There’s no question, as this forum suggests, that international-educational efforts raise some touchy ethical issues. At George Mason University, we’re often involved with programs or collaborations in countries with human-rights blotches, and the issue cannot be taken lightly. Let me suggest my own rules of thumb.
First, I can’t imagine a financial incentive that would justify serious compromise of American academic values. Even in these tough economic times, that would be the wrong signal to send, both domestically and internationally. The same point applies to the need to maintain ultimate academic control in any situation where American degrees are being offered—there’s no sacrifice that would make sense.
That said, I would quickly add that it’s important not to become too culturally self-congratulatory, too ready to condemn other contexts that are not the same as our own. A country with the largest prison population in the world might hesitate a bit in censuring police practices in, say, Singapore, which has been a recent protest target concerning American academic engagement.
Campuses Abroad: Promise and Perils
RELATED ARTICLES: Between Democracy and Demagoguery | Talent Knows No Borders | Not Just Another Profit-Seeking Venture | Progress, Not Purity | The Exported University | Universities in a Complex World | Advancing a Global Vision
Second, I do believe that the ultimate value of educational exchange, in fostering social and political dialogue, easily outweighs some possible compromises in the interests of collaboration. There may be splendid reasons to cooperate with countries whose values essentially parallel our own, but it’s particularly attractive to seek settings where cultural differences exist. We’ll learn more in the process than we do through mirror images, and our activities may have wider benefit, in promoting greater international understanding and in stimulating change through examples of academic practices on issues like gender and political debate. That may well mean a need to tolerate certain practices we don’t find optimal. It definitely means respecting some cultural conventions different from our own.
The question inherent in this approach is figuring out when a bit of compromise becomes too much. It’s not easy to provide a precise set of guidelines. In direct operations in the Middle East, to take one example, I’ve found it essential to insist on equal gender access (some American institutions have been more flexible here); but I confess I have not pressed principled claims about gay rights, which I care about deeply in the American context. Not always a happy balance, but perhaps a defendable one if the educational operation has promise in other respects, like promoting shared understanding and shared values. The issue in this case involves a judgment about standards that have moved well along in international discourse, versus standards that are newer and for the moment more delicate in cross-cultural conversation.
Third, the clearest boundary line involves the need to maintain an atmosphere in which critical inquiry is possible. That is, after all, one of the core educational values we can offer, and it commands wide respect abroad. (One of the most eloquent defenses I’ve heard recently came from an official of a university in Beijing, and the same interest in critical thinking is motivating new global collaborations in Korea.) Critical inquiry need not involve gratuitous testing of local tolerance or acts of disrespect to local values and conventions. But it must involve the opportunity to explore differing points of view on key topics, and to engage students directly in testing and exploring varied arguments: The educational mission must not be confined to delivering technical expertise alone. I think it’s possible to compromise on a variety of cultural issues without surrendering this academic basic.
My plea, then, is for a certain degree of flexibility, as opposed to insistence on such purity that the opportunity to engage internationally would shrink unnecessarily. I don’t think we need to hold the benefits of collaboration hostage to every possible symbolic gesture. If there’s adequate range for open inquiry, linkages through higher education have real advantages for American participants as well as international partners that justify a certain degree of risk. The goal is progress, not perfection.