Killing Freedom in the Name of Freedom: Chinese Scholars Debate Trump's Attack on Harvard

"The Trump administration’s intervention [at Harvard University] is not about destroying freedom but about putting an end to bullying." — Zhao Xiao (赵晓)

I was asked to write a brief introduction to the translation of a fascinating conversation between two Chinese scholars, Zhou Weimin and Zhao Xiao, for Thomas des Garet Geddes’s outstanding Sinification newsletter, which will publish there simultaneously. The translation is by Paddy Stephens.

---

After moving to the United States from China in that fateful year, 2016, I developed a morbid fascination with the extent of support for Donald Trump among Chinese immigrants — not just for his promises of lower taxes or his supposed business acumen, but for the entire affect and ethos of Trumpism. I’ve written elsewhere about this puzzling embrace of MAGA by a cohort that includes not only Chinese Americans with little political background but also highly educated Chinese intellectuals and dissidents. I’ve also been fascinated by what Yao Lin calls “Beaconism” — the idealisation of the United States as a moral and institutional beacon by Chinese liberal intellectuals, a belief that America’s liberal democracy represents a universal political standard and a teleological end-point of historical progress — and how, for many Chinese liberals, Trump’s rise not only failed to shatter that illusion but instead led to a doubling down on a more conservative strain of American exceptionalism.

The exchange that follows, between Zhou Weimin and Zhao Xiao, reveals some of the enduring tensions among Chinese liberals, both establishment and critical or dissident, as they reckon with Trump’s escalating political assault on elite U.S. universities, with Harvard as a principal target. The tone is striking: DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) is dismissed from the outset as an “extreme” or “erroneous” ideology, and the pejorative term “白左” — translated here, perhaps too gently, as “white leftists”, but more accurately rendered as something like “libtards” — appears without irony or apology. Zhou is no fan of DEI, but to his credit, he is alarmed by Trump’s use of state power to punish ideological opponents. Zhao, citing Hayek as gospel in the way so many in his camp are wont to do, insists that Harvard’s intellectual monopoly justifies intervention — not to replace free thought with dogma, he says, but to rescue it from capture.

Zhao is also a Christian convert, and while he never invokes religion directly, there’s an unmistakable echo of transcendent moral order in his argument. His vision of freedom is not procedural but redemptive: it must serve higher truths and can, if necessary, be enforced by the state in the name of righteousness.

This exchange raises deep questions about what Chinese liberals imagine freedom to be — and what they fear it has become. Is freedom merely formal, or must it be tethered to a substantive vision of truth and justice? Who gets to decide when a university has veered off course — the faculty, the public or a self-appointed “corrective” strongman?

Zhou and Zhao are, it seems, old friends, and their tone is respectful. But beneath the surface, their exchange reveals an ideological rift — not just about Trump or Harvard, but about whether freedom can survive its own contradictions.

— Kaiser Kuo

The Scholars

Name: Zhao Xiao (赵晓)
Date of birth: March 1967 (age: 58)
Position: Independent economist
Previously: Director, Department of Macroeconomic Strategy, State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC); Professor, University of Science and Technology Beijing (10+ years); Researcher, Peking University–World Bank Joint Research Centre
Other: Once described as “one of the most active and influential young economists in mainland China”; Christian convert;
Research focus: Macroeconomics; industrial development; institutional innovation; religious civilisation
Education: BSc Shandong University (1985-9), MSc Nankai University (1992-5), PhD Peking University (1996-9)
Experience Abroad: Harvard University; Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

---

We could not confirm the identity of Zhao’s interlocutor, Zhou Weimin (周为民), but we believe he is a retired professor of economics and Marxist theory from the Central Party School, formerly Editor-in-Chief of the authoritative Study Times (学习时报), and potentially the founding Editor-in-Chief of the 1979 Beijing Spring (北京之春) Democracy Wall magazine.

THE REAL DANGER IS “KILLING FREEDOM IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM” — TRUMP’S ATTACK ON HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Zhao Xiao (赵晓) and Zhou Weimin (周为民)
Published in May 2025
Translated by Paddy Stephens
(Illustration by OpenAI’s DALL·E 3)

Zhou Weimin: To err is human — everyone makes mistakes [人非圣贤，都会犯错]. Universities are no exception; they too can make mistakes and lose their way. A university is a free marketplace of ideas; when extreme or misguided ideologies [滥错误思潮] run rampant, how should they be corrected? Should a political strongman impose “correct” thinking — as he deems it [自以为是] — backed by the coercive power of the state? If that does happen, can the university’s free marketplace of ideas still retain its independence from the government? Indeed, can there be a free market of ideas at all? This is indeed a dilemma [两难的问题].

If you strongly believe in freedom, you must also believe that the free market of ideas will ultimately find the right path. Freedom [inevitably] leads to mistakes, even serious ones. But does that mean we [should] abandon freedom [altogether]?

It is with the free marketplace of ideas, and the market’s own self-corrective mechanisms [市场的自我纠正], that universities produce stronger ideas and widely accepted truths [产生更强大，被大多数人接受的正确思想]. Over the centuries, although universities have made serious mistakes, they have consistently upheld the principle of independent and free thinking [它独立自由思想的原则不能变]. [But] when the government intervenes via administrative means [行政手段], the rules governing this marketplace of ideas [思想市场的规则] are undermined. [Such intervention] is more damaging than the white leftist DEI [Diversity, Equity and Inclusion] ideology [prevalent] at Harvard. [Note: This dialogue was published just after the Trump administration halted student visa appointments and directed government agencies to review and potentially terminate contracts with Harvard.]

I’m no supporter of Harvard’s DEI [agenda], but even worse [更不能接受] is the Trump administration using administrative means to put pressure on the university.

These are just a few thoughts I wanted to share with you for this discussion.

---

Zhao Xiao: Greetings, Weimin, my friend. I fully understand your deep appreciation for freedom. I also agree with you on this point: universities make mistakes, because to err is human [大学会犯错，人非圣贤]. This is indeed the price that a free society must be willing to bear.

But allow me to add a few points to deepen the discussion.

First, freedom is not disorder; it is a form of order with boundaries.

You are right that the free market of ideas must tolerate mistakes [容纳错误], even serious ones. But here is the crucial question: is the [US] market’s corrective mechanism still functioning?

Nowadays, many universities — especially elite institutions like Harvard — are no longer genuine marketplaces of free debate [自由辩论]. [Rather than fostering a diversity of viewpoints], they offer only a single ideology [单边意识形态], becoming like shops that exclusively sell one brand [专卖店]. Opponents of DEI are not met with open debate [不是被辩驳]; instead, they are reported, expelled or cancelled [封杀]. Freedom is no longer an ally of truth — it has become a servant to political correctness [成为“政治正确”的奴仆].

This is not the market making a mistake — it is the market being monopolised.

Secondly, the marketplace of ideas is not a natural market; it requires rules and referees.

There are two prerequisites for this free market to be able to self-correct properly:

1. A supply of diverse and competing ideas;

2. A fair and open mechanism for discussion.

But in today’s American universities—so-called “free markets” like Harvard—a form of censorship has now been institutionalised [已内建审查制度], with language codes and lists of sensitive terms. Admissions processes, promotion pathways [晋升机制] and publication mechanisms all function as tools to exclude those with differing views [把异见者拒于门外].

In such circumstances, the very conditions required for the market to self-correct no longer exist [市场自我纠错的前提不复存在]. Freedom, in this context, is [like a sports team] forced to play uphill on a tilted field [等于让“自由”在一个已经倾斜的赛场上奔跑]. Expecting the market mechanism to operate effectively under these conditions is like hoping that a rigged market will naturally correct its own prices. It’s a beautiful theory, but one that does not hold at all in practice [现实崩塌].

Third, the Trump administration’s intervention is not about destroying freedom [取消自由] but about putting an end to bullying [终止霸凌].

You say the Trump administration’s intervention at Harvard University amounts to destroying the free market [of ideas]. But we must ask: when a university suppresses freedom, silences dissent and engages in reverse discrimination — all in the name of “freedom” — who will correct it?

Conservatism has never advocated that governments should dictate university curricula, nor does it support state-imposed ideological conformity. But for both conservatism and liberalism, the following question remains. When a university — supposedly independent [from government] [独立大学] — uses taxpayers’ money to implement unconstitutional racial quotas and ideological discrimination, does the government not have a responsibility to intervene in order to protect the principles of equality and [people’s] fundamental rights?

This is an intervention to protect freedom, not to destroy it. It is much like the judiciary intervening against unfair competition: such action is not anti-market, but a defence of the market itself.

Fourth, the real danger is of “killing freedom in the name of freedom”.

Hayek warned us long ago that when freedom is used to destroy freedom, it ceases to be freedom.

Therefore, the right approach is certainly not for the state to replace the marketplace of ideas, but for the state to ensure that the market is not manipulated. Nor is it the government’s role to impose a particular ideology; rather, it [should] prevent universities from using taxpayers’ money to promote extremist ideas and suppress dissenting voices. You say, “If you don’t like Harvard’s DEI, just ignore it” — but have you considered how the voices of professors, and voices like yours, can be guaranteed a free and fair space on Harvard’s campus?

Let us return to the most fundamental question: when a “free market” no longer welcomes differing voices, can it still truly be called a free market?

Fifth, to sum up: freedom alone is not enough — it must be accompanied by truth and justice [自由不是唯一价值，真理、公义才是核心].

Weimin, my friend, I understand your concern about government intervention. In our country, government overreach is the norm [政府越位是常态]. But in the US’s case, the government [often] does too little [不到位]. At times, it is the government’s inaction that allows universities — supposed vehicles of free thought [自由思想机器] — to go off course and become one-sided ideological seeding machines [意识形态播种机].

If we truly cherish freedom, then we should also value the forces that guide it towards goodness and truth — including institutional checks and balances, public scrutiny and even limited and legitimate government interventions.

True freedom of thought is not merely a tokenistic tolerance of all viewpoints [表面上容许一切声音]. Instead, it is about guiding society — through reason and conscience — towards truth, justice and the common good.

There are countless human disasters to remind us that freedom must be guided by truth; otherwise, it degenerates into a false fig leaf [虚伪的遮羞布] or a breeding ground for violence [或暴力的温床].

Thank you for sharing your thoughts — I look forward to continuing our exchange!

— Respectfully yours, Zhao Xiao