Neetu Arnold, journalist and research fellow at the National Association of Scholars, spoke to an April 15 Middle East Forum Podcast (video). The following summarizes her comments:
Post-October 7, “extremely heated, intense” anti-Israel demonstrations have convulsed American universities. These demonstrations differ from the typical left-wing activism protests on college campuses in that the new iteration features a “foreign element” chanting Arabic slogans calling for Israel’s eradication. Moreover, many students unashamedly express “glee” over Hamas’s publicized atrocities committed against civilians. The provost of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill said flyers advertising such demonstrations “essentially [celebrate] violence” while pro-Israel voices are “shouted down.”
These eruptions are the result of the “internationalization” of U.S. universities that have ignored the consequences of the cultural differences of foreign students whose values are at odds with American values and with the values of Western allies like Israel. During the latter half of the last century, half a million international students were enrolled in U.S. universities, and from 2000 to 2015, another half a million students were enrolled, but at an accelerated rate.
The incentive for universities to accommodate foreign students is primarily financial. Fifty-seven percent of foreign students at state universities pay the full price of tuition for out-of-state enrollees. Three percent of international students are funded either by a “foreign government or foreign organization ... overrepresented in coming from countries that are adversarial to our interests.” Although the percentage is a “tiny amount,” there are disproportionate consequences for American universities receiving funding from authoritarian or nondemocratic Middle Eastern countries.
Over fifty percent of international students are from China and India, but “Middle Eastern countries were actually overrepresented.” Universities such as Texas A&M, which works with Middle Eastern countries engaged in research in oil and gas, and the University of South Carolina, Louisiana State University, and the University of Northern Iowa are but a few of the campuses where Middle Eastern students are funded by foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
Students from Saudi Arabia have been spied on by their government and instructed to avoid engaging in political discussions or talking to the news media. Although such restrictions violate “academic freedom or free speech that we uphold here in the United States,” university administrators are loathe to challenge foreign government sponsors for fear of severing relationships and losing funding.
Universities such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), which has avoided disciplining pro-Hamas student protestors, exhibit moral cowardice “because there could be collateral consequences like visa issues” where students would be expelled to their home country and the flow of funding stopped. At the King Fahd Center at the University of Arkansas, which is a magnet for foreign students, many "[hold] views and grievances from their own countries” towards America and its foreign policy, as well as towards Israel.
Especially when hiring decisions are made through a university’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) program, “lived experience” is prioritized over objectivity in the belief that only t Middle Easterners are qualified to research their own region. Thus, Americans cannot be objective because they are likely “affected by colonialism in some way.” By perpetuating a self-selecting cycle, these centers are intellectually homogeneous.
Another consequence of internationalization is lowered standards for the English proficiency test that foreign students must pass in order to gain acceptance to American universities. Professors whose foreign students lack English language fluency are powerless to act because they do not have the administration’s support. “The universities want to keep the money flowing, so they’re going to keep the students.” Some students who have not met the requirements cheat the system by hiring “third party organizations to take exams or homework on their behalf.”
There are remedies for excessive internationalism, starting with the federal government placing a cap on visas for students from countries hostile to American foreign policy and setting conditions that require these students to comply with U. S. law and customs. Other possible remedies include reinstating the system to “maintain high academic standards” and administering English proficiency exams to foreign students after a semester of study in the U.S. to expose those who cheat the system. If there is a significant disparity between their entrance scores and the follow-up exam, “further actions can be taken.”
Universities respond when money is at stake, and alumni can pressure university administrators to address the toxic antisemitic atmosphere plaguing many campuses.
The Florida Senate introduced a bill, SB 846, that aims to curb foreign influence in its universities by banning them from working with such countries of concern as Iran and China. Although the bill has many positive features, a pending lawsuit claims it engages in “national origin discrimination.” However, states can address this legal hurdle by focusing on banning “contracts” with certain countries, rather than focusing on their people.
Obtaining access to public records of the financial ties between American universities and foreign entities poses a challenge in some states, such as Colorado, whereas states such as Texas, Florida, and North Carolina are more forthcoming in making contracts and funding sources available to the public. University foundations, which store university records, deny access on by claiming to be separate entities from the universities, even though the stored information is for the university’s use. To address this lack of transparency, “it’s more of making sure that there are laws in place that would allow that information to be received.”
Convincing universities to avoid funding from America’s adversaries is a challenge. Universities respond when money is at stake, and alumni can pressure university administrators to address the toxic antisemitic atmosphere plaguing many campuses.
Eyes were opened following the congressional testimony hearing on campus antisemitism in December when university presidents’ failed to show moral clarity in answering “simple moral questions.” Parts of the public were blind to the problems at elite universities, but now “they’re seeing the problems of what’s happening on campus. So, we need to keep talking about it.”
