However, there has been serious dissent in recent months among Yale faculty members, who are concerned about partnering with a Singaporean government that restricts freedom of speech and press, stymies full political participation, and has some pretty draconian social laws that might not be in accord with American sensibilities.
I am weighing in now because we are holding our own liberal education program here at Stanford (Humanities Education and Leadership or HEAL) with many students from China attending, and I am struck, once again, by the moment.
Singapore Partnership Creates Dissension at Yale
Is Yale a Reliable Partner for the National University of Singapore?
So I might be wading into a thicket ... but I want to say to Yale:
Even Stanford, which the New Yorker claims is Stanford Inc. (and proud of it!), still respects and cares for its mission of liberal education. While the idea of a liberal arts college in Singapore is exciting -- East Asia sorely needs this kind of new approach to education -- the qualms of students, alumni and faculty ought to be heard, and the issues thoroughly aired and debated.
For example, what protections have been built in for the students and faculty you are welcoming under the banner of Yale in Singapore? In a country where censorship, paternalism, and intimidation by the state on political grounds still persists, will free speech be upheld? Can people sing, say, study, scream, demand, decry, support, condemn, protest and celebrate the same things they would at Yale in New Haven? What protections for freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, freedom to love have you asked for and been guaranteed in this new venture? Yes, I understand there's a prospectus that says some of the right words in this regard, but what is its scope and the strength of its promises?
It's one thing to be collaborative and to establish a new institutional culture based on mutuality. (One must still ask if that newly-formed culture remains true to the home school. That was one concern I had about Stanford in New York, and why many students were not unhappy when the plan was shelved). But when a foreign state offers to pay for everything to "import" Yale? In this case, you are in a position of power; you are not the supplicant. Use your leverage for good!
Yale is not just a brand name, and it is not a vocational school. It is an institution of higher learning. Aside from competence in the subjects, you have a greater mission to teach ethics, inculcate values, and contribute to the broadening of minds. Building a culture of open inquiry, respect for truth, and caring for others -- that is your mission. Please don't forget it.
I actually love Singapore and considered moving there after graduation. I'm still planning to go some day. However, I want this issue to be discussed and considered, not just rammed through over the objections of thinking, caring people -- our brothers, sisters and teachers at Yale, and perhaps also the scholars and watchers of East Asia and the American academic community at large.
The ironic thing is that I don't necessarily disagree with -- and frankly, am fascinated by -- many of the Singaporean government's policies. As a democrat, I take issue with muzzling of the press and the difficulties imposed on the democratic opposition. But many programs in housing and community development are innovative, effective and even sagacious, and could provide models we can learn from and apply in other contexts.
I was excited about the idea of Yale-NUS at first, but now I also want Yale faculty and students who have concerns to be heard.
I'm not sure if the university administration really has closed the case. But please read this editorial from our brethren at Yale. The intelligence and maturity with which they write makes me so proud.
Remaining Yale in Singapore