Thread by @WilliamYang120

Last week, Australian academic Jane Golley claimed that an anonymous academic paper "debunked" the estimated number of #Uyghurs detained in #Xinjiang as well as the evidence of forced labor in the region. She reflected on that incident: smh.com.au/world/asia/anu…

"The anonymous 18-page document took aim at work by Australia’s Strategic Policy Institute but primarily focused on the work by German academic Dr Adrian Zenz, a senior fellow in China studies at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation who was recently sanctioned by China."

"Several of Zenz’s key works have been peer-reviewed by Xinjiang scholars. By contrast, the report attempting to discredit his work has not been peer-reviewed."

"@adrianzenz said the paper would “struggle to get a pass mark as an undergraduate assignment” as it contained significant factual errors and appeared to be written by someone with no Chinese-language skills, leading to basic misinterpretations."

“Professor Golley has publicly endorsed a sub-par paper that constitutes a thinly-veiled attempt to discredit my work through a misleading and unprofessional discussion of my methodology,” he said.

“I am surprised that Golley fails to realise that this will reflect very poorly on her academic reputation.

Professor Golley dug in but conceded she had made a mistake in saying the document debunked Zenz’s research. “I wish I’d said ‘challenged’ instead of ‘debunked,’” she said.

She said she had received the paper via a former Australian ambassador to China, who she declined to name, and said she had consulted two other colleagues before going public.

“They all thought it was scholarly, it was well written and there were lots of footnotes nearly all in English,” she said of the report.

“So that’s where I used my academic judgment, I’ve spent my whole life peer-reviewing articles. I read it and thought that there were many points that make sense to me.

“I’m not saying I understand Xinjiang perfectly, but if I read an article that makes sense to me why aren’t I allowed to raise that?” She said she raised the report to counter the prevailing media narrative in Australia surrounding Chinese relations.

“I know more about Xinjiang than Pompeo, I don’t want to sound cocky but I know more than what 99 percent of Australians know about Xinjiang.

“There are all sorts of fuzzy lines between what constitutes forced and what constitutes choice - what if 30 per cent of Uighurs are choosing to work?”

Professor Golley said she still did not know the authors of the paper but defended their right to submit the paper to her anonymously via proxies, saying they would be “persecuted” if exposed.

“When the names come out there will be some Chinese names in the list and people will immediately assume that they’ve been subjected to Beijing’s orders when it might be the case that ...

... that’s just how they see the world, and then they’ll be persecuted - they’re going to be labelled spies.”

She said she had never been paid a single cent by the Chinese Communist Party but that had failed to stem an avalanche of “hate mail” “close to death threats” telling her to “f--- off, you communist spy,” and calling her a “shill” for China.

“I feel so misjudged, if people knew me, I just want the best for the Uighurs,” she said. She said her motivation for presenting the paper was a concern that academic freedom is being stifled in Australia,...

... but she was also concerned that exaggerating China’s human rights abuses could backfire if it emerged they were overstated.

Here is a piece that Jane Golley wrote in response:

https://twitter.com/AusOpinion/status/1386917798853578752