為它們服務，為它們工作，或者傾向它們政策的人物。」

日內瓦「孔子學院」的院長巴塞爾•齊默爾曼曾經對外表示，有些地方的「孔子學院」起到了領事館的作用，可以看作中領館派駐當地的辦公室。

陳凱：「我知道中共它整個這個政治上，用孔子學院這種方式告訴世界上人們，只有貧富/只有強弱/只有内外/只有敌友，沒有對錯/没有是非/没有真假/没有正义与邪恶，只要我們有錢了，只要我們有強權了，只要有槍桿子了，就可以把邪惡散佈到全世界去。」

另外，美國國務院在通告中還說，美國的大學向來都有不同的語言與文化中心，例如德國的「哥特中心」、法國的「法語聯盟」等等，但是這些語言文化機構和「孔子學院」不同，都不是政府出資管理。

英國《國際先驅論壇報》曾經發表一篇文章評論中國（共）在世界開設「孔子學院」的影響，文章說，一些批評人士擔心中國在海外大辦「孔子學院」的慷慨做法可能會輸出中國的審查制度。文章以美國為例，說，中國（共）給「孔子學院」提供現成的資金，配備中文師資以及院長等。

大陸自由網路作家 荊楚：「由中共政府來出資，其實就是以納稅人的血汗，你看國內這麼多的人上不起學，看不起病，國內的人民生活痛苦不堪，生不如死，卻大貪納稅人之財去搞這一套東西，本身可以說它是反掠行為，反社會的行為。」

然而，中國（共）要求在「孔子學院」的授課中不能討論西藏精神領袖達賴喇嘛，也不能邀請達賴喇嘛到校園裡來。還有像西藏、台灣、中國軍力增長、中共領導人內部的派系鬥爭等都不能講。

荊楚：「（中共）就是想輸出黨文化，它就是搭車，是以推銷孔子作為名義，搭車來推銷共產黨文化。這個腐朽反動的黨文化，讓更多的人受到洗腦。」

美國在通告中要求，目前持有J-1簽證的這些「孔子學院」教師將可以繼續留在美國直到學年結束，但是接下來將不會同意延長簽證效期。他們必須返回中國，向美國駐華領館按照「合適的訪問目地」，另行申請其他類別的簽證。

採訪編輯/唐睿 後製/肖顏

美国要求孔子学院部分教师离境 国家汉办表震惊

发布时间:2012年05月24日 08:29 | 进入复兴论坛 | 来源：新华网

美国国务院官员签发的一项公告5月17日发往全美孔子学院，引起巨大争议。新公告规定现有孔子学院必须申请美国“认证”，成为正式课程的一部分，且禁止中方教师和志愿者在美国中小学的孔子学堂教学。国家汉办负责人23日向记者表示，对美方在事先没有任何协商的情况下发出这样的公告感到“震惊”。有知情者告诉《环球时报》记者，孔子学院不计学分，不授学位，不具认证的前提，美国官方迄今也从未说明孔子学院应该向谁认证。美国“高等教育新闻”网站21日载文称，国务院这一公告将打乱孔子学院的教学活动。“人们不明白美国国务院为何突然出台此项公告，毕竟，孔子学院在美国校园内已有近十年时间”。一名了解内幕的人士23日向记者介绍，目前孔子学院在美国搞得很成功，影响很大，美国学习汉语的人很多，美方对此有所担心。再加上今年又是美国的大选年，美国出台这些措施可能有政治方面的考量。

　　据悉，签发这一公告的是美国国务院负责教育和文化事务局私营部门交流的副助理秘书长罗宾·勒纳。公告称，尽管孔子学院可能有益于促进文化交流，但其所从事的活动“必须符合正确的交流规范，遵循相关法规”。“教授、研究学者、短期访问学者或学院、大学学生不允许在公立和私立小、中学教学，否则便与有关交流访问项目法规相违。中文课程必须是得到认证的中学以上机构课程的一部分，须由一位持有J－1签证的教师在机构外语系校园内进行教授。”公告还称，“为确保孔子学院的教育符合和保持适合的规定标准，孔子学院必须申请美国认证”，“美国国务院的初步审视并不清楚这些孔子学院是否得到美国认证”。美国务院允许目前持有J-1签证的孔子学院教师继续留至2012年6月本学年结束，但不会为他们续签签证。如果他们愿意，可回中国再申办一种合适的交流项目签证。

　　81所美国大学内设有孔子学院。这一公告已引起广泛的震惊、困惑和不解，各地孔子学院均表示此项公告“令人吃惊”、“很不寻常”，都在讨论如何应对。记者了解到，J－1签证是一种非移民签证，签发给来美国参加美国国务院批准的“交流访问者计划”的各类外籍人士。今年年初，美国官方曾对持有J－1签证人员情况进行过调查。

　　一名曾在美国孔子学院授课的女士23日向记者介绍，中方派驻国外孔子学院的授课老师主要有公派教师和志愿者两种，他们所持的都是访问学者J-1签证。她当时就是作为志愿者授课的，获得签证比较容易。

　　令人最为不解的是美国官方要求对孔子学院进行所谓“认证”。据记者了解，美国官方迄今从未说明孔子学院应该向谁认证。横向比较一下，从未听说德国的歌德学院、法国的法语联盟等在美文化交流机构须得到美国认证。在接受本报记者采访时，美国第一家孔子学院马里兰大学孔子学院及乔治·梅森大学孔子学院负责人均表示，对这一公告感到困惑，校方均在就“认证”一事进行讨论与沟通。乔治·梅森大学孔子学院负责人说，希望国务院出台的公告没有政治方面的考虑，毕竟奥巴马推动美国10万学生赴华留学项目也是鼓励美国学生学习中文。

　　据国家汉办负责人23日向记者介绍，该机构已致信下设孔子课堂的美国大学校长，就此事进行交涉。信中表示，美国孔子学院是由美方自愿申请，并与汉办和中方高校合作举办的。中方充分尊重贵校的办学自主权，对孔子学院开设课程和开展文化交流活动及下设孔子课堂，从未有过专门指令。总部向孔子学院提供的包括派遣志愿者在内的所有帮助，均系美方所要求。信中还表示，中方尊重美国政府的法律和规定，但在此过程中，我们不愿意看到因此而造成中断志愿者项目的后果，否则将会导致很多学校蒸蒸日上的中文课程由于教师缺失而被迫夭折，致使这些学校和学生蒙受损失。

　　这位负责人还表示，志愿者赴美前，是按照中美双方学校的协议，接受美方学校的邀请，申请并获准签证的。从2005年起，中方为帮助美国发展汉语教学，已派出2100多名教师，项目执行一直很顺利。原以为教师接受美方邀请，申请并获准了赴美签证，就不会产生问题。在事先没有任何协商的情况下，美国国务院5月17日发布公告，作为主管孔子学院的负责人，他感到很突然、很吃惊。

　　美国多所设有孔子学院的大学校长对美国这一公告非常反感，很有意见，认为它干涉了学校的办学自主权，目前正与美国国务院进行联系和交涉。记者还了解到，面对质疑，美国国务院官员23日将赴马里兰大学，与马里兰大学校方、孔子学院负责人一起进行面对面的沟通与交流。

May 22, 2012

State Department Denies Targeting Confucius Institutes but Holds to Decision on Visas

By Karin Fischer

Washington

A recent State Department policy directive was not intended to disrupt the activities of Confucius Institutes, the university-based, Chinese-sponsored language and cultural centers, but rather was an effort to ensure that foreign academics and teachers at the institutes come to the United States under the correct visa categories, a State Department official said on Tuesday.

And the department appears to be backpedaling from its insistence in the memorandum, issued late last week, that the centers must be part of the sponsoring college's foreign-language program or apply for separate accreditation, a stance that had greatly troubled both American institutions and the Office of Chinese Language Council International, or Hanban, which oversees Confucius Institutes worldwide.

In an interview, the State Department official, who spoke with The Chronicle on the condition of not being named, called that section of the policy statement "confusing" and said it would be redrafted to clarify that Confucius Institutes that have partnerships with accredited colleges are in compliance with visa regulations.

Thomas A. Farrell, vice president for global engagement at the University of Nebraska, said he was glad to see the government "walking back" the accreditation language. He and other university administrators had questioned what accrediting body would certify Confucius Institutes and why independent approval was necessary. "One can put the cat back in the bag," said Mr. Farrell, who is a former State Department official.

Still, the department is holding firm to another part of the policy guidance. The administration official made it clear that Confucius Institutes cannot continue with what is, for many of the centers, a major part of their mission: providing Chinese-language teachers to elementary and secondary schools.

Taken by Surprise

Regulations related to J-1 visas, which are given to people participating in work- and study-based exchange programs, make it clear that foreign professors, academics, and students at the university level are prohibited from teaching in public or private schools at the precollege level, the State Department official said. Those visa holders will have to leave the United States by the end of June and must reapply for the correct visa to return to this country.

That decision has taken administrators at the roughly 70 American universities that host Confucius Institutes by surprise. "Shocked," is how Huajing Maske, the director of the Confucius Institute at the University of Kentucky, describes her response to the memorandum. "I'm still just in shock."

Ms. Maske, who is currently in China with other Kentucky administrators, said she was contacted by Hanban officials after they received word of the policy directive. They too were confused, she said, asking detailed questions about whether and how American accreditation applies to language and cultural centers sponsored by foreign governments.

Hanban's director general has since sent a letter to American university presidents whose institutions host Confucius Institutes expressing concern about the State Department action and asking for their support. The institutes, she notes in the letter, are meant to strengthen relationships between China and the rest of the world.

In the days since the directive's release, speculation has swirled about the reasons behind the decision, especially because the institutes have been criticized by some for being too closely tied to the Chinese government.

'Simply a Regulatory Matter'

But the State Department official said the action was not intended to make Confucius Institutes a target and that the Obama administration supports their work. "This is not about the Confucius Institutes or about the Chinese model," she said. "This is just simply a regulatory matter."

As centers have proliferated at American colleges, and as they have brought in more teachers, it became clear to staff members within the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs who oversee exchanges that many of them were in violation of visa rules. The differing requirements for university-level "professors/research scholars" and precollege "teachers" are spelled out in regulations, the official said.

But in interviews, institute directors and administrators at more than a dozen colleges said they have always used the J-1 "teacher" category to bring in instructors for local schools, many for years. (Confucius Institutes have been on American campuses for nearly a decade.) "That's what all of us had done, and we go through the U.S. embassy in China," said Deborah Trott Pierce, who heads the institute at Webster University, in St. Louis. "We've always been upfront about it."

In fact, several directors said they had gotten word in recent days of visas issued to Chinese teachers scheduled to teach in summer programs or in the fall. Unless the institutes can find an alternative approach, those instructors will have to remain in China.

Thus far, the State Department has been unwilling to consider a grace period or to grant extensions to allow teachers already in the country to remain for the duration of their visas. "There's no wiggle room," Ms. Pierce said.

An Effort to Minimize Disruptions

For its part, the State Department said it had acted at the end of the academic year purposefully in order to minimize disruptions.

Confucius Institute directors say they are scrambling to find a solution by the time the school year begins in August or early September. The new rule could disrupt the plans of potentially hundreds of Chinese language teachers who currently work through university-based Confucius Institutes each year.

The University of Buffalo had planned to put eight Chinese-language teachers in local schools this fall through its Confucius Institute. Stephen C. Dunnett, vice provost of international education, is considering the possibility of working with third-party groups, such as the College Board, that are already approved to sponsor foreign teachers. But Mr. Dunnett said he has reservations about that route, worrying that it would put supervision for those visa holders "at arm's length" from the university.

"I worry," he said, "that we won't be able to keep our commitment to local schools."

At Webster, university administrators have offered to waive tuition costs if visiting language teachers, who are typically master's degree students at its Chinese partner institution, Beijing Language and Culture University, want to enroll as students in its graduate program in teaching Chinese as a second language. (Student visas are a different category and wouldn't be affected by the State Department's directive.) Students would be able to teach in local schools during the program's practicum, but only a fraction of the hours they now teach.

Another possibility is that state agencies or local school districts could sponsor J-1 visas for elementary- and secondary-school teachers. Some Confucius Institutes, such as the one at the University of Central Arkansas, already have such an arrangement. Center directors, like Ms. Maske at Kentucky, say they are open to this option but worry about the year or more it could take for districts or agencies to win approval to sponsor foreign visa holders. "You know how foreign languages work," Ms. Maske said. "If there's a disruption or a gap, that's a problem."

At the University of Pittsburgh, some 60 Chinese teachers, graduate students at Wuhan University, have come through the Confucius Institute since 2007, providing language instruction to more than 3,000 students. "We want to see if we can restructure" the exchange, said Michele Heryford, the center's director. "It's opened the eyes of schoolchildren in western Pennsylvania to China. We don't want to give that up."

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2012/...oogle_news_blog

May 24, 2012, 5:11 PM HKT
.
U.S. Rule Puts Confucius Schools Under Spotlight

Associated Press Wu Qidi, vice minister, China’s Ministry of Education, spoke at the 2006 opening of a Confucius Institute at the University of Kansas Edwards Campus in Overland Park, Kan., as then Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, left, looked on.
Is the U.S. government taking on one of the Chinese government’s best known efforts to promote China’s image abroad?

That was the question ricocheting around the Chinese Internet this week after the Chronicle of Higher Education reported on a new U.S. State Department directive that could complicate things for the Beijing-sponsored network of language-teaching outposts known as the Confucius Institutes.

From the Chronicle’s report:

The memorandum, dated May 17, states that any academics at university-based institutes who are teaching at the elementary- and secondary-school levels are violating the terms of their visas and must leave at the end of this academic year, in June. And it says that, after a “preliminary review,” the State Department has determined that the institutes must obtain American accreditation in order to continue to accept foreign scholars and professors as teachers.

Among those protesting the directive was Kong Qingdong, a firebrand Beijing University professor widely identified as a direct descendent of the great sage. “Citing visas, the U.S. has set a deadline for Chinese Confucius Institute teachers to leave the country,” Mr. Kong wrote Thursday on the popular Twitter-like microblogging service Sina Weibo. “Meanwhile, in China, everywhere you look you find Hollywood movies, Silicon Valley microchips and McDonald’s French fries. From entertainment to technology to food products, the American cultural invasion is multipolar, omnidirectional and deep.”

At a daily press briefing on Thursday, Hong Lei, a spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry, said officials were in talks with their U.S. counterparts over the matter and that “we hope it doesn’t affect the development of the Confucius Institute project.”

The Confucius Institutes are sponsored by Hanban, an organization affiliated with China’s Ministry of Education, and are similar in aim to other government-sponsored cultural outreach programs like Germany’s Goethe Institutes and Spain’s Instituto Cervantes. By the end of 2010, China had established more than 300 Confucius Institutes (plus an additional 369 smaller Confucius Classrooms) in 96 countries and regions, according to the Hanban website.

Beijinghas spent more than $500 million on the program since 2004, according to a Bloomberg report in November.

Criticized by some as propaganda vehicles, in part because they limit discussion of politically sensitive topics like Tibet and the 1989 crackdown on Tiananmen Square protestors, the institutes are nevertheless popular with cash-strappedU.S.universities eager to take advantage of the subsidized language instruction.

More than 60U.S.universities play host to the institutes, according to a list on the Hanban website.

The problem, the Chronicle reports, is that university-affiliated Confucius Institute teachers are also offering instruction to students below the college level through public outreach programs — an activity prohibited underU.S.visa regulations.

Several Chinese commentators struck a defiant tone in the wake of the report, with more than a few suggesting the directive was a sign that the U.S.had grown scared of China’s growing cultural influence. “This decision runs completely counter to the popularity of Chinese language study among American college students,” Hu Xijin, editor of the nationalist tabloid Global Times, wrote on Sina Weibo. “The Confucius Institutes have absolutely nothing to worry about. Let the American universities worry.”

In a second report published Tuesday, the Chronicle said U.S. officials had denied that the directive was intended to specifically target the Confucius Institutes and quoted one State Department official describing it as “simply a regulatory matter.”

The controversy comes at the same time as a newly launched campaign to rid Beijing of so-called “three illegal” foreigners – foreigners who either entered the city illegally or are living or working in the city without the proper visas — a coincidence not lost on Chinese Internet users.

“Looks like ‘cleaning out the three illegals’ isn’t so easy,” wrote one Sina Weibo user posting under the handle Lawyer Shen Guoyong. “China has three-illegals foreigners, but foreign countries have three-illegals Chinese people.”

Even the Communist Party mouthpiece newspaper People’s Daily waded into the debate, publishing a story on Thursday in which it pointed the finger at “political forces” in the U.S. that have “always arbitrarily criticized the Confucius Institutes and incessantly tried to discredit the institutes’ teaching activities.”

The move did garner some sympathy insideChina, however, including from a Sina Weibo user writing under the name The Past is Like the Winds and Clouds:

“Haha, the U.S. is scared of our education,” the user wrote. “It’s because we’re good at brainwashing. The U.S. is afraid we’ll turn their next generation into our current generation.”

– Josh Chin, with contributions from Olivia Geng; follow Josh on Twitter @joshchin

陈凯转载/美国为何对孔子学院提出限制？
Why US is Taking Actions against Confucius Institutes

美国对孔子学院教师和志愿者提出限制，有两个层面的原因。

表层上，我们派教师和志愿者的方式不符合美国的签证制度和中小学教师准入制度。按美国法律，J-1签证持有者是不可以在美国长期从事正式的工作的，而我们派去的教师和志愿者，实际上都是在正式地进行工作，即使是志愿者，也是拿固定工资的。所以，人家一调查，你就是违反了美国法律，要是不客气的话，可以直接通知这些教师和志愿者限期离境，并且可以被认为是在美有不良记录，而限制他们今后再次申请入境。

我们当初往美国派孔子学院教师，因为无法办理工作签证，就钻个空子，按访问学者，申请J-1签证派出。这种情况，如果邀请方是个大学，少量的人过去，即使在学校里从事教学活动，可以说成是助教工作，一般也不会有人追究。但我们大量地，而且大张旗鼓地采用这种方式往美国派人，迟早都会引出签证身份与所从事的事情不符的问题。

另一方面，美国对教师，特别是中小学教师上岗是有明确的法规规定的。要想进入美国的中小学课堂讲课，必须要先获得专门的研究生学位，然后再考取教师资格，才有可能进入学校当老师。我们派的教师和志愿者当然没有这个资格 ，按规定就不能上岗。05年派到美国的第一批志愿者就遇到了这个问题，不能上课堂。

后来经过协商，有些州网开一面，其他的表面上还是以学术交流人员的身份出现，表面上看是教学辅助人员。反正只要没人举报，就可以得过且过。所以，从根本上讲，你的教师和志愿者没有教师资格证，去人家的中小学课堂上教书，还是违反人家的法律的。

而深层次上，孔子学院是政府行为主导的，不像人家法语联盟、歌德学院主要是以民间的商业存在方式运作的（尽管背后有政府的支持），因为孔子学院是政府行为主导的，所以老百姓的钱就这样被糟蹋掉了。然后我们到处大肆宣扬通过孔子学院传播中华文化，还动不动把它当成我们的政绩来宣传。这是任何国家都不欢迎的，何况中美意识形态不同，美国本来就对中国充满戒心，还会让你这样折腾？

没有对等原则,你为什么不让别人来办几个大学.试想，如果美国政府出资在中国办个什么华盛顿学院，然后到处说传播美国文化，中国会干吗？事实上，有些国家早已对建孔子学院进行限制了。俄罗斯跟中国谈对等原则，如果我们想在俄建一孔子学院，那么也应允许其在中国建一个俄语中心。越南在几年前就表示不再成立新的孔子学院。到处推销垃圾和野蛮文化，赶紧卷铺盖滚蛋！自由的世界需要自由而平等的思想，不需要从坟墓里挖出来的枯骨朽木。

所以，这件事的发生，一点不奇怪，倒是提醒我们自己应该反思一下孔子学院的模式。

孔子学院天价维护费谁来监督？

还有人记得孔子学院网站的招标吗？

一般说来，维护一个像孔子学院那样门可罗雀的网站，年服务费最多不过十几万元，但国家汉办(孔子学院总部)却支付了3520万元。如果不是财政部网站公布中标公告，这个天价维护费我们永远无从知道。

以“汉语国际推广”为招牌的孔子学院，一年耗费多少税款？ 2008年光预算就高达16亿。此后更是一年更比一年多。希望工程历经20多年，也才募集50来亿。这么大把撒钱到国外去搞教育，怎么就舍不得花点钱在自己祖国的花朵上？

据百度，各国已建立322所孔子学院和369个孔子课堂，共计691所。美国是设立孔子学院最多的国家，共60多所。每建立一所孔子学院需要多少钱？复旦大学教授葛剑雄提供的数据是50万美元。身居美国的薛涌先生估算，在美国建一所“孔子学院”至少几百万美元。至于教育部，则从来不肯告诉中国人民——做好事不留名，唯有在这样的事上，教育部才坚决要当活雷锋。

业内人士透露，所谓“孔子学院”，都是没有法律保证、没有学术资质、没有校舍教师的“三无学院”。在运营上，每一所孔子学院的共同点都是亏损，巨额亏损。亏损的原因是多方面的，最重要的原因是运作模式与财务状况不透明。也因此，孔子学院一方面成了中国政府填不满的窟窿，一方面又成了教育部官员任意提取各国货币的取款机。

学者赵进斌是这样看待孔子学院的：按照中国的作法，欧洲国家完全可以满世界建耶稣、亚里士多德、苏格拉底、黑格尔、尼采、莎士比亚学院；美国更是有资格建华盛顿、林肯学院；俄罗斯完全可以建普希金、托尔斯泰学院；印度建释迦牟尼学院更是名正言顺。然而，我们看不到这些。赵进斌由此得出结论，教育部鼓吹的“孔子学院海外热”是无中生有的骗局，是又一次荒唐的文化大跃进。

中国已进入空前绝后的盛世，随着《大国崛起》，中国动辄很不高兴，很生气，西方包括东南亚诸国都早已明白，招惹中国后果很严重；如此一来，理应万国来朝，何需满世界烧钱去建孔子学院？香港学者吴三兴认为，靠赔本赚吆喝和的荒唐行为“输出软势力”，只能使海外侨胞感到心寒、更加鄙视或离心离德。

终于有一个国家站出来了，这个国家叫美利坚。但这一回却不是干涉中国内政，因为她是在自己的国土下对自己的大学教育进行规范：美国大学教育是不得忽悠人的，进入美国大学的科目，必须符合美国的高等教育认证；于是乎，中国设在美国的60多所“三无”孔子学院，全部得滚蛋。

谢谢你，美国！

TOP Posted:2012-05-24 11:15 | [樓 主]