International educators - please avoid missteps of U.S. higher education

One of the challenges international higher education faculty and staff face is determining what is transferrable in other national and cultural contexts. The dominance of U.S. higher education, and the assumption of its superiority, can result in unknowingly transporting an idea that clearly does not fit in other cultures, and perhaps is failing even in U.S. higher education. In the case where it is failing, U.S. institutions often have a very difficult time letting go.

One anachronistic element of U.S. higher education is Greek organizations - fraternities and sororities. The result of grass-roots student interest in the early 20th century, fraternities and sororities sprung up to provide enriching out-of-class experiences such as debate societies, sports, self-governance, and even lodging and food. As higher education embraced a wholistic philosophy, the things that fraternities and sororities offered were democratized - offering them more broadly to all students. As this happened, Greek organizations drifted to a focus on primarily what they offered in terms of social opportunity.

I was a member of an undergraduate fraternity, and my wife and daughters were also affiliated during their undergraduate years. I know Greek organizations and know that many are good and provide an important belonging place for their members. However, in regard to systemic relevance, they now stand as bastions of socio-economic and cultural separatism and sometimes contribute to anti-intellectual cultures. Such is the possibility at the University of Maryland, which just suspended all of its Greek organizations for conduct that "threatened the safety and well-being of members of the university community." Maryland reversed is broad suspension of all Greek organizations and retained only 5 for further investigation. Of course, the Fraternity Forward coalition issued a restraining order and plans to continue to pursue litigation against Maryland. Some of the national organizations that have affiliates at Maryland threaten legal action as well. When an institution has to act this broadly, something is wrong systemically. Federal anti-hazing legislation after decades of hand-ringing by Greek organizations and campuses is a clear indication that problems within these organizations are persistent and most likely unsolvable. The U.S. Congress approved the first nation-wide anti-hazing legislation in December 2024.

Right of association adherents will say that institutions cannot prohibit student associations such as Greek organizations. Case law demonstrates that they are correct. However, as far as I know, case law does not require an institution to support and provide resources to organizations that it does not officially recognize. Colleges and universities could choose to simply say "enough already" and push these organizations into an independent status and inform students to affiliate with them at their own risk.

A second example of anachronistic practice is competitive intercollegiate athletics. I have long been an advocate for U.S. higher education to stop pretending that athletic programs such as the University of Michigan and Ohio State University are "college teams." They haven't been for quite some time and continuing the fantasy is expensive and harmful to institutions that strive to compete with the likes of teams that are essentially semi-professional farm teams for the NFL and NBA.

The University of Michigan's former coach Harbaugh is an arrogant example of the problem of privileged semi-professional sports on college campuses. After coaching the NCAA winning football team in 2023 he was hired to coach the LA Chargers for $13 million per year. When the NCAA disciplined Harbaugh for rules violations and blatant disregard for its governance, his spokespeople commented, "today's COI decision is like being in your college and getting a letter from your high school saying you've been suspended because you didn't sign the yearbook."

The number of institutions that break even or make money from Division I NCAA competition is somewhere around 10%. In the other cases, students are charged to underwrite the deficit. Demonstrating how real intercollegiate athletics might work, some less competition institutions have used the creation of new athletic programs as a recruitment incentive.

Charlie Baker, Chief of the NCAA, finally announced a possible strategy to allow big-time athletic programs to compensate their players. Such a strategy would reward student work and that turned into the question of whether or not student athletes should be allowed to form unions. Baker's proposal would allow Division I athletic programs free rein in determining compensation related to athlete's names, images, and likenesses. For a mere $30,000 annual investment in athlete support, institutions would become part of a new subdivision with the highest revenue sources and the best records. These wealthy and successful programs have proposed the Baker model for years. Two institutions' faculty representatives expressed support for paradigm change in the NCAA, equating it to an opportunity to heal long-term problems.

By 2024, college athletes began reaping the reward from selling their names and conferences reorganized to further advantage institutions that win in the "big time athletics" competition. Then came the big idea of creating a super league that confirmed that many collegiate teams are really all about money. The super league would "infuse $5.3 billion in private capital - borrowed from future media revenues... to provide schools immediate cash during a three-year transition period, helping them buy out non-power opponents and supplementing their annual television distribution."

Moyen and Thelen's College Sports: A History summarizes the problem of "collegiate athletics" slipping into sport that has been driven toward commercialization. The review of the book poses the possibility that commercial interests were there all the time but few would deny that the money associated with star athletes selling their names and endorsements has taken commercialization to another level. Recommendations that student athletes meet admission requirements, attend class, and have limits on time spent in practice seem impotent in the face of athletes and athletic programs seeking financial gain.

There are numerous things that international higher education planners and leaders should avoid and these two anachronistic practices are among the most egregious.