Can elite universities remain global?

Boston Globe

2 days ago

One reason the schools have arguably been caught off guard is less so: They have misread the nation.
Advertisement
Large and influential swaths of America
The globalization of America's universities began decades ago.
When Richard Levin assumed the presidency of Yale in 1993, in his inaugural address he stated that 'as we enter the 21st century, we must aspire to educate leaders for the whole world. … We must focus even more on global issues … if we are to be a world university.'
For Levin, the mission was clear. In the early 18th century, Yale's mandate was to educate leaders and citizens for the region. 'By the mid-nineteenth century, our compass had become the whole nation,' he said.
Now the work would be global. And Yale was far from alone in such ambitions.
Advertisement
From the establishment of campuses overseas to the creation of research centers and collaborations worldwide and the embrace of international students, many universities have changed dramatically in the years since Levin made those remarks.
Today,
For years, this embrace of international students was largely seen as in accord with the national interest. Despite pockets of protests, globalization on campus was treated as inevitable — and desirable — in many quarters.
Meanwhile, the federal government maintained expansive investment in these universities — to the tune of
The assumptions driving the internationalization of America's universities, however, have now changed. Many people no longer believe globalization is good for America.
That change is most obvious in the MAGA movement. But the anti-Israel protests tinged with anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-capitalist messages that some international students have helped lead have alienated other Americans as well.
Advertisement
As a result, many universities have been caught out over their skis.
Some
now see a heavy international student presence less as a virtue and more as something suspect when it comes to university leaders' motives and wisdom.
On university campuses, many faculty would undoubtedly disagree and argue that globalization is still a positive force for America.
But with seats scarce at exclusive universities, filling them with international students is seen through a zero-sum lens.
Universities may now face a decision. Do they want internationalization or federal support?
Both may no longer be an option. The compact between universities and the federal government can only continue if the work of the university is seen as being in lockstep with the national interest.
This isn't to say this is the end of global universities. Or of research universities.
Minerva University, where I serve on the board of trustees, is unabashedly global. Eighty-five percent of students hail from countries other than the United States. All students live outside the United States for three of their four years. But Minerva doesn't take any federal money, nor is its model built around research.
On the other hand, the
Highly selective universities may choose to fight to retain federal support and remain global in the hopes that they can weather the next few years.
Advertisement
But with alternative models and the ascendance of skepticism around the merits of globalization, it seems less clear if this will be a viable strategy.