Universities Must Police Foreign Influence

On June 5, the Qatar Foundation International (QFI) announced that, after almost two decades of pursuing its stated mission of advancing Arabic language and cultural education, it would begin winding down operations. 

The announcement came shortly after the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) released a report alleging that QFI spent millions influencing not only linguistic and cultural education, but also students, teachers, and curricula in ways that advanced Qatar’s image and political interests. According to ISGAP, this included encouraging a favorable view of Qatar (even a resource titled “Express Your Loyalty to Qatar”), undermining diplomatic efforts like the Abraham Accords, minimizing and distorting Jewish and Christian history within the Middle East, and justifying political violence.

QFI’s announcement regarding its impending shutdown hasn’t deterred ISGAP, which, as the broader Qatar foundation expands connections to American universities, have continued to advocate for Congress to pass the DETERRENT Act to strengthen foreign-funding disclosure rules, restrict certain foreign contracts, lower disclosure thresholds, and increase penalties for noncompliance. 

Given the broader problem of hostile foreign influence within American society—from elections to social media to higher education—legislation like the DETERRENT Act is necessary, but insufficient to resolve the matter. Although debates about foreign influence, including Qatar’s, might suffuse political spheres, no equivalent discussion has emerged within higher education. 

That’s a huge problem. 

Universities shouldn’t wait for congressional subpoenas about foreign influence to act on it, nor should they assume that legislation alone will fix everything. Opaque, unaccountable foreign influence threatens higher education’s developmental mission. Universities should therefore immediately conduct their own audits and investigations into the Qatar Foundation and its affiliates, and more broadly into donor influence on curricula, instruction, and institutional priorities.

Fulfilling developmental obligations doesn’t require those of us in higher education to uncritically accept ISGAP’s every accusation. However, those accusations are severe enough that we are still obligated to treat them seriously. The allegation isn’t of accidental misreporting or failing to submit receipts—it is that American higher education has potentially allowed a foreign power to shape not only what our students are taught, but who they are to become.

When most of us carry the internet in our pockets, education must be about more than communicating facts. It is about developing students into thoughtful, self-aware, civically engaged individuals who, regardless of their beliefs, can positively contribute to our society.

This doesn’t mean only one viewpoint should be taught. Academic freedom is and ought to be fundamental to higher education, including the freedom to believe and teach views others consider wrong, offensive, or even hateful. However, academic freedom isn’t the same thing as concealment. If outside actors are shaping what students are taught, then that influence should be open and honest.

Students shouldn’t enter an Arabic language class only to be subtly directed toward views that serve another nation’s geopolitical agenda. Teachers shouldn’t attend professional development workshops under the impression that they are receiving independent educational materials, only for those materials to be shaped to advance a foreign state’s worldview and interests.

This is why higher education’s entanglement with QFI is so glaring. When initiatives like PragerU or Turning Point USA enter campuses and classrooms, critics immediately point out that these outside materials have ideological commitments, and such commitments deserve careful scrutiny. Fair enough. However, that standard cannot and should not only apply when the source is domestic and right-wing.

Ideological commitments aren’t a problem in and of themselves. From individual donors to nonprofit foundations to philanthropists to foreign governments, groups donate money because they want a certain perspective to be shared. The question isn’t whether there’s a worldview in play, but whether universities have the integrity to disclose those values, keep donor influence within appropriate boundaries, and protect the independence of the educational formation so fundamental to our mission.

If universities fail to take foreign influence seriously, we cannot be surprised when there are political consequences at both the state and federal level, nor should we be surprised if those consequences are punitive and poorly-suited to address the actual problem. However, the deeper threat is to our fundamental legitimacy. Higher education is already struggling to maintain the American public’s trust. If universities can’t demonstrate themselves willing to examine foreign influence over our curricula, partnerships, and programming, this will only confirm the public’s suspicion that academia places self-protection over serving its students. 

This would be a fundamental mission failure for higher education. Higher education is not merely a credentialing system or fact-delivery mechanism. One of its central purposes is developing independent, critical thinkers who can contribute to society regardless of their political beliefs. That mission is incompatible with allowing any foreign power, including Qatar, to shape educational materials, teacher training, classroom content, or institutional priorities without serious scrutiny.

QFI’s closure cannot be allowed to end this matter. Indeed, it should force higher education to answer the question we have so long avoided: do we have the institutional discipline to place mission over mere financial benefit? If we refuse to ask this question ourselves, we will have no right to be surprised when someone else asks it of us.

Dr. Aaron Pomerantz is the Assistant Director of Research and Evaluation at Rice University’s Doerr Institute for New Leaders. His research examines how culture and ideology leads individuals and groups to support beliefs and behaviors that harm themselves and others. His public commentary has been published at The Hill, The Houston Chronicle, and RealClearPolitics.