Higher education in the United States has been historically
and fundamentally tied to political activism.
From the civil right movement in the 1960’s to the Occupy Movement last
year, American universities have been the catalyst of political engagement in
response to the political and social milieu of our times. Higher Education Institutions have an
intrinsic responsibility to "uphold civil liberty and political freedom on
campuses and in the broader society (Redden, 2012, p.1)." However, with the recent globalization
efforts of many American universities, these basic political freedoms and
rights are being challenged, particularly in countries with authoritarian
governments.
Yale University has recently partnered with the National
University of Singapore (Yale-NUS), which has prompted criticism as the
President of the Yale-NUS partnership has proclaimed that students would not be
permitted to take part in political protest or form partisan political
organizations. Moreover, students on
this campus will also have their personal rights restricted, as they must
comply with the countries laws, which include the criminalization of same sex
partnerships. Similar restrictions on
political activism and civil liberties have been formed with the recent
expansion of New York University to Abu Dhabi and Northwestern University's
Journalism School in Qatar. In addition
to not being allowed to protest, students in Qatar are not allowed to publish
work that is seen as defamation of government, which is a crime punishable by
imprisonment (Redden, 2012).
International programs were created with the idea of
establishing partnerships, increasing global presence and broadening the
academic horizons of the institutions.
However, conservative countries such as Qatar, Singapore and the United
Arab Emirates offer many challenges when attempting to replicate the American
model of higher education, a model that is based on the right to academic
freedom of expression. Many of these
partnerships are creating situations where freedoms are being sacrificed at the
expense of students. Furthermore, if these
freedoms are being denied to the students, what effect will this have on the mission
statements of these universities? One must also ask, are these partnerships established
primarily as an "arms race" that is motivated by university brand
exposure and tuition dollars?
An argument can be made that global partnerships are
beneficial as they create a forum for students, faculty and citizens from varying
backgrounds to discuss pressing political issues in a safe environment. For instance, the very fact that a university
such as Yale has established a partnership with Singapore can be seen as a
progressive and liberating step for Singapore from which both parties would
benefit. Although, students in Singapore cannot openly protest or publically
express their political views, they are assured their basic academic freedoms
(Mahtani, 2012). Ultimately, these partnerships
can serve as catalysts for cultural understanding and improved relations with
many of these countries.
As institutions begin to expand their respective brands
abroad, students in these countries will continue to face challenges in regards
to their political freedoms and basic civil rights. It is imperative that American institutions
give ample forethought to the type of partnerships they establish. Furthermore, these institutions need to ensure
that they do not sacrifice the integrity of their mission statements when
establishing these international campuses. It will be interesting to see how
universities navigate their new found relationships with foreign countries and
the civil liberties of their students.
Redden, E.(2012).
Rules of Engagement. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/08/31/political-activism-looks-different-us-branch-campuses-main-campuses
Mahtani, S.
(2012). Singapore’s Venture with Yale to Limit Protests. The
Wall Street Journa. Retrieved from: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303933704577530524046581142.html
I found this posting very interesting as I am considering working in one of these countries after I graduate (Singapore). Opening an American style university in an environment such as this does seem to almost guarantee conflict. But I take the long term view that engagement in these areas is important, as we are not looking to create immediate change but educate the future leaders of these countries. In this view, we are creating change from which we ourselves will not benefit but will benefit future generations. We may find the pace of change slow and frustrating, but we must remember that as educators, the change we seek will always happen in the future, possibly beyond our lifetimes. -- Will Coucheron-Aamot
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlex, you bring up a very interesting topic that I don't think is really garnering too much attention. Institutions often discuss studying abroad as an avenue in which students can add to their diversity experience and become better overall citizens. However, we don't often discuss the dangers and negative impacts that may come along with studying abroad. While learning of different cultures is important to a well-rounded educational experience, the culture clash can also cause issues, not limited to the items listed in the above article. Although the Amanda Knox case ( http://bit.ly/RbSD26 ) is an extreme example, it does present a case for understanding a country's culture (and making sure the students themselves understand the culture) before sending students abroad. ~Jess Evora
ReplyDelete"Political freedoms and basic human rights" are non-existent in some countries. As Americans, we have been raised to believe in, uphold, and think we are entitled to these freedoms without realizing the fatal dangers of engaging in political action and in activism in other countries. Growing up during a time of civil war, I remember university professors along with their students' engaging in protests against the political party in power but I also remember the militias firing at them and the aftermath was usually disappearances and torture. I believe that we need to understand what activism really is for students abroad because many of these students are willing to give their lives for what they believe in. The question is: Are we, in comfortable America willing to do the same?
ReplyDeleteI thought this topic was very interesting and the information provided very insightful. This is something we don't usually think or talk about, as opening a new campus abroad for a university is generally seen as very positive and progressive. It makes me question the motives for why a university would open a campus in a foreign country, especially in countries where the rights of students are limited. If an American university is making an effort to go into another nation, shouldn’t a new campus or partnership abroad still serve to fulfill a university’s mission? Part of that mission being upholding student rights and ‘academic freedom of expression?’ Maybe universities are willing to look past this if these partnerships are lucrative or if they offer opportunities to raise prestige. I hope this is not the case, as I see the real potential for American universities to create positive change abroad through partnerships. -Gerry
ReplyDeleteI agree that it does bring into question the mission of both institutions entering into such an agreement. International partnerships can bring about such positive things, the exchange of knowledge, cross-cultural competency and the rapid development of new technology, but it also forces divergent value systems and cultural norms to face each other directly, often leading to a inadvertent discussion of which might be better or more correct system. Successful partnerships frame their work in mutual strengths, not differences.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to see how American universities that collaborate with foreign universities located in less democratic regions will uphold their mission statements that support students to air political views without their basic civil rights being infringed. If this does not happen, then partnerships between American universities and their Asian counterparts may be comparable to the “arms race.” That is they are motivated to expand their brand exposure and earn more funds at the expense of their mission statement of upholding political freedom and civil liberty.
ReplyDeleteBy Raquel Anderson
This is an interesting topic. An important thing to remember is that high education serves different purposes in different countries. It is naive to think that we can simply partner with a school in another country (with its own values and culture) and expect to simply replicate what we have in the United States. Whether we like it not, not every country is like the US and it's something we have to respect. That being said, these partnerships, over time, will hopefully bridge the gap and create an environment where both sides can learn from each other.
ReplyDelete- Scott Simon