China-Backed Confucius Institutes at UK Universities Face Uncertainty Under New Free Speech Rules

Published: 01 August 2025. The English Chronicle Online.

Confucius Institutes, the Chinese government-backed cultural and language centres operating within UK universities, are under growing threat as new free speech regulations come into force across England. The developments have sparked urgent discussions between university leaders, ministers, and regulators, as institutions scramble to assess whether existing partnerships with Chinese entities may breach the Office for Students’ (OfS) updated rules.

These institutes, currently numbering 20 in England and based at universities including Manchester, Coventry, and Liverpool, operate under a tripartite agreement involving a UK university, a Chinese university, and an arm of the Chinese state. Their purpose is to provide Mandarin language instruction and promote Chinese cultural understanding. However, the institutes have long faced criticism from campaigners and policymakers who allege they serve as ideological tools of the Chinese Communist Party, raising serious concerns about academic freedom and national security.

The new guidance from the OfS—England’s higher education regulator—prohibits foreign governments from influencing employment conditions at UK universities, particularly where any ideological test is imposed as a requirement for hiring. This has put Confucius Institutes in direct conflict with the law, especially in light of reports that Chinese staff are required to provide statements on their political attitudes vetted by party-linked committees.

Universities say they were not adequately consulted on the potential legal consequences of these changes, and several institutions have requested more time from the regulator to review and renegotiate existing agreements. Some are even considering terminating their partnerships altogether to avoid sanctions.

A spokesperson for the OfS stated that academic freedom and freedom of speech must be upheld unconditionally. “If universities find they cannot meet these obligations, they must amend or terminate agreements accordingly. The use of ideological vetting is unacceptable under our guidance,” the spokesperson added.

While many universities declined to comment publicly, Lancaster University confirmed it is reviewing the implications for its own Confucius Institute. “Lancaster University is fully committed to upholding the right to freedom of speech for all staff and students. We are carefully considering the potential impact of the new guidance,” a spokesperson said.

The Department for Education has reiterated that while the UK welcomes global academic collaboration, such partnerships must respect national laws and democratic values. Skills Minister Jacqui Smith emphasized that universities must remain spaces of open debate and warned that any attempt by foreign states to intimidate or influence individuals in the UK would not be tolerated.

Smith also referenced updated national security legislation designed to counter such interference and stated that the government is working closely with the OfS to help universities navigate the new rules. However, universities have expressed frustration with what they perceive as a lack of clarity and practical guidance from the regulator, particularly regarding which agreements are considered compliant.

Universities UK, which represents university leadership across the country, underscored its members’ commitment to academic freedom. “Our institutions take these responsibilities seriously. International partnerships must be conducted in a way that aligns with our legal and ethical obligations,” a spokesperson said.

Meanwhile, China’s embassy in London has declined to comment on the matter, amid rising tensions over the role of Chinese influence in Western educational systems.

As the debate intensifies, the fate of Confucius Institutes in the UK remains uncertain. Whether they can be reformed to meet free speech expectations or will be phased out entirely now rests on the outcomes of ongoing consultations between universities, the government, and regulatory authorities. The case has become a critical flashpoint in the broader conversation about how to safeguard academic independence in an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape.