Who could oppose higher education striving to develop global citizenship among its students? The two newly elected leaders of the countries that host the most international students of all the nations in the world - that's who!
While many universities around the world advocate and work toward preparing their graduates to be global citizens, there are powerful forces at play that oppose this move. Two specific forces sit in very high office - U.S.A. President-Elect Trump and U.K. Prime Minister May. Elizabeth Redden's essay "No certificate of global citizenship" identifies one of the shortcomings of those who resist the idea of global citizenship being the binary of the argument. In Trump's words from a recent Cincinnati, Ohio, rally, "There is no global anthem, no global currency, no certificate of global citizenship. We pledge allegiance to one flag and that flag is the American flag." Or in May's pronouncement, "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere; you don't understand what the very word 'citizenship' means."
The binary of "you are either a citizen of this nation or of the world" is a false dichotomy to which many of us in higher education have contributed by not defining our terms. The first way we have contributed is by not differentiating 'international' versus 'global.' Enhancing Student Learning and Development in Cross-Border Higher Education argues that the terms are different with 'international' education relating to deepening awareness, empathy, and respectful understanding of other nations and cultures where 'globalization' is about trade, economies, and the resulting political imbalances of our world. If you study their pronouncements, both Trump and May are talking about globalization as a trade and economic issue. Secondly, the dichotomy of national versus international is unnecessary and denies the reality of the world that is emerging in our shared life experience. Students needn't dedicate themselves to their own passport country (or country of residence) OR to the welfare of the broader world community we inhabit. Students' commitment and effectiveness in doing both should be the goal.
Redden's essay offers an important warning to those of us who value holistic student development and who seek to prepare students more adequately for the world in which they live. Heeding the warning and more carefully defining terms in ways that don't play into political agendas is critical to our effectiveness moving forward.
While many universities around the world advocate and work toward preparing their graduates to be global citizens, there are powerful forces at play that oppose this move. Two specific forces sit in very high office - U.S.A. President-Elect Trump and U.K. Prime Minister May. Elizabeth Redden's essay "No certificate of global citizenship" identifies one of the shortcomings of those who resist the idea of global citizenship being the binary of the argument. In Trump's words from a recent Cincinnati, Ohio, rally, "There is no global anthem, no global currency, no certificate of global citizenship. We pledge allegiance to one flag and that flag is the American flag." Or in May's pronouncement, "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere; you don't understand what the very word 'citizenship' means."
The binary of "you are either a citizen of this nation or of the world" is a false dichotomy to which many of us in higher education have contributed by not defining our terms. The first way we have contributed is by not differentiating 'international' versus 'global.' Enhancing Student Learning and Development in Cross-Border Higher Education argues that the terms are different with 'international' education relating to deepening awareness, empathy, and respectful understanding of other nations and cultures where 'globalization' is about trade, economies, and the resulting political imbalances of our world. If you study their pronouncements, both Trump and May are talking about globalization as a trade and economic issue. Secondly, the dichotomy of national versus international is unnecessary and denies the reality of the world that is emerging in our shared life experience. Students needn't dedicate themselves to their own passport country (or country of residence) OR to the welfare of the broader world community we inhabit. Students' commitment and effectiveness in doing both should be the goal.
Redden's essay offers an important warning to those of us who value holistic student development and who seek to prepare students more adequately for the world in which they live. Heeding the warning and more carefully defining terms in ways that don't play into political agendas is critical to our effectiveness moving forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.