Arab money flooding American universities

OPINION:

American universities have accepted more than $14.6 billion in donations from Arab states since 1981. Yet a staggering 73% of these contributions remain unaccounted for, raising troubling questions about transparency, foreign influence and national security.

The Department of Education requires universities to report foreign donations of more than $250,000. The latest disclosure paints a stark picture. Nearly one-fifth of the $62.4 billion in total reported funds since 1986 came from just three countries: Qatar ($6.6 billion), Saudi Arabia ($4 billion) and the United Arab Emirates ($1.7 billion). Last year alone, Arab donations exceeded $1.5 billion.

Yet more than $10.7 billion lacks any explanation of purpose. This isn’t oversight; it’s an abdication of responsibility by universities and a dereliction of duty by federal overseers.

In 2020, the first Trump administration rightly recognized in a report that foreign adversaries were “targeting their investments to project soft power, steal sensitive and proprietary research, and spread propaganda,” singling out Qatar and Saudi Arabia alongside China and Russia.

The Biden administration, however, seemed intent on protecting universities and their donors from scrutiny. The chilling surge of anti-Israel activity and accompanying antisemitism after the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre by Hamas has only amplified these concerns, exposing the vulnerability of our campuses to ideological infiltration.

Qatar is the most aggressive donor, responsible for 18 of the 20 largest gifts, with three going to Texas A&M and the rest to Cornell. Not coincidentally, Cornell collected the most funds overall: a staggering $2.3 billion, followed by Carnegie Mellon ($1.05 billion), Georgetown ($1.02 billion) and Texas A&M ($1.01 billion). University of California campuses received $263 million.

Some suggest a link between foreign funding and the surge in antisemitism and anti-Israel activism since Oct. 7, but causation is complex to prove. For example, does a department or professor receive funding because they hold views consistent with those of the donor, or do the recipients adopt those positions only after receiving foreign support?

The Department of Education reported only one example of funding going for a blatantly political purpose: the creation of a professorship in Palestinian studies at Brown. The largest donation came from the “Palestinian Territories.” It more accurately should say the Palestinian Authority, as the territories are not Palestinian, but this was an improvement over previous designations of donations from the nonexistent “State of Palestine.”

You won’t find the information in the report, but that contribution came from a Palestinian supporter of the antisemitic boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. It should come as no surprise, then, that Brown hired a BDS advocate for the professorship. Although this is one documented instance, it poses the question: How many other, less transparent influences are at play?

Arab states may see investing in a blatant political agenda as counterproductive, preferring, for example, to enhance their image rather than tarnish Israel’s. Indeed, Saudi Arabia poured vast sums into rehabilitating its image after 9/11 and the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Enhancing an image can still involve shaping narratives and influencing discourse in ways that are inimical to American values.

A serious question is why universities are willing to take money from some of the world’s worst human rights abusers. Take Georgetown, a Jesuit university that trains future diplomats and policymakers. It has taken $971 million from Qatar, an autocracy that bans political opposition, criminalizes dissent and funds and hosts terrorist groups. Not a single dollar of this is accounted for in the Department of Education report, making assessment of its impact impossible.

Because of its nefarious character, a lot of focus has been on Qatar, but can we prove a connection between its donations and problems on campus? Consider Columbia, one of the principal hotbeds. It does not receive a penny from Qatar.

What about Cornell, which has received $2.3 billion from Qatar? The largest donations were for the establishment and maintenance of the Weill Cornell Medicine in Qatar. Is there any reason to believe that funding this campus is contributing to antisemitism in Ithaca?

What about the University of California at Berkeley, ground zero for anti-Israel activity for decades, which receives a comparatively paltry $69 million in Arab donations, mainly within the last decade?

These observations, while important, merely underscore the profound lack of transparency and the complex, often indirect nature of influence. The absence of a clear, direct paper trail for overt political activity does not equate to the absence of insidious influence.

Most of the Arab money for which we have information goes for financial assistance. The largest donation, $284 million, was for Kuwaiti students to study at the University of Missouri-Kansas in 2023. Such financial assistance is aimed primarily at educating their citizens so they will return home and contribute to their native country’s welfare.

Are these foreign students sent to be agitators? Are they leading the anti-Israel protests and fomenting antisemitism? The University of Missouri-Kansas held protests, but we don’t know whether Kuwaiti students were involved (the Kuwait student organization’s Instagram page had no political statements). The Saudis, who send the most students of any Arab state, specifically forbid them from engaging in political activity.

The stakes go beyond Israel and antisemitism. Texas A&M decided to pull out of its Qatar campus after 21 years despite a contract reportedly worth more than $750 million. The decision was made just three years after a 10-year renewal. The public reason given was regional instability and changing institutional priorities; however, it was purportedly related to concerns about Qatari access to sensitive nuclear energy research.

This chilling revelation underscores the profound national security implications of opaque foreign funding in our academic institutions.

Congress and the Department of Education must act. First, universities must be compelled to account for every foreign dollar, past and present. Second, the Department of Education should publish full donor names and the stated purpose of every gift. Third, Congress should consider banning donations from countries that threaten U.S. national security or violate fundamental human rights.

Academic freedom and integrity demand transparency. Without it, we leave our universities vulnerable to foreign influence and our values up for sale.

• Mitchell Bard is executive director of the nonprofit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise and director of the Jewish Virtual Library. An authority on U.S. Middle East policy, Mr. Bard is the author of 22 books. He holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of California, Los Angeles, a master’s degree in public policy from Berkeley and a bachelor of arts degree in economics from the University of California, Santa Barbara.