This is a lightly revised version of the July 10, 2020 statement on Hong Kong issued by the AAS Board of Directors, which more than 20 other scholarly societies have now joined as signatories.
We, the undersigned scholarly societies, express our deep concern over the PRC government’s imposition of sweeping new security legislation that severely curtails the freedoms guaranteed in Hong Kong’s Basic Law, the Sino-British Joint Declaration, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The new legislation potentially puts at risk anyone whose words or actions may be construed as criticism of the PRC or the Hong Kong governments, regardless of citizenship or where such words and actions take place.
The legislation includes provisions naming the offenses of “secession,” “subversion,” “terrorist activities,” and “collusion with a foreign country or with external elements,” all of which are defined both broadly and vaguely. For example, Article 29 criminalizes (among other acts) perceived obstruction of the PRC or Hong Kong governments in setting and implementing laws and policies and any “unlawful” conduct (again, not defined) that provokes Hong Kong residents’ “hatred” of the governments of the PRC or Hong Kong, when done with the direct or indirect support of, or in conjunction with, any overseas organization or individual. Further, Article 38 of the law claims extraterritorial powers that potentially subject any person in the world to the same penalties.
We expect that the new legislation will significantly inhibit the possibilities for academic inquiry and exchange in and relating to Hong Kong. The legislation’s vague wording and expansive categories of offense make it impossible to know what speech and actions will result in severe legal consequences. We stand with our Hong Kong-based colleagues who are most directly affected and understand that fears for personal safety may quell some voices. We are mindful of how the PRC government has used claims of “terrorism” and “secession” to silence independent academic voices in Xinjiang and Tibet, and implemented arbitrary detention on charges of “extremism,” “terrorism,” and “separatism” to quash perceived dissent and disloyalty among the indigenous peoples of those regions. We urge all those who feel safe to do so to uphold in a vocal and forthright manner the principles of free speech and open academic inquiry.
The undersigned societies are comprised of members from all over the world and include many of those who are based in Hong Kong. We deplore the imposition of this legislation and call on the PRC government to respect the rights of our colleagues in Hong Kong to engage in scholarly research and exchange without fear of political and legal reprisal, and to take steps to ensure the continued protection of their academic freedom, as defined in the 1997 UNESCO Recommendation.
American Academy of Religion
American Anthropological Association
American Comparative Literature Association Board
American Historical Association
American Musicological Society
American Philosophical Association
American Political Science Association
American Sociological Association
Archaeological Institute of America
Association of College and Research Libraries
Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies
British Association of Chinese Studies
Dance Studies Association
Hong Kong Studies Association
International Center of Medieval Art
International Society for Third Sector Research
Medieval Academy of America
Modern Language Association
National Communication Association
Rhetoric Society of America
Shakespeare Association of America
Sixteenth Century Society & Conference
Society of Architectural Historians
Society for Cinema and Media Studies
Society for Ethnomusicology
World History Association
 For discussions of the security law in the context of the erosion of Hong Kong’s guaranteed rights, see Gina Anne Tam and Jeffrey Wasserstrom, “The Future of Hong Kong,” Dissent (June 30, 2020), https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/the-future-of-hong-kong; and Sebastian Veg, “Hong Kong through Water and Fire,” The Diplomat (July 1, 2020), https://thediplomat.com/2020/07/hong-kong-through-water-and-fire/. For overviews of the security law, see Donald Clarke, “Hong Kong’s National Security Law: A First Look,” The China Collection (June 30, 2020), https://thechinacollection.org/hong-kongs-national-security-law-first-look/; and Jen Kirby, “China’s New National Security Law and What It Means for Hong Kong’s Future, Explained,” Vox (July 2, 2020), https://www.vox.com/2020/7/2/21309902/china-national-security-law-hong-kong-protests-us-sanctions.
 See Donald Clarke, “How Dangerous Is Article 38?”, The China Collection (July 3, 2020), https://thechinacollection.org/hong-kongs-national-security-law-dangerous-article-38/.
 See James Palmer, “Beijing’s New Security Law Is a Warning Sign,” Foreign Policy (July 1, 2020), https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/01/china-new-security-law-hong-kong-warning-sign/.