‘China is the elephant in the room. I wonder how long Wageningen is going to carry on hosting a large group of students and PhD candidates who lack academic and social freedom.’ Illustration Valerie Geelen PhD candidates are the university’s foot soldiers. WUR has 2428 of these toilers, according to November figures. Between them, they account for a big proportion of WUR’s scientific output. But not all the PhD candidates are well paid for their work. In fact, hundreds of them earn less than the minimum wage in the Netherlands.
Most of the low earners are international scholarship PhDs, who do their PhD research on a grant. The majority of these scholarship PhDs are Chinese and are paid by the Chinese Scholarship Council (CSC). A scholarship from the CSC amounts to 1350 euros a month, which comes to 8.5 euros an hour based on a 40-hour working week. Not only is that below the minimum wage in the Netherlands, but with the soaring inflation of the past few years, it is also below the qualifying level for a residence permit used by the IND (the Dutch Immigration and Naturalization Service).
Work pressure
‘Bizarre,’ says lecturer Lennart Beun. ‘I only found this out recently in conversation with some colleagues. This makes no sense. They do the same work as PhD students who are salaried and they get less than the Dutch minimum wage for it. The work pressure and stress are bad enough and then you have this financial stress on top of it. That is going to take its toll.’ Beun raised the matter with the management of his Physical Chemistry & Soft Matter chair group. They acknowledged the problem, says Beun, but couldn’t do anything about it. ‘Helping out seems complicated, legally. That’s partly to do with tenure track; they were honest about that. You can’t always attract a PhD candidate any other way. But you need to do that research because you’ve got to publish, so you just go for a cheap CSC-funded researcher.’
They do the same work as PhD students who are salaried and get less than the minimum wage for it
Lecturer Lennart Beun
The number of Chinese PhD students starting at WUR each year has more than doubled over the past decade to 71 last year. There are a total of 401 Chinese PhD candidates at WUR (as of last November). That is 17 per cent of the overall total and a quarter of the international PhD candidates. Only the Dutch outnumber the Chinese at 35 per cent. This growth is partly due to a couple of large joint research programmes WUR has entered into with CAAS (China Academy of Agricultural Sciences) and CAU (China Agricultural University).
China is a vast country with big agricultural issues. From the scientific point of view, there are many insights to be gained that are of interest to WUR. But most of the increase in Chinese PhD students is in those on individual scholarships provided by the CSC. This Chinese government agency gives about 9000 scholarships every year to citizens wanting to do a PhD at a foreign university. As the best agricultural university in the world, Wageningen is of interest to the CSC, and its Food and Plant Sciences research in particular attracts many Chinese PhD students.
The pressure to perform and deliver is high and so is the incentive to recruit a PhD candidate
An insider, who wishes to remain anonymous
Another factor is that WUR receives about 80,000 euros from the Dutch state for each PhD completed. At Wageningen, most of that money goes directly to the PhD student’s chair group. ‘Wageningen has an output-driven model,’ says an insider, who wishes to remain anonymous. ‘The pressure to perform and deliver is high and so is the incentive to recruit a PhD candidate. A Chinese scholarship PhD is an easy way to do that. And that’s how you get opportunism. The PhD business is a massive cash cow.’ And that in spite of WUR accepting the fact that the CSC categorically refuses to pay the so-called bench fee in addition to the fellowship. A bench fee is a monthly sum (in this case 1000 euros) that PhDs not employed by WUR have to pay for their tuition. An estimated 80 per cent of Chinese PhDs do not pay a bench fee, which means that WUR misses out on hundreds of thousands in revenue every month.
Bench fee
This refusal to pay bench fees is a thorn in the side of the graduate schools, reveals an internal evaluation by the schools of their cooperation with China. ‘China is a rich country,’ says Johan Feenstra, secretary of WIMEK graduate school (Environmental Science) and one of the people behind the evaluation. ‘Why should they get out of paying that money while others do pay – that’s the objection.’
An estimated 80 per cent of Chinese PhDs do not pay a bench fee
This disparity is actually being addressed at the national level now. The assumption is that from next year, the CSC will pay an annual bench fee of 10,000 euros per PhD student. But it remains to be seen whether that will happen: China is notoriously difficult to get to pay up. But the payment of bench fees within the CAAS and CAU programmes has been agreed through tough negotiations.
Strong growth
Money matters aside, cooperation with China is problematic for other reasons too, the evaluation notes. Due to strong growth, the proportion of Chinese PhD candidates is becoming very large. Feenstra: ‘Concerns have been raised about maintaining a balanced mix of nationalities and the total number of Chinese PhD candidates. Views differ on this, though. In most chair groups and PhD classes, there is a good mix, but not everywhere. A good balance is crucial for integration and collaboration, and provides the basis for a diverse and inclusive academic environment.’ The evaluation therefore calls for the establishment of criteria on what constitutes a healthy mix.
China is the elephant in the room
Esther Roquas of the WASS (social science) graduate school
The evaluation also points out the presence of China’s long arm, mentioning rumours, incidents and stories from the graduate schools about peer control and the role played by the Chinese embassy. ‘Such control mechanisms may exist, but they’re hard to identify and understand as long as PhD students are not free to share their experiences,’ write Feenstra and his colleague Esther Roquas of the WASS (social science) graduate school. In recent months, there have been regular reports in the media about that control and the obligation Chinese PhD students have to report on each other and those they interact with.
‘We in the graduate schools can tell when something isn’t right,’ Roquas says. ‘But we don’t want to talk about it. I think that’s terrible. That’s what motivated me to conduct this evaluation. China is the elephant in the room. I am wondering how long Wageningen is going to carry on hosting a very large group of students and PhD candidates who lack academic and social freedom. Who are scared and can’t speak out. If there are incidents, we can’t investigate them so we can’t talk about them. Things go on in expat communities that we shouldn’t ignore. Having said that, let me emphasize that we have very nice, intelligent Chinese PhD candidates. They are fine, and many of them do well and produce nice dissertations. But there are so many incidents that you mustn’t ignore. Yet that is often what happens.’
Evaluation
The evaluation – based on interviews with all the graduate school directors as well as others – concludes that there can be no ducking out of an open discussion on the cooperation with China. Other relevant issues include WUR’s (excessive) financial dependence on CSC, geopolitics and the political debate on China in the Netherlands. Internally, that discussion has already taken place, actually – as reflected in the revised China strategy adopted by the Executive Board in December. The Board sees no need to tinker with the existing academic cooperation. ‘Our attitude towards China is not fundamentally different from that to other countries with value systems that are very different to ours.’
The control of PhD candidates and other students by the Chinese government is not seen as a big issue. It is considered important, however, to ensure that scientific data are accessible and freely available to all. But precisely that accessibility is sometimes particularly lacking in social science research, say the graduate schools. For certain topics, for example, it is hard to get hold of reliable and verifiable data, or some data are not accessible to supervisors.
A good balance is crucial and provides the basis for a diverse and inclusive academic environment
Johan Feenstra, secretary of WIMEK graduate school (Environmental Science)
But for the Chinese fellowship PhDs, there is now a glimmer of hope that their financial situation may improve. WUR is looking into whether financial support for them is possible and affordable. That is not enough for Lennart Beun. He has decided to resign anyway. ‘I have always enjoyed working here. There is mutual respect other and open and honest communication. My work has always been appreciated. But my chair group has CSC PhD students too, so it is part of the system. And I am very disappointed by that. Cheap scholarship PhDs are a business model. The idea behind the PhD bonus is to help make the Netherlands a knowledge economy. Universities are misusing the PhD bonus to train Chinese scientists. In this way, Dutch taxpayers are helping to fund the education of Chinese people. Strictly speaking, it’s legal but I consider it an abuse of the system.’
Back Burner
According to its revised China strategy, Wageningen Research has put cooperation with China on the back burner. The updated document states that a lot of knowledge has been shared with China over recent years, but the promised collaborations did not get off the ground. ‘We had higher expectations,’ says Director of Strategy and Accounts Ron Mazier. ‘That is partly related to the complexity of doing business with China. The effort you have to put into drawing up contracts and obtaining the money involved in that is not proportional to the return you get.’
In practical terms, this means that Wageningen Research has scaled down its efforts in China. Mazier: ‘We are not going to invest any more time in it proactively. You can sometimes get the same return elsewhere in Asia for half the investment of time required by a project in China.’ For WUR’s in-country China office, the cutbacks will mean a halving of the staff.
Let me summarize the essay in this way: it provides justifications for promoting a new form of racism against Chinese individuals. It appears that the author lacks Chinese friends and, therefore, has made little effort to learn about the work and daily lives of Chinese PhDs, resulting in an essay full of stereotypes, prejudice, and unfounded claims. Although my research is not sponsored by CSC, I am Chinese and have many wonderful and hardworking Chinese friends whose scholarships are from CSC. Therefore, I must respond to this essay, which is riddled with baseless allegations.
The essay begins by asserting that CSC-sponsored PhDs earn lower salaries despite having the same workload, but then curiously shifts its focus to questioning why they are not paying bench fees. The reality is that CSC-sponsored PhD students are not expected to engage in any teaching activities beyond their research since the funding does not come from the university or the supervisors. They are only expected to conduct research activities related to their thesis. However, as many colleagues are aware, a significant portion of CSC-sponsored PhDs are forced to engage in excessive teaching activities, even against their wishes, due to the demands of their supervisors. What do we call this phenomenon – exploitation or a new form of slavery? Obviously, the author appears unaware that the University of Groningen offers additional funding to CSC-sponsored PhDs to ensure that they receive the same salary while carrying out similar teaching and research duties as other university-funded PhDs. Rather than compensating doctoral researchers for their teaching duties, which is what they deserve, the author blames them for not paying bench fees. This perspective from the author is quite eye-opening in the year 2023!
Additionally, the essay heavily implies that Chinese PhD students funded by the China Scholarship Council (CSC) are controlled by the Chinese government. This insinuation is ridiculous and insulting. Have Dutch researchers never received funding from NWO or other Dutch organizations? Of course they have and they continue to have. Using the same flawed logic, one could claim that Dutch researchers lack academic freedom and independence simply because their funding comes from sources other than their own salaries. The author fails to acknowledge that CSC-sponsored PhDs are chosen based on their academic merit and potential, not their political affiliations. Moreover, the author provides no evidence of CSC intervention in the research of its sponsored PhDs. Instead, they insinuate that such intervention must occur and thus avoid interviewing CSC-sponsored Chinese PhDs about their research and academic experiences. This self-reinforcing reasoning loop is both unproductive and offensive!
The most absurd aspect of this article is the attempt to use “diversity and inclusion” as an excuse to cease recruiting Chinese PhDs, simply because there are already many of them and it supposedly hinders integration. It’s quite astonishing! I am now eagerly anticipating the author’s next article proposing to stop hiring male tenured-track professors because WUR has a disproportionate number of male professors (75%), which, following the author’s flawed logic, would be a more significant impediment to achieving diversity and inclusion.
Last but not least, a major issue with the article is its failure to acknowledge the academic contributions and research output of Chinese PhDs. Instead, the author chooses to focus on their country of origin, which is entirely beyond their control. By making unfounded claims about Chinese PhDs as individual reseachers, the author seems to be pushing a biased and discriminatory agenda. It is worth considering whether the author would make similar claims about PhDs or researchers funded by institutions from other countries, such as the United States or African countries, who are studying in the Netherlands. The author’s emphasis on the Chinese nationality of the researchers is reminiscent of a troubling historical precedent, which raises serious concerns.
WUR as educational institutions, strive to promote diversity, inclusivity, and respect for all individuals. But I do not see this respect from this article. Is there any possiblility that wur official media is controlled by an anti-China agenda?
I can’t believe it is from university website. #StopJustifyingforRacism #StopStigmatizingChinesePhDs
Last Saturday, four Asian people including me in wageningen got shot by water guns from 3 Dutch people laughing with “Ching chong”. This is the general racism and harassment what we (Asian) people always got. Now, thank to Resource, we got “Resource Racism”! Excited!
I am a CSC PhD student. I find the title and content offensive. The title implies that Chinese PhD students are a problem that needs to be addressed. It is not only disrespectful, but also totally contrary to what JEDI advocates, even perpetuates negative stereotype and the existing inequalities and discrimination faced by Chinese students.
I do agree with the section “work pressure”, and I believe that this issue needs to be addressed. Employee PhD students have fixed work hours per day and can extend their contract, while we only have a four-year contract with CSC, which means we have to work extra hard to finish our PhD journey within four years, including weekends. However, low salaries and no bench fees existing for many years, why author now mentioned it?
I also want to point out that the essay fails to recognize the contributions that Chinese PhD students make to WUR. We are not only recipients of knowledge and resources, but also contribute significantly to WUR. For example I teaching, I supervised several MSc students, I published papers for WUR, I contributed a lot to WUR. With the contributions of a lot of “I”, WUR can be ranked as one of the top universities in the world. Yet, the essay seems to only focus on the negatives, while ignoring the positive contributions of Chinese PhD students.
Furthermore, the essay includes unfounded claims about Chinese PhD students having to report on each other and those they interact with. This is not true, and such statements only contribute to further prejudice and stereotypes about Chinese students.
I hope that in the future, Resource will be careful of their language and messaging on marginalized communities.
Suppose to be a good article that addresses the underpayment issue for international PhDs receiving scholardship from their home countries (espcially Chinese students). However, this article throws itself off the track when it talked about the bench fees. Is non-paid bench fees has anything to do with the underpayment? The tone starting from this part becomes discriminatory and biased on China. It’s unfair and groudnless to state “Chinese students and PHDs lack academic and social freedom”, from the “feeling” of an employee at graduate school. Have you ever interviewed any Chinese PhD or student? NO. You didn’t even specify what the problem is. In fact, the problem like non-payment bench fees, diversity of working atmosphere, research independence mentioned can occur between WUR and any other countries (or even within the Netherlands). So why China? It’s worrying to see Resource publish such an article irresponsibly, and even terrifying to see the misleading and discriminatory texts were publicy present by an journal of an university, which may lead to hatred and racism on China and Chinese students. The article suppose to protect the rights of students, instead, it becomes a weapon, intentionally or unintentionally.
Suppose to be a good article that addresses the underpayment issue for international PhDs receiving scholardship from their home countries (espcially Chinese students). However, this article throws itself off the track when it talked about the bench fees. Is non-paid bench fees has anything to do with the underpayment? The tone starting from this part becomes discriminatory and biased on China. It’s unfair and groudnless to state “Chinese students and PHDs lack academic and social freedom”, from the “feeling” of an employee at graduate school. Have you ever interviewed any Chinese PhD or student? NO. You didn’t even specify what the problem is. In fact, the problem like non-payment bench fees, diversity of working atmosphere, research independence mentioned can occur between WUR and any other countries (or even within the Netherlands). So why China? It’s worrying to see Resource publish such an article irresponsibly, and even terrifying to see the misleading and discriminatory texts were publicy present by an journal of an university, which may lead to hatred and racism on China and Chinese students. The article suppose to protect the rights of students, instead, it becomes a weapon, intentionally or unintentionally.
At first glance, this article seems to be discussing and addressing the issue of low income and inequality faced by international (especially Chinese) scholarship PhD students.
However, suddenly and without any supporting evidence, the article shifts its focus to portraying a “Chinese academic threat.” What does it mean by “Chinese students and PhDs lack academic and social freedom?” Has the author ever considered interviewing some Chinese PhDs to find out the facts? What about other international scholarship PhDs? Have Dutch researchers ever received funding from NWO or other Dutch organizations? Of course, they have and they continue to have. According to the author’s simplistic and crude logic, one could claim that these researchers lack academic freedom and independence as well. So, do you see what’s happening here? This is just creating division. It’s truly shameful and infuriating to see an article full of unfounded speculation and biased values published on the cover of a university journal. As the Chinese saying goes, “If you want to accuse someone, there’s no lack of evidence.
#StopStigmatizingChinesePhDs It is worth considering whether the author would make similar claims about PhDs or researchers funded by institutions from other countries, who are studying in the Netherlands.
It’s absolutely wonderful that Resource has decided to shed light on the underpaid Chinese CSC-PhD students, and to put it front and center to raise awareness and spark discussion within the university. Unfortunately, whoever penned this feature piece appears to have missed the mark as a professional journalist. The entire article is riddled with condescending language and poor logic.
While it’s true that Chinese CSC-PhDs are underpaid, so are other international PhD students with their own sources of funding. Why is China singled out as a country, when the funding body is the Chinese Scholarship Council? Is the NWO equivalent to the Dutch government and to Netherlands as a whole? This author seems to be attempting to generalize too much.
The author claims that self-funded PhDs are a massive cash cow because WUR receives €80,000 for every graduate, but then criticizes those same PhDs for not paying the WUR bench fee. This perspective makes WUR sound more like a mercenary business than an academic institution. WUR would be wise to select a more competent editor for Resource if it hopes to maintain a respectable image.
The author seems to have written the entire article without fact-checking or interviewing any CSC-PhDs. Instead, they seem to have simply copied and pasted information from other media sources, such as the claim that “obligation Chinese PhD students have to report on each other and those they interact with”. What is the source of this information? Has it been fact-checked? It’s hard to say, and it certainly doesn’t give the impression of a well-researched article.
I am wondering who is influencing Resource to publish such racist, logically-confused article on the University journal that target on Chinese? This should not be a place for bias, rumors and political propaganda. Wageningen University used to be open and inclusive, while now people like Roelof Kleis left a shameful stain mark. This article shows a dangerous slippery slop toward situations that can be even worse. I would first encourage people, not only Chinese, to discuss about serious racist issue with your supervisor and in the chair group, open and clear, that racism and targeting against one race/population is not tolerable.
This Roelof Kleis clearly do not have any idea about China or Chinese people, but this do not seem to stop him from talking or fabricating rumors about it, yet in a confusing way.
1, In the first few paragraph he first mentioned that scolarship PhD is under work and financial pressure. Then Roelof Kleis starts to attack on the bench fee issue, and then he start to made up “an estimated” “80% of Chinese PhDs do not pay bench fee”, even though mentioned earlier that “PhD business is a massive cash cow” “WUR receive 80K euro for each PhD completed”. I guess he is actually crying “More Cash!”, well, but definally not “more cash for scolarship student”, who he claimed under financial pressure.
On the other hand, back to the “80% unpaid bench fee”, where is your source of information? When and how it is estimated (and did you only estimated Chinese student)? If you want to talk about bench fee, let’s talk about bench fee for everybody, not just focus on Chinese PhD students. I would love to see your solid and transparant information source.
None of my Chinese collegue said they do not have to pay the bench fee, on the contrary, they do complain that the bench fee is much higher then their rent. And even if “80% of the bench fee is not paid” were true, did WUR agreed this in the contract as exemption, or is Roelof also accusing WUR that they were not capable of implementing what was in the contract and collect the bench fee, yet still continue cooporating?
2, After talking about bench fee issue, Roelof Kleis attact more on “China” and getting more rasist. Even though acknowledging that the “bench fee problem” is actually being addressed, he still provocatively accuse that “China is notoriously difficult to get to pay up”, simply according to his own bias. Anyway, he really know how to say a good thing in a bad way by manipulating test, especially when it is related to China. Perhaps he learned from his journalist experience, but this does not make a good science journalist in WUR.
Then it is even suggest that growth of Chinese student may be a threat to “a good mix of nationalities” and “intergration and collaboration”. Well, what kind of nationality distribution do you prefer, Roelof? And now you don’t talk about “freedom” anymore? Do you suggest that besides PhD students, we should let the position of professors in WUR more “nationally well mixed”? Then I also hope that this journal “Resource” is “well mixed” as well, why not? As far as I know, there are also people in the USA that worry the growth of the “colored-people” is not making a “good mix of race”, I am sure Roelof will enjoy being with these people. By the way, isn’t German the most populated foreign student in the Netherlands?
3, In response to paragraph “China is the elephant in the room”:
Speaking of so call “China’s long arm”, I would say: Roelof, Feenstra, and Esther, the fact that you can sit in front of a keyboard and smear China with such racist suspicion and imaginative rumour, is exactly the proof that there is no such “China’s long arm”. If you want to know whose “long arm” you were lying in, try to think about this in an opposite direction.
And how hypocritic is it to suggest that “Chinese PhD lack of freedom, scared and cannot speak out”. This racist, arrogant article targeting Chinese people IS the thing that scares me, and the most important thing that make me (I believe most of us) fell safer is China. So please do not make things upside down.
About “lack of academic and social freedom”, I am really confused. Is this article suggesting that, Chinese PhD in WUR, who LIVE IN THE NETHERLANDS, lack of freedom? Then, does Roelof Kleis means that Chinese PhD is particularly NOT being treated nicely here? I personally wouldn’t say that 🙂
4, some other smaller points:
– I am confused by the work-play of “WUR’s excessive financial dependence on CSC”. It is actually a good example of academic cooporation between China and the Netherlands which benefits us all. I know Roelof’s intention is to frighten people that “China’s 10000km long arm is here!” , but it also sounds like, he is accusing Dutch government not giving WUR enough support. Or was he accusing WUR for not getting enough support from other associations? Funny enough, this also sound like the Alber Heijn is complaining they are too dependent on one type of customers, although this is not a good metaphor.
– What a vomitting picture/Illustration from Valerie Geelen.
-Resource, please get a new editor, with logical thinking ability, and basic moral and professional standard. It is only good for the journal and the reputation of WUR.
Obvious inconsistency easily spotted out by GPT, try harder next time:
1. Hasty generalization: The article mentions incidents and rumors regarding peer control and the role of the Chinese embassy, but it does not provide concrete evidence or specific examples to support these claims. Relying on anecdotes without verifiable data can lead to hasty generalizations.
2. Oversimplification: The article suggests that the reliance on Chinese scholarship PhDs is solely driven by the incentive to recruit a PhD candidate at a lower cost, without considering other potential factors such as research collaborations and specific areas of expertise. It oversimplifies the motivations behind the recruitment process.
3. Ambiguity: The article refers to “incidents” related to Chinese PhD candidates but does not provide clear details or examples to substantiate these claims. Without specific information, it is difficult to evaluate the nature or extent of these incidents.
4. False cause: The article implies a cause-and-effect relationship between the financial dependence on the Chinese Scholarship Council (CSC) and the alleged lack of academic and social freedom for Chinese PhD candidates. However, it does not provide direct evidence to support this causal link, leaving room for alternative explanations.
5. Sweeping generalization: The article makes broad statements about Chinese PhD candidates lacking academic and social freedom without providing a nuanced perspective or considering individual experiences. It is important to avoid assuming that all Chinese PhD candidates face the same challenges or restrictions.
The Resource recognises it self “straight, sharp and transparent” , and you may anticipate the essay would show some respects to those values. Unfortunately there are only typical opposites in this essay.
“Straight”: The underpayment issue was raised at the beginning, while it makes people wonder how it shifts to a series of ridiculous unfounded accusations which have nothing to do with the payment issue. It turns out that the payment issue was only a cover for the discriminatory content that followed.
“Sharp”: Instead of engaging with Chinese PhDs to understand the truth about the so-called “China issue”, closed-minded and ignorant were chosen. It enjoys more living in a self-imposed bubble rather than being sharp, .
“Transparency”: The article is filled with bias, misleading information, and unfounded accusations that are from no where. No single evidence or example was shown. It is shocking to see this type of writing in the WUR magazine.
In the end, it was a disaster of delivering any points and messages effectively, but a great success of spreading rumours, insecurity, estrangement and racism in this community.
It is hard to believe that such a one-sided and biased article, which is not based on comprehensive factual evidence but only on the subjective assumptions of the author, would be published on the website of a university that focuses on scientific research. It makes me wonder about the attitude of the author and the people who agree with this article towards scientific research. #Stop Justifying for Racism #Stop Stigmatizing Chinese PhDs
The whole article is full of stereotypes and discrimination against China, without factual basis. The author attempts to cover up his criticism and discrimination against Chinese students by calling for an increase in the income of Chinese PhDs. The article pointed out that Chinese PhD lack academic freedom, which is simply nonsense. Every research of Chinese students is based on full communication with WUR supervisors, and they research plan has also been affirmed by the supervisors and agreed by the academic committee. What is even more exasperating is that we were labeled as having no academic freedom without receiving any invitation or interview. As far as I know, more than one-third of the PhD students are paid by Chinese research institutions. At the same time, the problem of bench fee payment also occurs for doctoral students from other countries.
Generally speaking, the whole article is full of ignorance about cooperation. We provide WUR with cheap labor and a large amount of research results, the system of WUR provides good guidance to Chinese PhD students. This is a win-win relationship, but in the author’s opinion it is a waste. It is ridiculous that such discriminatory and personal biased comments appear in WUR RESOURCE . We are partners, not affiliates and enemies. We need to be treated fairly.
Het hele artikel staat vol met stereotypen en discriminatie tegen China, zonder feitelijke basis. De auteur probeert zijn kritiek op en discriminatie van Chinese studenten te verdoezelen door te pleiten voor een verhoging van de inkomsten van Chinese promovendi. Het artikel wees erop dat Chinese PhD’s geen academische vrijheid hebben, wat gewoon onzin is. Elk onderzoek van Chinese studenten is gebaseerd op volledige communicatie met WUR-begeleiders, en hun onderzoeksplan is ook bevestigd door de begeleiders en goedgekeurd door de academische commissie. Wat nog irritanter is, is dat we werden bestempeld als hebbende geen academische vrijheid zonder een uitnodiging of interview te ontvangen. Voor zover ik weet, wordt meer dan een derde van de promovendi betaald door Chinese onderzoeksinstellingen. Tegelijkertijd doet het probleem van de benchfee-betaling zich ook voor bij promovendi uit andere landen.
Over het algemeen staat het hele artikel vol onwetendheid over samenwerking. Wij voorzien WUR van goedkope arbeidskrachten en een grote hoeveelheid onderzoeksresultaten, het systeem van WUR zorgt voor een goede begeleiding van Chinese promovendi. Dit is een win-winrelatie, maar volgens de auteur zonde. Het is belachelijk dat zulke discriminerende en persoonlijk bevooroordeelde opmerkingen in WUR RESOURCE voorkomen. We zijn partners, geen partners en vijanden. We moeten eerlijk worden behandeld.
#StopJustifyingforRacism #StopStigmatizingChinesePhDs
“International scholared phDs have financial difficulties”
—->”Some of them are from China”
—–> Okay, let’s talk about China and China’s long arm”
——>” Universities are misusing the fund to train Chinese scientists”
—–>”Dutch taxpayers are helping to fund the education of Chinese people”
Impressive logic, impressive
The editor has such a talent for moving the point from “student’s financial difficulty” to a conclusion he/she wants. It is such a squander of your brilliance to only write for a university-level magazine, ever considered being a politician?😊😊😊
I am not gonna say anything because I am a Chinese and I am biased. But when we put this article to chatgpt, chatgpt has something to say:
1. Hasty generalization: The article mentions incidents and rumors regarding peer control and the role of the Chinese embassy, but it does not provide concrete evidence or specific examples to support these claims. Relying on anecdotes without verifiable data can lead to hasty generalizations.
2. Oversimplification: The article suggests that the reliance on Chinese scholarship PhDs is solely driven by the incentive to recruit a PhD candidate at a lower cost, without considering other potential factors such as research collaborations and specific areas of expertise. lt oversimplifies the motivations behind the recruitment process
3. Ambiguity: The article refers to “incidents” related to Chinese PhD candidates but does not provide clear details or examples to substantiate these claims. Without specific information. it is difficult to evaluate the nature or extent of these incidents.
4, False cause: The article implies a cause-and-effect relationship between the financial dependence on the ChineseScholarship Council (CSC) and the alleged lack of academic and social freedom for Chinese PhD candidates however it does not provide direct evidence to support this causal link, leaving room for alternative explanations.
5. Sweeping generalization: The article makes broad statements about Chinese PhD candidates lacking academic and social freedom without providing a nuanced perspective or considering individual experiences. It is important to avoid assuming that all Chinese PhD candidates face the same challenges or restrictions.
It is troubling to read an article that discusses a significant issue like the low income of doctoral students. Nonetheless, the author uses it to propagate a false and skewed narrative regarding CSC PhD candidates. It is unjustifiable and wrong to recommend that preparing these understudies squanders assets and citizen cash. CSC PhD competitors have gone through a thorough determination cycle to get grants from the Chinese government to seek after their investigations abroad. They significantly advance global science and technology by bringing valuable skills, knowledge, and a variety of viewpoints to the research community.
The author tries to say that the research done by CSC PhD students is only good for China. However, this is not at all the case. These students’ research contributes to global scientific knowledge rather than being restricted to the interests of their home nation. The exploration discoveries are distributed in logical diaries and imparted to the more extensive academic local area to serve all.
It is also important to note that the university owns all of the research results produced by CSC PhD candidates at WUR, and the students do not benefit financially from their work. As a result, the erroneous and unfair claim that they are taking advantage of the resources and taxpayer funds is baseless.
In addition, the image that appears alongside the text of the article is highly offensive and shows disrespect for Chinese people. Seeing one’s nationality portrayed in such a negative light can be hurtful. It is essential to foster mutual respect and appreciation for diverse backgrounds and cultures.
Shocking to see such an article full of ridiculous logic, and extremely humiliating illustrations on the cover of impacting WUR magazine @resource. Can anyone accept that the flag of their nationality is printed on the big ass of a kneeling elephant????
I do hope the Resource takes the comments below seriously. Stressing the importance of underpaid PhDs is great, yet there is no need to put the Chinese community in such a negative light. Is there no reflection within Resource to consider racist expressions in its pieces?
The article is not only stigmatizing for Chinese PhD students (‘lacking academic and social freedom, scared and cannot speak out’), but also for their supervisors (‘using PhD students as foot soldiers and misusing Dutch tax money to fund the education of Chinese population’). Not a single Chinese PhD student has been interviewed for this story, and none of their supervisors has been interviewed either. As far as I know, none of the three people cited in the article has personally supervised one or more Chinese PhDs. I have supervised quite a few CSC PhDs and two Chinese AIOs, and I don’t recognize myself at all in this story. And this undoubtedly also applies to other supervisors of Chinese PhDs in Wageningen that I know and with whom I work. There is little use in still interviewing these two groups that (against all the principles of good journalism) are not asked for their ideas and opinions. The damage has already been done. At most, it can make a minor contribution to damage control.
What a problematic, Sinophobic article. I’m frankly embarrassed that the institution I work for would publish this. It is overt China-baiting, scapegoating an already vulnerable community for the structural problems in Dutch academia. Resource should seriously consider a retraction of this article and an apology to the WUR Chinese community.
I guess the author must own a minor Master degree in Racismology and Discriminatology 😅
As a Chinese CSC student, I am so shocked to read Resource article named “We need to talk about China”. This article starts with the low scholorship of Chinese CSC PhD student. On the surface, it seems to be concerned that the low salary of Chinese CSC students studying abroad cannot guarantee the basic life. In fact, it does not help us find a way to solve the problem. Instead, the article is filled with discrimination, prejudice, and even insults towards China and Chinese CSC students has left me deeply disturbed. It is disheartening to witness the author’s complete disregard for the truth, as they spout baseless allegations without any factual basis.The illustration of this article also puts our Chinese flag on the elephant’s butt, which is an insult to us. It is also said that we Chinese students are elephants trapped in the house. This is simply discrimination and prejudice against us! I respect freedom of speech but not those who insult us. This kind of irresponsible article not only perpetuates harmful stereotypes but also undermines the trust and harmony within our WUR academic community. As a Chinese CSC student myself, I am appalled and deeply saddened by the emotional harm caused by such biased reporting. It is disheartening to see such ignorance and intolerance prevail, tarnishing the reputation of our esteemed institution. I don’t understand why Reaourse made this article public. What is the original intention? I wish we could get a public apology! Hope more anti-discrimination departments can play a monitoring role!
Dear all who spoke and reacted, I very much appreciate you expressed yourselves open and courageously! Just to remind to some that Resource is an independent magazine and definitely will respond in a well-considered way. I also just read that intranet editors removed some posts because these were offensive to persons. That is fair enough. Media are good to articulate discontent and concerns but need follow-up. I would encourage to exchange more in-depth within the WUR community including Chinese staff and students, what is underlying and what/how we can do better. Surely, more PhD students live from allowances and no salaries; although PhD students in many countries do not get salaries at all, here is a lot to improve as DARE signalled as well. Surely, all students and staff contribute with their brains, devotion and networks; and we all know exchange through living here and teaching in China also connects cultures. Indeed, we have to be cautious to follow any lead and be explicit in how we contribute to foster worldwide healthy relationships. Having Chinese and other students and staff at WUR has been considered as a contribution to international understanding and an opportunity to learn from each other; let us finding out together how we see the new circumstances and how to address them!
Will this article improve working conditions for PhD students, or will it increase readers’ hatred of the Chinese? We didn’t see anything in the article about what measures are being taken to improve working conditions for ALL PhD students, nor when this improvement will happen, only stereotypes and lack of facts about Chinese students. Why does improving the welfare of all people start with stigmatizing a group?
Stop rationalizing the stigmatization of Chinese students with various excuses.
Please allow me to shower you with profound admiration for your unparalleled scientific rigor. Your article about Chinese PhDs is truly remarkable, considering it didn’t bother to interview a single Chinese person. How insightful of you to assume that you can accurately represent an entire population without actually engaging with them. Clearly, your expertise knows no bounds.
Besides, it’s truly remarkable how you managed to detect the absence of units on your chart. As a fellow scientific researcher, I must confess that your exceptional attention to detail—specifically the lack thereof—leaves me with no choice but to cast doubt upon the scientific validity of your entire article. I mean, who needs credibility when you can have a captivating narrative, right?
The tone and writing style of this article have left me deeply confused and puzzled about its true purpose. It starts by stating the issue of low salaries for CSC PhD students, but then abruptly shifts towards numerous stereotypes and Sinophobia remarks. This leaves me wondering if the true purpose of this article is to express concerns about the underpayment of PhD students (not only exsits among the CSC group but also other scholarship PhDs of all nationalities) or if the discussion of low CSC salaries is merely a pretext for later expressing the Sinophobia sentiments. I’m pleased to see the University Rector expressing support for the WUR Chinese community this morning. However, considering that Resource is an independent magazine, can I expect an independent response from Resource as well?
I might be late for the party. But I must express my disappointment about this article. It starts with some facts and then moves to a very biased and misleading value. I found there is lack of direct quotes or facts from the people the article is talking about. This is definitely contradicting the efforts towards creating an inclusive and diverse academic community. I never saw a article that carries so much biases got published on a public media in New Zealand over the last nine years before I moved here. Personally, I feel that WUR is no longer that beautiful as it was in my dream. Such so called freedom of speech is more like a pop article that is trying to create chaos and hatred.
It is sad to see this articles with political bias and discriminatory graphics coming out of the “best agricultural university in the world”. There are many eye-catching unconfirmed opinions, which are cater to the readers with stereotyped and prejudiced impression of China. In other words, this article is dressed in the cloak of rational discussion, mixed with the author’s strong personal views.
International cooperation is for a better future for our planet and human beings. I call on the school to provide a better learning environment for international students, so that international students can focus more on science instead of clarifying false news.If WUR really cares about international students, I believe that equal dialogue communication is better than biased and provocative articles.
Apart from the issues raised by Chinese colleagues in previous comments (whom I wholeheartedly agree with on the basis that this whole article is a Sinophobic, racist mess of incoherent arguments based on vague allusion and hearsay which excludes any Chinese perspectives), I wonder about the perspectives of the WASS and WIMEK representatives quoted here. I wonder, specifically, to what extent ‘China’ as a nebulous political entity is being conflated with ‘students from China,’ and what impact this has on how the graduate schools view and subsequently treat Chinese students and researchers. I wonder this, because ‘Chinese PhDs’ seems to be considered by the author as simply outputs or subsidiaries of ‘China, the nation-state’ rather than as individual people who have personal goals and agency.
If representatives of the graduate schools fail to acknowledge or understand this distinction (which, again, is not clear based on the quotes chosen for the article, and may not even be the case), then that constitutes a form of dehumanization that has no place anywhere in society, let alone WUR, let alone WASS and WIMEK. I truly hope that the people in charge of our graduate schools — particularly Johan Feenstra, who is responsible for the ‘balanced mix’ quote — are not as Sinophobic as they are presented here, and I think this needs to be interrogated as well.
It would be particularly helpful, I think, if those sources quoted here (Johan Feenstra, Esther Roquas, and Lennart Beun) could clarify what they meant by their comments and confirm whether or not they had been taken out of context, misquoted, or misunderstood. Otherwise, it will be difficult to trust that there is not an undercurrent of Sinophobia within WASS and WIMEK (and perhaps other graduate schools as well, as this is very likely an institutional problem) that negatively impacts Chinese PhD researchers.
I don’t see a “China problem.”
(Though I do see a problem with making a hashtag of “Chinese influence.” A New Red Scare?)
I see a problem (multiple problems, perhaps) with the current system, thus a “systematic problem.”
Too much pressure to achieve more and more “output” with less and less resources (money, time, space, etc.).
Too high administrative burden on staff members.
Too many perverse incentives.
Sometimes it feels like a house of cards that can come crashing down at any moment.
The article clearly addresses inacceptable conditions for Chines PhDs that amount to exploitation. Other universities (e.g. University of Amsterdam) have made the effort to top up every international PhD student’s salary to meet Dutch legal requirements, while WUR and the CSC are operating in a very “special” way to state this diplomatically. I hope that this situation will finally be addressed, this is inacceptable and probably illegal. As to the other points: the article is just loaded with xenophobia. If you want to critique the CCP, the PRC or the CSC, be my guest, there’s a lot to be said on these institutions. And here we have the key word: institutions. The article clearly fails to draw a clear line between institutions and individuals. The article is not even making the attempt to raise also awareness for the individual PhD students situation. Instead of making the effort of reaching out to this group and try to understand what it actually means to navigate your life in a coercive system like the PRC, they’re thrown in front of the bus altogether. From personal talks with Chinese PhD candidates I know that they’re far from a uniform army of ‘foot soldiers’ that all comply with the command of their chief but that they’re in complicated and at times messy situations very often. The depiction of an ugly elephant’s fat back part lingering around an international coffee table you’re shaming a whole group who’s being exploited already into this abominable metaphor of an unwelcome guest. This is blatant racism and you can see what Geert Wilders et al. have managed in lowering the baseline of what’s being perceived as basic human decency in the public discourse in this country. Disgusting, shame on you, honestly. Again, we need to talk about the issues mentioned above, but not in this way.
1. The article mentions that our Chinese students do the same jobs as students from other countries, but the funding provided by csc is lower than the average salary, so why can’t it provide the rest of the salary?
2. The students mentioned in the article who cooperated with the two colleges of CAU and CSSA did not pay the bench fee. Can you provide evidence? as far as i know, students from both cau and cssa pay the bench fee, and this part of the fee is paid by cau and cssa
3.Be careful! Although the full text does not mention any racial discrimination, the feeling revealed in the text is completely racial discrimination. Please do not make any claims without a factual basis.
Why WUR can’t provide the rest of salary ? Chinese students also work for WUR!!
China, the long arm of China, Chinese students, do you think you understand China so well that you can write so confidently ?!“China is the elephant in the room. I am wondering how long Wageningen is going to carry on hosting a very large group of students and PhD candidates who lack academic and social freedom. Who are scared and can’t speak out” Does this sentence mean that WUR should not recruit Chinese students? Or do you think that the Netherlands is controlled by China and dare not recruit “lack academic” Chinese students? I have to say Chinese students are really “lack social freedom” in Nederland! Obviously, this article is the best reflection, because our Chinese students have not accepted any interviews with resources！
I’m very sorry to see such an article. I really can’t believe that such an article without logic and rigor was written by a magazine affiliated with the University of Wageningen. As one of the best universities in the world, Wageningen University is renowned for its outstanding academic abilities and excellent education system. These achievements are not only based on Wageningen University’s continuous pursuit of scientific research, but also because Wageningen University is steadfast in its work, and this unsubstantiated article is a complete disservice to the reputation of Wageningen University. As a matter of fact, I hope Resource magazine can revoke this article and apologize to all Chinese doctoral students studying at Wageningen University, This is a serious insult to Chinese students and a prejudice full of ignorance towards China!
WUR stands as an esteemed institution on the global stage, renowned for its unparalleled academic prowess, international ambiance, inclusivity, and exemplary education system. It is disheartening, however, to come across an article of such nature on the university’s website.
While I genuinely appreciate the attention given to the issue of salary for scholarship PhD students, I must express my disappointment with certain arguments that appear to lack factual basis. Phrases like “controlled by government” and “no academic freedom” hold little merit and fail to provide substantial evidence. Moreover, it is regrettable that the author has chosen to singularly emphasize the advantages enjoyed by Chinese PhD students, while completely disregarding the academic contributions and research output of their Chinese counterparts. It is worth noting that Chinese PhD students often engage in the same level of work as employee PhD students. This glaring omission presents an unbalanced perspective.
Furthermore, the depiction presented in the article is both distressing and unsettling, evoking discomfort. Besides, the strong focus has been put on the nationality of Chinese scholarship PhD students. Now, a question is raised: what about scholarship PhD students from other countries?？ It has to be said that, even though not explicitly stated in the article, a subtle sense of racial discrimination is distinctly perceived from the manner of its composition…
Every day this polarizing article remains online in its present form, it creates more damage and continues to hurt the Chinese community at WUR. Yet, after 1,5 months, Wageningen Graduate Schools still did not make the public statement that it promised to make and that would contradict many of the claims made in the article. And the Editorial Board of Resource still did not take any action despite the fact that the article clearly violates Basic Principle 1.5 of Resource’s own Editorial Statute (file:///C:/Users/heeri001/Downloads/20102018-Resource-Editorial-Statute.pdf) and even Article 1 of our national Constitution (file:///C:/Users/heeri001/Downloads/WEB_119406_Grondwet_Koninkrijk_ENG.pdf).
Exactly! Not only CSC funded PhDs, but also sandwich PhDs, external PhDs and etc., there are many other non-contract PhDs types from different countries in the world at WUR for many years!!!!!!!!!!!!
So, please, if you want to talk about the financial issue, let’s talk about payment, funding and salary; if you want to talk about equality, let’s discuss about the huge difference of rights between contract-PhDs and non-contract PhDs; if you want to talk about CSC funded PhDs, go and talk to them, ask what kind of freedom, problems, rights, responsibilities and etc. do they have related to CSC funding…Again, the financial issue is faced by all non-contract PhDs who cannot even be a WUR council!!!!!
It’s ridiculous to declare that WUR is losing a lot of money because CSC refuse to pay bench fee for CSC-funded PhDs. On the one hand, there should have been an agreement between WUR/ Dutch institute/ government about duties and rights before enrolling any PhDs. On the other hand, since PhDs are considered as employees in the Netherlands who are usually paid by the institute, WUR have been saving and reducing enormous expense by enrolling CSC or any other non-contract PhDs!!! I suppose any Dutch university have been clear about it for years.
However, in the first article related to China, instead of raising awareness, it’s turned out to be more political and discriminative toward vulnerable CSC-funded Chinese PhDs, who need to work as hard and much, with less pay, pressure to graduate, far away from home in a cold, wet, distant foreign country. And when there is a problem, they are being played like a ball from both the student and employee affair offices, because they are neither students nor employees, which has been many years and known from the beginning.
It’s said that people don’t really want to discuss but only talk for their own pre-conclusion, assumption and imagination under most circumstances. It’s just sad that a diverse, inclusive and international famous research institute like WUR have been ignoring all those problems related to non-contract PhDs, or not pushing enough to make it better after years. Worse still, many people even just turn an blind eye to let systematic discrimination go on.
Unfortunately, I also heard several horrible racism and discrimination experience from Asian female PhDs at
WUR. I don’t know if there is any relation, I have to say. And I am tired of saying it, because occupational social work (BMW) is not accessible to non-contract PhDs, there is no much social safety can do, and the majority of people in most chair groups and graduate schools didn’t even attend the mind-lab performance last year, either because they think it’s unnecessary or it’s just not important enough to make time for it. Let alone to take any actions such as participating by-stander training, or simply talk to and get to know their colleagues, either CSC-funded PhDs or any other non-contract PhDs, who have been in WUR for so many years, yet most people didn’t know they have been being underpaid, how surprising and interesting!
Just wanted to let readers know that the voices of Chinese PhDs who initiated the petition letter and organized the demonstrations are not represented in any piece of Resource’s publication so far, nor were they included in the interviews of Resource’s latest release “It feels like there is an institutional bias against us” on June 29, 2023.
Why were they excluded? The Editor-in-Chief declined to meet with them to listen to their concerns and reasons when they expressed their hesitation to rush into accepting Resource’s interview within a three-day deadline for the edition’s production. Instead, he insisted that his team would “try to find a way to do a follow-up story in another way.” The piece published on June 29, 2023 seems to serve as that “another way” to defend the editorial team and repair Resource’s reputation. It is misleading by, e.g., using the subheading “Chinese PhD candidates have their say in response to an article previously published in Resource,” creating the untrue impression that Chinese PhDs’ views and opinions are well represented in this piece and they are happy with this solution provided by Resource.
Has the editorial team thoroughly read and considered the petition letter (https://forms.gle/PbKSiorVbtKBvUju7), which was signed by 773 individuals, the documented responses from some Chinese PhD students (https://forms.gle/CpVvNZhrHQnfjWhh9), and the critiques from organizations such as the Anti-Racism Association (ARA) Wageningen, the Dutch Anti-Asian-Racism NGO, Asian Raisins, another WUR journalism outlet, The Jester (article “We need to talk about Resource” in Edition 14), as well as the perspectives shared by numerous members of the WUR community?
“The opposite of love is not hate, but indifference.” That indifference is often rooted in prejudice and arrogance, in the belief that some people, such as Chinese, are inferior, and in an authoritarian approach that rarely listens to others.
the article “We need to talk about Resource” published by The Jester:
https://forms.gle/MUpJnuDQrjaZPpgA8
It took a day for Resource to review and approve my original comments above before they were shown here. If I had not reached out by email to inquire about the restriction on my commenting rights, I am uncertain how long it would have taken for my comments to be publicly visible.
I have never engaged in any disrespectful comments before. I would appreciate an explanation of which rule my comments above violated in terms of “freedom of speech” that the editorial team has been proud of.
Resource, as a self-proclaimed “critical” journalism outlet, it is important for you to be able to accept and consume critical comments, even if they are not to your liking. I believe you are also aware that restricting people’s rights or freedom to comment, through whatever mechanism, is not the appropriate way to address problems.
I hope we are listening to each other.