Addressing the Troubling Situation of Qatar and American Universities

The United States prides itself on being the most open society in the world, with our colleges and universities serving as great catalysts for scientific development, cultural advancement, and economic prosperity. Yet this very openness creates risks. Foreign entities, especially foreign governments, are increasingly using their wealth to turn American higher education institutions into channels of political influence, a development that demands serious legal and institutional scrutiny.

China’s efforts in this regard are well documented and rightly draw government scrutiny. But China, despite its escalating strategic competition with the United States, is not the largest foreign donor to American universities. That honor belongs to the tiny Gulf emirate of Qatar. And given the insignificant size of Qatari industry and scientific research, we should wonder what it is the Qataris are buying.

More than merely a generous donor or grant making entity, Qatar is a wealthy, non-democratic state that has spent years and billions of dollars cultivating influence in Washington while often pursuing foreign policy goals antithetical to core American interests and those of our key allies in the Middle East.

Moreover, some of these anti-American, anti-Israel, and pro-Islamist goals themselves are now supported and pushed through American institutions over which Qatar holds significant leverage, fueling an environment of student radicalism on American college campuses.

Section 117 of the Higher Education Act, the main legal instrument with which the government regulates foreign gifts to American universities, is not up to the challenge of meeting this growing threat. Its transparency and reporting mechanisms merely require universities to report foreign donations above $250,000. Aside from the fact that universities often fail to disclose the full amounts they receive, much of the foreign funding comes not in the form of outright donations but in opaque grants and contracts.

Recent releases from the House Education Committee show that Qatar’s agreements with American universities are carefully designed to provide access to intellectual property, governance boards, and academic credentialing, access Qatar then uses to promote its interests and ideological scholarship.

A name of an American university is a credential of trust. When that name is sold out to the highest bidder — in this case a non-democratic state with well-documented support for Islamist terror movements — the implications reach far beyond campus.

The Qatari contracts obtained and released by Congress also revealed that the appearance of full American control is maintained, even while embedding Qatari stakeholders in governance structures and providing Qatar access to research output and institutional know-how developed under the university’s name. Some were even directly signed by the Qatari foreign ministry –and completely abolish the line between academic research and state propaganda.

Moreover, agreements with state run media networks like Al Jazeera and elite American journalism schools provide reputational benefits, help whitewash the reality of the company as an instrument of narrative control, and raise serious questions about independence.

American universities have been immensely successful because of their commitment to academic freedom, open inquiry, and independence. Unfortunately, many of the countries that are writing the big checks do not share those values. It is therefore critical that we examine these relationships carefully and determine whose interests will be protected if a clash of values occurs. Too often, it will not be those of the United States.

The U.S. government carefully regulates foreign investment in strategic sectors, such as ports, telecommunications, energy, and defense, because access to these sectors can have serious national security implications. This regulation takes many forms, such as the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).

Yet, consider the national security implications of allowing a foreign government access to our educational infrastructure. Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service educates a large proportion of the U.S. diplomatic corps, intelligence community, and Congressional staff. Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism educates a significant portion of America’s journalists. Should not the Qataris’ negotiation of these two “investments” be treated like any other attempt by a foreign government to gain a foothold in our critical infrastructure?

At a minimum, Congress should update Section 117 of the Higher Education Act to require full disclosure of foreign gifts, including the source of the gift and any agreements or contracts related to the gift.

Second, we should develop a certification process that ensures that these programs will maintain academic independence and will not lead to foreign government control (formal or informal) over hiring, curriculum, admissions, research, or other aspects of university governance. There should be penalties for false or misleading certifications.

Third, the U.S. Department of Education should develop a special review process for the most risky foreign country-university partnerships, including those from countries that are not democratic, that operate state-owned companies and media distribution networks, or that have ties to extremist or terrorist movements.

Finally, American universities need to recognize that what began as a public relations issue has become a national security issue. They should consider whether they want to accept these contracts at all, given their potential implications for national security. In the meantime, they should review all major contracts with foreign governments and disclose the terms of those contracts.

An important bipartisan step in this direction would be passage of the DETERRENT Act (H.R.1048/S.1296), currently before Congress. It would be the first step needed to address this urgent problem.

LtGen (ret.) Karsten Heckl most recently served as the Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command (MCCDC)/Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration (CD&I) for the United States Marine Corps. LtGen Heckl is a Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) Generals & Admirals Program participant.

Hussein Mansour is JINSA’s Gemunder Center Fellow for Arab Affairs and the author of the Abrahamic Metacritique Substack.

Read the original piece in Algemeiner.