The day after the US presidential election, Fanta Aw, executive director and CEO of NAFSA, posted the following on her LinkedIn page:
“Waking up to a new day, and America has spoken. The work of international education has never been more important. It is the bridge that unites us, ensuring a future where we are part of the world – not apart from it.
“The young people we nurture today, teaching them the values of shared humanity, compassion, cross-cultural understanding, and empathy, are the leaders of tomorrow. International educators, through their purpose, dedication, and action, inspire us to not only imagine what is possible but to live out what is right and necessary.
“… Now, more than ever, we must redouble our efforts. Together, we must build a present and future where mutual understanding, respect, shared humanity, connection, and global citizenship thrive.“
While it was intended to be an inspirational and reassuring reminder of international education’s noble mission and core values, and an impassioned call to action, it rings hollow under the present circumstances – yet another example of “do as we say, not as we do”.
The complicity of silence, the moral obligation of resistance
Allow me to introduce two elephants in the room and two professional red lines that most colleagues refuse to cross.
First, there is the disconnect between “shared humanity, compassion, cross-cultural understanding, and empathy” and crickets at mainstream international education organisations and among most colleagues about the ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza.
In a recent essay entitled I Had a Dream: From Vietnam to Gaza I expressed my anger and dismay at international education leaders in the US who have remained silent in the face of the monstrous crimes being committed day and night by the IDF.
How I wish they and their colleagues would take the wise and compassionate words of Desmond Mpilo Tutu, known for his work as an anti-apartheid and human rights activist, to heart: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”
US Americans are conditioned not to talk about ideology. This works in favour of maintaining the status quo
Secondly, US international educators have refused to grapple with the pivotal issue of US nationalism, a key feature of the MAGA movement associated with Donald Trump. Nationalists have a superiority complex that makes it easier to dehumanise “the other,” ie those who are not members of that club.
I’m one of the few international educators to write and talk about this and its implications for us as practitioners, US society, and the world. The reaction from my colleagues? Mostly silence.
The most plausible reason is that US Americans are conditioned not to talk about ideology. This works in favour of maintaining the status quo, thus confirming what George Orwell wrote in the draft preface to the first edition of Animal Farm: “Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban… At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question.”
Colleagues would rather drone on about a “hot topic” du jour like intercultural competence because it’s perceived as safe.
In a 2021 article Global citizenship is about more than intercultural skills as a follow-up to a 2016 essay about US nationalism, I wrote that “Intercultural competence is generally defined as a skill set, not a mindset, meaning it’s entirely possible to be an interculturally competent nationalist who places her or his skills in the service of a government or corporation whose interests are at odds with those of much of humanity and the environment”.
In other words, it can be amoral, meaning it can rest within drastically different value frameworks.
Allyship as an antidote to unenlightened privilege
A US colleague recently posted a meme on her Facebook page that said: “If you think you love freedom, but you don’t care if it applies to everyone, what you actually love is privilege.”
While the quote was probably meant to apply to the results of the US election, it also relates to our work as international educators and the interconnected concepts of silence and privilege. The reality is most international education colleagues are privileged in various ways and tend to choose comfort over discomfort when it comes to issues that demand our attention. They are exercising privilege by remaining silent.
DC is about to get markedly older and more hostile to the mission of international education
The only alternative is allyship. In a 2022 Harvard Business Review (HBR) article 7 Way to Practice Active Allyship Poornima Luthra, a teaching associate professor in the Department of Organisation at the Copenhagen Business School describes allyship as “a lifelong process of building and nurturing supportive relationships with underrepresented, marginalised, or discriminated individuals or groups with the aim of advancing inclusion”. While the context is the workplace, allyship has universal applicability for global citizens.
In a 2021 HBR essay entitled How to Use Your Privilege to Even the Playing Field, Gorick Ng points out that privilege can (and should) be shared. He discusses five examples from the world of work:
- Broker introductions
- Be a mentor (or sponsor)
- Ensure the everyone can participate equally in conversations
- Help others be seen and heard
- Rotate the non-glamorous work
In the field of international education one could add the following: “Act on your cherished values of shared humanity, compassion, cross-cultural understanding, and empathy by speaking out against atrocities being committed against our fellow human beings and doing whatever you can to mitigate their suffering and offer a brighter future.”
With the election of Trump and vice president elect JD Vance, the horse has left the barn. DC is about to get markedly older and more hostile to the mission of international education.
Continuing to act obsequiously so as not to rock the proverbial boat is not going to advance our agenda. It’s time for serious discussion followed by action to replace lofty rhetoric that acts as an emotional salve but is unable to move the professional and ethical needle forward.
Let us strive to “live out what is right and necessary” in thought, word, and deed.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The PIE News.
