But Martin Davidson, chief executive of the British Council, says that the comparison, often made by Confucius Institute defenders, between his organization, which promotes British culture, and the Chinese effort, only goes so far. “We are a stand-alone organization operating out of our own premises. They are being embedded in university campuses,” he said in an interview. “The real question has to be one of independence. Are we seen as simply representing the views of the government? Or is there a degree of separation?”

The British Council currently operates in more than 100 countries; the Alliance Française and the Goethe Institute, in Germany, all run on similar lines. And though the United States Information Agency library program has wound down considerably with the end of the Cold War, the State Department still makes an effort to promote American culture overseas.

However, none of these programs are based on university campuses. And according to Mr. Davidson, none adopt the same homogenous approach to their native cultures found in Confucius Institutes. “No one would regard Zadie Smith or Grayson Perry as someone controlled by the British Council,” he said.

“The Chinese are very clear on what they are trying to achieve,” said Mr. Davidson. “They want to change the perception of China — to combat negative propaganda with positive propaganda. And they use the word ‘propaganda’ in Chinese. But I doubt they have to say, ‘We’ll only give you this money if you never criticize China.’ The danger is more of self-censorship — which is a very subtle thing,” Mr. Davidson said.

It was partly the risk of self-censorship that prompted the University of Pennsylvania’s East Asian Studies faculty to oppose unanimously moves to open a Confucius Institute, said Arthur Waldron, a history professor at the university. “People want to be tactful. They don’t want to lose exchange partners. Universities are desperate for money, and the Chinese have a lot of money,” he said.

Sometimes the pressure can be overt, some officials say. Richard Saller, a dean at Stanford, told Bloomberg in November that Hanban’s offer of $4 million to open a Confucius Institute on campus and endow a professorship came with a suggestion that the professor refrain from discussing Tibet. Stanford balked and got the money anyway, which it used to endow a chair in classical Chinese poetry. At Columbia the only sign of controversy was a single article in the campus newspaper saying the presence of a Confucius Institute would test the school’s “commitment to academic integrity.” At the London School of Economics, which saw its director, Howard Davies, resign last year over the school’s acceptance of funding from the Libyan leader Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the institute’s presence has never been questioned.