China operates as a tightly controlled censorship state, where information, both incoming and outgoing, is rigorously monitored, filtered, and punished when it deviates from state-approved narratives. Among the most vulnerable targets of this machinery are students, who historically carry the ideological impulse for political and social reform. Under President Xi Jinping, however, the suppression of students has become more systematic and expansive, extending beyond China’s borders to include Chinese students overseas.

With the advancement of digital surveillance and state-backed technologies, China has developed powerful tools to monitor, intimidate, and control student voices, both online and offline. This suppression serves a larger goal—to maintain the Party’s ideological dominance and project a controlled image of China and its people to both domestic and global audiences.

The roots of this repression lie in the foundational ideology of the Chinese Communist Party of China (CPC), which views politically active youth as a threat to its one-party rule. This fear is not new. The violent crackdown on student protestors during the Tiananmen Square Massacre on 4 June 1989 remains a defining example. Students then demanded economic justice and democratic reform, challenging the Party’s legitimacy. The state’s brutal response underscored a singular priority that continues to define its approach to dissent: the survival of the CPC above all else. The massacre remains a controversial topic, heavily censored inside China and Hong Kong, and overseas.  

In the new era, China has implemented extensive measures to monitor and control students within its borders. These efforts encompass surveillance technologies, informant networks, and ideological enforcement within educational institutions. Reportedly, Chinese universities institutionalized the practice of recruiting "student information officers" to monitor and report on professors' ideological compliance. This system aimed to ensure adherence to Communist Party ideology and suppress dissent within academic settings. The use of informants is to create an environment of fear and distrust, allowing CPC to squash any criticisms or free thinking. 

China is also a surveillance state, where CCTVs are ubiquitous and activities on the internet are constantly under watch. In 2019 it was reported that the universities installed surveillance cameras across campuses, including classrooms and dormitories, under the pretext of promoting discipline and good study habits. For instance, Wuchang University of Technology implemented a comprehensive surveillance system covering its entire campus, monitored by a dedicated team. Furthermore, the students were also facing a growing infringement on their privacy via repeated requests for personal data, including social media accounts, from their universities. Guilin University of Electronic Technology faced backlash for proposing blanket searches of students’ electronic devices to prevent the spread of “harmful” content, a practice reminiscent of measures used in Xinjiang.

Additionally, the CPC also intensified efforts to enforce ideological conformity within universities. This included mandating courses on “Xi Jinping Thought” and prohibiting discussions on topics such as universal values and historical mistakes of the Communist Party. Dissenters, including teachers, were subjected to disciplinary actions, including dismissal. 

China uses a similar toolkit to surveil and coerce overseas Chinese students speaking against China or the Party. Amnesty International’s 2025 Report highlighted that Chinese students studying in Europe and North America face intimidation and surveillance by Chinese authorities. It said, “The government continued its campaign to silence dissent by citizens living abroad. Mainland Chinese and Hong Kong students studying at universities in Western Europe and North America faced surveillance and on and offline censorship, including by state actors. They, and some of their family members in mainland China, were subjected to harassment and intimidation to prevent them from engaging in activities relating to political or other “sensitive” issues.”

Many students reported being photographed at protests, monitored online, and having their families in China threatened due to their activism abroad. In reports from the UK, Chinese students have described being followed, receiving anonymous calls, and experiencing harassment for criticizing the Chinese Communist Party. These tactics aim to instill fear and suppress political expression among students.

In recent years, the Chinese government’s covert operations on foreign university campuses have increasingly come to light. An investigation by Human Rights Watch discovered that Chinese authorities are dedicated “to influence academic discussions, monitor overseas students from China, censor scholarly inquiry, or otherwise interfere with academic freedom.” 

The overseas Chinese students reported a wide range of intimidation tactics: being followed by unknown Chinese individuals, receiving threatening messages, and having family members back in China harassed by local authorities. These efforts were intended to silence critical voices and deter political expression, especially among those who speak out against the CPC or support democratic reforms. This informal yet insidious network has been used to instill fear through online harassment, cyber bullying, social ostracism, and in some cases, physical intimidation. The atmosphere of surveillance deeply affected academic environments, making open discussions about modern Chinese politics increasingly fraught, polarizing, and in some cases, absent.

One of the primary tools used to influence overseas students is the Chinese Students and Scholars Association (CSSA). It was revealed that this organisation is located across global universities and receives funding and political directives from Chinese consulates and embassies. Confucius Institutes were also implicated as an instrument for suppressing dissent and promoting pro-CPC narratives on foreign campuses. 

This pattern of influence triggered policy and security responses across democracies. Universities and policymakers in the US, UK, Australia, and several EU countries acknowledged growing evidence of CPC infiltration in academia. Beyond student surveillance, China’s influence extended to faculty hiring, curriculum design, and even the cancellation of speakers critical of Beijing. Several Western institutions have shut down Confucius Institutes and implemented stricter oversight of foreign funding and partnerships.

In response, the U.S. Department of State labelled some Confucius Institutes as “foreign missions,” while the UK and Australia planned tougher legislation to curtail foreign state influence in higher education. These countries increasingly view China’s coordinated efforts not just as an academic challenge but as a national security concern, given their implications for freedom of speech, intellectual independence, and democratic norms on campuses.

Ultimately, what has emerged is a global campaign by the Chinese state to shape international perceptions, silence criticism, and guide a generation of overseas Chinese students toward Party-aligned thought. This represents a direct challenge to the values of liberal education and open inquiry, raising urgent questions about how democratic societies can safeguard academic freedom without compromising openness to international collaboration.

China’s approach to student surveillance, both domestic and international, is not merely about discipline or national image management. It is a deliberate, authoritarian strategy to weaponize fear, suppress dissent, and extend the ideological reach of the Communist Party of China far beyond its territory. What begins in the classrooms of Beijing now echoes in the lecture halls of London, Boston, and Berlin. Through informant networks, tech-enabled monitoring, and state-backed proxies like the CSSA and Confucius Institutes, the CPC seeks to transform academic spaces into outposts of Party discipline. This is not soft power; it is coercive control masquerading as cultural exchange. If left unchecked, China’s censorship model risks reshaping global academia in its illiberal image. Democracies must treat this not as an isolated campus issue, but as a strategic assault on freedom of thought and the autonomy of education itself.