Political crises, including the Israel-Hamas conflict and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, have placed great stress on universities worldwide. How should they respond?
The often acrimonious debate and activism surrounding the conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine have largely played out in national contexts around the world, in particular in the Global North, with inevitable implications for higher education’s internationalization agenda and strategies.
Political protests, mostly relating to the Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza, have roiled universities in the United States and Europe—creating some of the most dramatic conflicts since the student protests about civil rights of the 1960s and against the Vietnam War in the 1970s. These protests have been conflated with disputes concerning academic freedom. To make matters more complex, issues of antisemitism and Islamophobia have mixed in. Universities have faced strong pressure from politicians and private donors on the right, and students, faculty, and external groups from the left. University leaders are caught in between, struggling and in many cases indecisive on how to deal with diametrically conflicting opinions. These campus conflicts have been magnified by Hamas’ violent attack on Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023, including the death and hostage-taking of students, faculty, and administrators, and the extraordinarily deadly response by the Israeli government and army, including the death of Palestinian students and faculty, and the destruction of higher education in Gaza.
Other crisis points, such as the halt on academic partnerships with universities in Russia due to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine and support for the invasion by Russian university leaders, issues relating to national security and academic collaboration with China, and the position of universities on cooperation with the fossil fuel industry and the climate crisis generally, have also been subjects of academic concern, debate, and activism. It would be an understatement to say that, at least in the West, and especially in the United States and Europe, the academic community has had difficulty coming to grips with the current wave of political activism and the societal and political reaction to it. Institutions have struggled to develop a perspective and plan of action to deal with the impact of sometimes disruptive campus protests, while simultaneously protecting freedom of speech and the right to protest, resulting in unprecedented pressures on academic leadership and the university community.
Protests have occurred in most Western nations and regions (Australia, Canada, and Europe), but also in Latin America, Africa, and elsewhere. In a number of countries, influential groups have criticized the way many universities have reacted to the protests, accusing university leaders of failing to protect all of their students, permitting unlawful campus disruptions, and the like. These critics include political leaders (mostly on the right), some university donors and alumni, and others. At the same time, academics have criticized university leaders bringing in heavily armed police forces to dislodge students protesting peacefully.
In the current crisis in the United States, reference has been made to the widespread protest movements of the 1960s against the Vietnam War and the conflicts that universities faced at the time. Students demanded that the universities take a firm position in opposition to the war, and often in favor of the active civil rights movement also taking place. Some universities did so—and many did not.
Back then, university leaders struggled with their roles, which resulted in the so-called Chicago Principles formulated in 1967 and later adopted by many American universities. Based on on the fundamental principles of academic freedom and freedom of expression and speech, the Principles argue that universities should not take positions on issues beyond those that directly affect their existence and academic roles and should avoid taking positions on political and social issues of the day. This principle, further developed and enhanced in the following decades, still drives many university leaders in the United States and elsewhere in their responses to the current geopolitical tensions. Harvard University, for instance, has recently taken a position, using the term “institutional neutrality,” which builds on the Chicago Principles. As one of the chairs of the working group that developed the position, Noah Feldman, describes it in the Harvard Gazette: “The main point of the report is that the university’s leadership can and should speak out on anything relevant to the core function of the university, which is creating an environment suitable for free, open inquiry, teaching, and research. That environment is threatened these days, and we need to defend it. At the same time, the university as an institution should not make official statements on issues outside its core function. Harvard isn’t a government. It shouldn’t have a foreign policy or a domestic policy.”
This approach looks quite easy and simple, but higher education and society at large have become much more complicated and intertwined. There is far more internationalization of both society and higher education than 50 years ago, accompanied by a strong anti-international, nationalist reaction. Half a century ago, the number of institutional international partnerships was limited and the presence of international students and faculty was marginal, as were international studies, research cooperation, and the influence of international donors. Nowadays, institutions are international in all these dimensions, and as a result they have developed foreign policies and relations. Ignoring pressures from domestic politicians, foreign governments, and a diverse and globalized academic community is no longer possible. With their substantial and complex international operations, universities are no more the isolated ivory towers of the past. They react to, and operate in, a geopolitical environment. As such, they have both an explicit foreign policy (international partnerships and programs), as well as more implicit processes (foreign donations, public–private research activities, for example). For that reason, they have to take into consideration the ethical consequences of what they are doing in their domestic and international research, education, and service, and be more transparent about them.
Does this perspective force universities to always take positions on external issues, nationally or internationally? No. But it is important to keep advocating for a debate on ethics within their own academic community and with their international partners, based on the academic values of academic freedom, autonomy, and active involvement of students and faculty, while at the same time continuing to operate with academic integrity and with a responsibility to society. Such a debate needs to be the basis of their international academic relations and the lens through which to assess existing partnerships—which may or may not result in freezing existing institutional relations. The Western higher education community was quite outspoken on breaking academic relationships with Russian universities. In the case of Israel, has there been such a discussion? What has been the response of Israeli universities to the destruction of Gaza higher education? At least, questions should be asked.
With the rise of nationalism and populism in many settings, it is not easy in the current geopolitical climate to develop nuanced solutions. But we have to acknowledge the fact that universities are an integral part of domestic society and international relations, and that they need an ethical approach to steer them in this difficult context.
Hans de Wit and Philip G. Altbach are professors emeriti, former directors, and currently distinguished fellows at the Boston College Center for International Higher Education, United States. E-mails: [email protected], [email protected].