Thread by @BaldingsWorld

There is an important aspect to understanding how money, ideas, universities, and think tanks work. When donors give money to a university or think for let's say a "China Center" (though pretty much applies to anything else) everyone involved is smart enough to avoid the 1/n

Paper trail in litigation that would wreck them. By that I mean the public statements and private contracts will all say the right things about respecting academic freedom, no strings attached to the money, that allows them to claim no influence from donors 2/n

Put another way, I've personally never witnessed nor heard credible evidence of an academic or think tank publishing something because they were told what to say or were contractually obligated. However, that does not absolve universities or think tanks because what happens 3/n

Is think tanks or universities hire people with that money who are "mission aligned" and elevate their voices. So the Yalibaba Paul Tsai Center does not need to tell people what to say, it just hires China apologists, elevates their voices, and gets out of the way 4/n

This happens over and over for think tanks and universities everywhere on China. This results in two things. First, there absolutely is a degree of self censorship. This takes explicit and implicit forms but it absolutely takes both forms. Explicit censorship is where 5/b

Institution states that will not engage in a project for fear of angering money donors. This happens at universities and think tanks as well as yes (gasp) journalism and media outlets(advertisers). Arguably however, is implicit censoring which is softer but more pernicious 6/n

Implied censoring is where an institution or academic tones down what they would otherwise say to avoid angering someone. They still say something but they water it down significantly. What's an example? Many institutions that take large amounts of CCP produce a human rights 7/n

paper as plausible deniability but continue to push watered down solutions like engagement, change through trade, and policy success. The game theory is set up so that China doesn't need a US university or think tank to avoid all criticism of China for China to win 8/n

It needs to avoid the imposition of material costs. So by elevating China friendly "useful idiots" (Which is the technical term) that will give a gentle nod to problems of human rights but avoid doing anything China wins. The soft self censoring waters down recommendations 9/n

to such a degree they become virtually no better than the straight apologists. As the saying goes if you are lukewarm I'll spit you from my mouth. Seriously think about why senior CCP leaders and US partners give so much to US universities and think tanks if they 10/n

Receive no benefit. Let it be known many institutions have specific contractual clauses that prohibit criticizing a donor anywhere anytime for any reason implied or explicit. However, the corruption is rarely so straight forward but rather elevating voice that accept cues 11/n

and self censor to continue playing the game with broadly mission aligned players. That's how the game is played and why you will see so little criticism of China from universities and think tanks from even places you would think should be critical.