India aspiration for higher education recognition

India's National Education Policy was formulated to position India's higher education sector for its distinctive high quality. NEP places "emphasis on developing a distinctly Indian approach to internationalization of higher education. Recommendations to build the soft power potential of Indian higher education by facilitating international research collaborations and international expansion of Indian universities and programs, et. could be viewed in this context."

Some of the provisions of the NEP have already been implemented but the more pervasive implementation lies ahead. Some Indian academics are concerned about establishing standards that will support a thriving higher education sector. Of particular concern is academic freedom, a core tenet that Joyce Lau says will likely keep India from achieving its aspiration to have its universities ranked among the best in the world.

Grad enrollment shifts

A new report from the Council of Graduate Schools and Educational Testing Service indicates that enrollment in U.S. graduate programs is shifting - declining for international students and increasing for domestic minority students. Representation by domestic cultural minority groups reached 24.1% for first-time enrollees. Continuing a three year decline, international first-time graduate school enrollment dropped by 1.3%. One area that has been popular with international students is business schools and the interest there has dropped by 13.7% in 2019.

These figures reflect a key educational resource - the mix of those who enroll in graduate education. Both domestic minority and international students are a critical talent resource as well as represent an opportunity for cultural exposure to each other and to other predominantly white domestic students. Managing the mix is increasingly recognized as an important institutional responsibility.

Higher education change

There are many who predict that higher education must change. One statement by Steve Mintz provides a cogent summary of why and how. The insights he offers are not ground-breaking but it's helpful to have this as a reminder of the urgency of the problem and it's reassuring that he offers what he refers to as "sustaining innovation" which he contrasts with "disruptive innovation."

These terms reflect the differentiation between what Bahcall refers to as "franchise" and "loonshot" innovation. Linking Mintz and Bahcall's ideas, it seems that successful change for higher education will require sustaining/franchise modifications that are more or less proven enhancements to current practice while at the same time taking big risks (disruptive or loonshot innovation) that fundamentally change the face of higher education practice. Bahcall advocates that organizations need to figure out ways to support both franchise and loonshot change, which is only possible if leaders undertake fundamental organization structure and culture change.

U.S. Dept of Educ challenges Duke/UNC Middle East Studies

The U.S. Department of Education has criticized the Middle East Studies programs jointly convened by Duke University and UNC-Chapel Hill as not serving the purposes of the Title VI funding that supports it. The letter to the program administrators from Assistant Secretary of Postsecondary Education Robert King indicated "a lack of balance" in the Middle East Studies program, favoring Islam over other religions, and "advancing ideological priorities" instead of language development and geographic/historic discourse on the Middle East.

Terry Magnuson, Vice Chancellor for Research at UNC, responded that, "The consortium organizes public events presenting diverse perspectives and a wide range of views on many of the Middle East's most challenging subjects, including -- in recent years -- conferences on censorship in Turkey, Islam and religious identity, World War I and the transformation of the Middle East, the aftermath of the Arab Spring and lectures on human rights in Iran, civil war in Syria, repression in Egypt, and many other subjects."

U.S. House of Representatives Democrats challenged the Department of Education's review of the Duke-UNC Consortium for Middle East Studies by saying, "The Title VI stature only requires curricular to offer 'diverse perspectives and a wide range of views and generate debate.'" The Department of Education responded that their inquiry related to a lack of diversity and absence of a language requirement in the Duke-UNC Consortium.

It's not terribly difficult to read between the lines in these exchanges. While the Department of Education is claiming that the Duke/UNC program is ideologically imbalanced, the topics being addressed are a natural part of academic discourse and just so happen to touch on issues that the US Department of Education might not want exposed and more broadly discussed. Who's guilty of ideological bias?

Mitchel Stevens of Stanford indicated that viewing the Duke/UNC program criticism as the result of the Trump administration's ideological leaning is a mistake. He poses that it is indicative of "steadily growing government skepticism about the value of academic knowledge of the rest of the world." Professor of Education at the University of Pennsylvania, Sigal Ben-Porath expressed concern that the U.S. Department of Education criticism of Duke/UNC criticism represents an unhelpful intrusion in regulating free speech on campus. Joining with 29 other higher education organizations, the American Council on Education sent a letter of concern about the U.S. Department of Education's collection of information on foreign gifts and contracts. 

Mixed messages on academic and research collaboration

Regardless of the economic and political wrangling between the U.S.A. and China, academics and researchers reinforce that research collaboration is beneficial to both countries. Lee and Haupt's study indicated that Chinese scholars are driving much of the research in science and engineering and that Chinese scholars would have forged ahead without partners in the U.S.A. Some scholars are now leaving the U.S.A. in the face of investigations of their ties to China, which ironically contributes to fulfilling China's goal of attracting Chinese scholars to return.

While China seeks status for having leading research and scholarship universities, another report indicated that its actions are undermining that aspiration. Robert Quinn, executive director of Scholars at Risk, opined that failing to protect academic freedom "poses grave personal and professional risks for Chinese scholars and students and serious academic, reputational and financial risks for foreign academic institutions that have partnerships with Chinese counterparts, in China or abroad.

Making progress in establishing international academic partnerships often involves Chinese scholars serving as visiting researchers or faculty in other countries. But these partnerships can sometimes be suspect when these visitors take initiative at the behest of the Chinese government, which was apparently the cause of Prague's Charles University firing Chinese visiting faculty. Researchers and governmental officials in the U.S.A. have sounded alarms about cultivation of Chinese scholars to steal research innovation. Jodi Black, who directs the extramural research of NIH was quoted in a meeting of academic researchers as saying, "evidence is plentiful that foreign governments are engaged in organized efforts to co-opt discoveries and ideas from American universities -- in ways that divert proprietary information, undermine peer review and 'distort our (science) funding model,' by giving grants to scientists on the payrolls of other countries that could have gone to other deserving scientists."

Ted Mitchell, President of the American Council on Education, indicated that "many higher education institutions, including those impacted by the current cases, already are taking proactive steps to confront these issues. But all of these incidents serve as a reminder of the need to redouble efforts to ensure that institutions and their faculty members are fully in compliance with the letter and spirit of all federal requirements."

Iranian graduate students denied visas in U.S.A.

Adding to the list of countries where international students have been denied visas (ie. Palestine and China), at least one dozen new Iranian graduate students were denied visas last week. A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesperson said there had been no change to their policies.

Who said internationalization would be easy?

Liz Reisberg's recent essay about internationalization is based on a pretty simple assumption - that it has become more complicated and difficult to navigate. She cited the optimism of those who pursued internationalization with the belief that the flow of ideas and talent around the world would be easy and would benefit everyone. The reality is a bit different. She said, "We certainly underestimated the enduring legacy of political, economic, and military competition and mistrust among nations. Nor had we calculated the resurgence and effect of extremist ideology."

While I would agree that the dynamics of internationalization are growing more complicated, I also believe that educators should have recognized the potential complexity of the flow of ideas and learners/scholars from the beginning. The problem was the assumed applicability across borders (national and cultural) of knowledge and processes of learning. It was the hegemony of western educators that allowed there to be an assumption that educational transfer was direct, seamless, and easy. I may be in the minority but I'm glad that the current international environment is awakening a realization that internationalization requires serious and deeper work.