love your institutions, was the title of a piece written by the President of the American University of Beirut, John Waterbury, back in early 2003 and published in Foreign Affairs magazine. It looks at the tension between respect for American educational institutions and antipathy towards American foreign policy.
Given the current strained relationship between certain Islamic countries and the American administration over residency visas, I thought it was worth taking a look back to see what – if anything –has changed over the last 13 years.
Waterbury’s main idea was that despite foreign policies that make local residents angry towards the U.S., American educational institutions are largely held in high regard throughout the region. They could be used as a bridge into the local polity. Locals educated in the American system, and through American methods – goes the argument – would have a common frame of reference by which to discuss policy, and to smooth-out relations with Americans.
To support this, Waterbury quotes figures from a Gallup poll in 2002 on the views of persons from Muslim countries towards the United States: “The range of unfavorable views ran from a low of 33 percent in Turkey to a high of 68 percent in Pakistan. The poll also found that respondents overwhelmingly described the United States as “ruthless, aggressive, conceited, arrogant, easily provoked, biased.”
Despite failing to mention that one of his predecessors at AUB had been assassinated, casting immediate doubt on the general extent of appreciation for American educational institutions, Waterbury’s point seems generally valid for its time. AUB was definitely popular while I was there in 2003; it was a springboard for clever, affluent youngsters to go on to interesting careers.
Mistrust towards American foreign policy in the Middle East has, however, increased in the intervening years (e.g. see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/01/11/who-loves-and-hates-america-a-revealing-map-of-global-opinion-toward-the-u-s/?utm_term=.17bf6be22900). This is with the odd exception: perceptions of America’s actions against ISIS, for example, are reportedly favourable (http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/23/1-americas-global-image/).
At the same time, the appetite for American education remains as high as it was in 2003, if not higher: local jobs and job markets have become more competitive. The ever-increasing oversight of religious authorities over state education also erodes the ability of local higher educational institutions to compete on a global level, and this increases the attractiveness of a secular, western Education amongst those that can afford it.
One factor that is very different from situation 2003 is the coherence of a social response to policy, facilitated by the media – social or otherwise. Individual opinions can become aggregated and propagated through likes and shares, in a way that was unheard of 13 years ago.
This was seen in the recent temporary U.S travel ban, which generated a vocal response from stakeholders in the U.S. education sector. For example, students from Iran – which has no diplomatic relationship with the U.S. – were prevented from taking up research positions, causing an outcry; while some students and academic staff on residential visas from other Muslim countries turned to social media to criticize the perceived unfairness of the U.S. Administration’s policy towards their co-religionists.
A state of affairs thus exists (and which has been ongoing at least since 2003) in which a percentage of the beneficiaries of American education also have negative views on America the nation-state – which is, almost by definition, defined by its body-politic. The hope in 2003 that education would provide a policy bridge, has not materialized, and is not likely to do so, all things being equal. Additionally, the general antipathy towards American policy is now amplified and made more coherent through social media.
Since persons invested in the American educational system contribute financially to that system, they presumably must hold – at an absolute minimum – some consumer rights, and their voice is thus afforded a level of legitimacy. However, if the average position of all students from a particular geodemographic segment is set-to continually critique U.S. political institutions and U.S. policy, what long-term effect will it have on the educational system? What other (unintended) externalities can be expected, when these demographics return to countries of origin – better educated and better resourced? Within this I include a reduced incentive for the middle classes to improve homegrown institutions.
There must be benefits of foreign-student participation other than purely commercial ones; such as the level of academic contribution to the overall system as suppliers not just customers (post-grads etc.). It might be worthwhile identifying and quantify these benefits.
In 2003, Waterbury identified poor quality American organisations out to make a fast buck from education-deprived Middle Eastern students as one major risk to the credibility of American education as an institution. In 2017 however, an overemphasis on the commercial benefits of education could potentially undermine a whole lot more.
Dates & Figs 