Tag: education

Posted on

Indigenous and Tribal Nation scientists and universities

By Elizabeth A. Sumida Huaman and Stephen J. Smith

In 1999, Māori scholar, Linda T. Smith, challenged what she called the “mystical, misty-eyed discourse” surrounding the way that Indigenous relationships with land are often characterized. She argued that while knowledge of land was spiritual, it was also empirical: “I believe that our survival as peoples has come from our knowledge of our contexts, our environment, not from some active beneficence of our Earth Mother. We had to know to survive…We still have to do these things” (pp. 12– 13, our emphasis).

We are a biologist (Smith) and Indigenous Studies researcher (Sumida Huaman) whose environmental work is guided by Tribal Nations and Indigenous communities1 and institutions in North and South America. Our research strives to contribute data to Indigenous self-determination, and alongside community members, we use science and educational research towards protection of our lands. We believe that Indigenous-directed scientific efforts demonstrate the vitality of Indigenous Nations as key environmental leaders and contributors, yet Indigenous peoples are not guaranteed opportunities to contribute meaningfully to environmental studies, even on their own lands. Thus, underlying our work is the need to rectify Tribal peoples’ lack of access to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), including learning and training, tools and resources, and leadership, which we see as necessary in Tribal and Indigenous efforts to preserve, protect, and defend land and life today.

Significance of Indigenous Peoples in STEM

Over recent decades, educators have pursued solutions to STEM inequities for Indigenous peoples, and the resulting approaches depend on where interventions are directed. Our approach includes Tribal and Indigenous graduate students, including Tribal College and University students and STEM latecomers who did not have robust learning experiences as children but who seek them as older students. In our experience, Tribal and Indigenous adults are important connectors to past generations and influencers for current ones.

However, in the U.S. alone in 2022, American Indians and Alaska Natives earned 0.17% of STEM master’s degrees and 0.13% of STEM doctoral degrees, while white and international students earned 84% and 89%, respectively, of all STEM graduate degrees. Over the last decade, while other racialized groups in the U.S. show increased STEM graduate degree numbers, the total number American Indian and Alaska Native (and Pacific Islander)—extremely small to begin with—has declined. For example, in 2012, American Indians and Alaska Natives earned 59 STEM doctoral degrees, and in 2022, they earned 39 (see National Center for Education Statistics, 2023).

Behind these numbers are stories of what is lost or gained when Tribal Nation and Indigenous students lead environmental solutions for their own and other communities. As global environmental shift accelerates, the stakes are higher for Tribal Nations and Indigenous communities racing to understand what is happening while developing policy, curbing local impacts, and amassing evidence to effectively participate in environmental debates and advocacy.

Universities are incredible spaces of learning where students gain knowledge and tools to solve environmental, social, health, and other problems. However, they have also been historically very difficult for Tribal and Indigenous students to access, resulting in misses for our lands and peoples, which we feel intimately: While we work in the university, we are from families and communities that safeguard the places we call home but who need support to continue doing so. Ongoing marginalization is a missed opportunity for broader impact: Indigenous scientists with strong connections to their communities see problems differently because they know their lands very well. They strive to care for those places long after university research projects and federal funding end.

Indigenous Scientific Development and Violence by Reduction

We currently collaborate on research planning with the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), which represents the 36 Tribal Colleges in the U.S. While the history of higher education writ large reveals failures to Tribal Nations, from land grabs to ethical research violations, what we do next together is crucial, especially as Indigenous relationships with land are increasingly challenged by contamination, extraction, and development.

We assert that as First Peoples and original rights-holders, Tribal Nations have the educational right to learn about these problems and how to counter them through science. We are also aware that education at all levels stands as an untrustworthy institution: Indigenous peoples across the Americas have experienced the weaponization of schooling by state, secular, and private agencies. However, over the last 50 years, Indigenous-led education as an outcome of Indigenous self-determination has gained traction across the Americas. In other words, alternative ways to do education can lead to building a critical mass of conscientious Indigenous and Tribal Nation scientists, including those who wish to serve our homelands. Yet the road to authentically reaching this goal, together, requires institutional introspection—identifying the ways that institutions and states benefit from Indigenous lands, confronting dominant resistance to Indigenous self-determination, and examining institutional norms that perpetuate structural violence.

Our aim is not to paint universities broadly as structurally violent entities. Universities do many good things with Tribal Nations and Indigenous communities, but we also wish for institutional stakeholders to understand that the scarcity of Tribal Nation scientists is not an Indigenous capabilities or preparation-only concern but an outcome of violence. Salmi’s (2000) typology of violence describes violence as direct and indirect. Although Indigenous communities and Tribal Nations have faced well-documented direct violence (deliberate injury to the integrity of human life), we build our educational argument from indirect violence (indirect violation of the right to survival), including violence by omission (lack of protection against poverty, hunger, disease, accidents, and natural catastrophes) and mediated violence (harmful violations to the environment making conditions for human life extremely difficult). We draw from Salmi’s (2000) definition of repressive violence—deprivation of fundamental rights (i.e., civil, political, and social)—and alienating violence, deprivation of higher rights that produce racism, ostracism, cultural repression, and living in fear. To this typology, we add violence by reduction and diminishment. The reality of Indigenous peoples is the cyclical encounter with direct and indirect violence. Within this cycle, educational access is not a privilege; it is the right to gain the tools to exit it. Thus, denial of the possibility to access the skills that scientific training offers forecloses Indigenous abilities to fully respond to environmental threats, mitigate damage and heal from it, and facilitate the caring and resilience of their own lands and more than human relations. Violence by reduction and diminishment is the denial of the skills and knowledges required by Indigenous peoples to craft healthy ecological futures.

Raiding Together

Of the educational needs identified by Tribal Nation and Indigenous leadership is capacity to lead care of land (stewarding minerals, trees, water, soil, plants, animals, birds, insects, air, etc.) and care of people. Higher education is a powerful way to meet these needs but is seen as a privilege or luxury (as opposed to the right to elementary education). However, when Tribal Nation and Indigenous community members make it into STEM, they do so for reasons that challenge their presence in universities as individual beneficiaries of privilege. Tribal and Indigenous students raised on their lands or closely connected through land-based activities have ongoing commitments to family, community, Nation, and land. Apache scholar Philip Stevens links these commitments to higher education through “academic raiding,” or how Tribal and Indigenous students make sense “of the world around them with the intent of bringing it [knowledge from elsewhere] home” (Anthony-Stevens et al., 2017, p. 26). Effective student advocacy means learning their stories over time, respecting their raiding, and appreciating to whom and why their presence in STEM and university programs matters. Such relationships are not genuine if adopted to diversify university-based research, perform goodwill, or assuage individual or institutional guilt. Allies who sympathize with Tribal and Indigenous long-term goals will instead seek to understand students’ mental models of what it means to go home, to places that are complex but also unique sites of regeneration and restoration. Therefore, we encourage educators to co-develop with their students a shared baseline regarding land and Tribal values that is holistic and inclusive, with the land itself—perhaps an ethic, set of principles, or key commitments.

However, intentions alone will be insufficient. At many universities, thoughtful people work to learn better ways of serving Tribes. But as federal policies and interests shift, and in moments of duress, we ask if the good people will preserve and grow nascent relationships with Tribal Nations and Indigenous communities, even as they seek protection for themselves and their work. Without a shared baseline, answers cannot be dialogic, and university allies and Tribes risk mutual isolation and conditional good intentions rather than rooted ones. From our point of view, Indigenous appeals to the university for visibility, representation, or rights are not effective. Tribal and Indigenous researchers cannot be dependent on others to save or stand by us, so we stay inward with Tribal Nations and Indigenous communities and our students, we seek knowledge-based alternatives that celebrate agency and resourcefulness, and we cautiously open our hearts to allies.

We share our commitment to a unified baseline of valuing Tribal lands and all that they touch as a call to collective learning and building a global community of Tribal Nation and Indigenous advocates in restrictive and abundant times. Education at its best is by nature reflexive and limber. As its processes and structures are tested, Tribal Nation and Indigenous would-be scientists in different learning spaces are envisioning healthy environmental futures for their lands and people, and university STEM faculty and leaders consider the future of science. Both need each other, and both are strongest together.

Note: This article is based on a joint talk that was provided for the “Repurposing Universities for the Climate & Nature Emergency” (February 2025), hosted by the UBC Faculty of Education Professor Climate Complexity and Coloniality. We offer special thanks to Dr. Sharon Stein for the opportunity to share our work, and we are deeply grateful to the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, the Spencer Foundation, and to colleagues in the College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences, College of Science & Engineering, College of Biological Sciences, College of Liberal Arts, and College of Education and Human Development at the University of Minnesota.

1 We keep Tribal Nations and Indigenous communities distinct throughout this article. Tribal Nations and Tribal Nation students refer to U.S. federal government treaty-based relationships with federally-recognized Tribes. Descriptors like “Indigenous communities” and “Indigenous students” constitute a very broad way of speaking about Indigenous and autochthonous peoples worldwide, including Tribal Nations and their members and others who are explicitly recognized by their national governments as Indigenous. However, “Indigenous” in this article is a convenient paraphrasing for discussing non-Tribal Nation Indigenous peoples.

REFERENCES

Anthony-Stevens, V., Stevens, P., & Nicholas, S. (2017). Raiding and alliances: Indigenous educational sovereignty as social justice. Journal of Critical Thought and Praxis, 6(1).

Salmi, J. (2000). Violence, democracy and education: An analytical framework. LCSHD Paper, 56.

Smith, L.T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples, Second Edition. Zed Books.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Elizabeth A. Sumida Huaman is Wanka/Quechua from the Mantaro Valley, Peru. She is Professor in the College of Education of Human Development and Chair of the Department of American Indian Studies at the University of Minnesota. She conducts critical and participatory Indigenous land-based studies with Indigenous communities towards environmental learning interventions. Her recent projects include co-developing ethical guidelines for weather systems research with agrarian communities and documenting water stories and networks across the Andes in Peru and Ecuador.

Stephen J. Smith was raised on the Leech Lake Reservation and is an enrolled citizen of the White Earth Tribal Nation. He was a lab scientist for Minnesota Chippewas Tribe, later leading the lab, before teaching STEM courses at the Leech Lake Tribal College. He is currently completing a Ph.D. in Conservation Biology at the University of Minnesota. He conducts ecological studies with Tribal Nations and Indigenous communities and specializes in limnology and aquatic invasive plants. His current fieldwork addresses how the invasive Starry Stonewort (Nitellopsis obtusa) competes with the native grass and sacred food to the Ojibwe or Manoomin (Zizania palustrus) under rapidly changing weather systems.

Posted on

Australia’s International Education Policy Reform: Implications for Study Abroad and Working Holiday Pathways for Japanese Students

By Yuka Jibiki

Australia is an important international education provider, especially to its Asian neighbors, known for its quality education, English learning opportunities, and attractive work permits (Tsukamoto, 2009). Between 2023 and 2025, 71.5% of Australia’s international students were from Asian countries (Department of Education 2023). However, since early summer 2024, Australia has implemented dramatic changes in its international education policies that may significantly impact the global student community. 

In December 2023, the Department of Home Affairs announced that the Genuine Temporary Entrant (GTE) requirement for student visas would be replaced by a Genuine Student (GS) requirement after March 23, 2024. Under the new requirement, visa applicants must explain their reasons for choosing a specific course and provider in Australia, allowing better screening of applicants with non-study intentions (Department of Home Affairs, 2024a; 2024b). In July 2024, the government doubled student visa fees from 710 Australian dollars (AUD) to 1,600 AUD (Nikkei Asia, 2024) and planned to limit international student enrollment through an international student cap called the National Planning Level (NPL) for 2025 admissions (Packer, 2024; Study Australia, 2024). 

The policy limiting international student numbers has shocked the international education industry. This could impact the enrollment of Asian international students, who formed a substantial portion of the international student body in Australia. Meanwhile, Canada, another highly popular destination for international students, has taken similar steps. In January 2024, the Canadian government set up a temporary, two-year international student cap to deliver quality education and to improve its student visa programme (Brunner & Cervantes-Macías, 2025; ICEF Monitor, 2024). 

This paper explores how recent changes in Australia’s international education policy have impacted Japanese students’ study abroad. As a practitioner at a Japanese university overseeing study abroad programs in Australia, I have seen how the change, particularly the rise in visa fees, has startled faculty, administrators, students, and families. While the discussion centers on Japanese students, the issues explored here, including rising visa fees and shifts in student mobility, carry implications for policymakers, scholars, and practitioners worldwide.  

Australia witnessed a rapid increase in foreign students after the COVID-19 pandemic suspended outbound travel. It has been one of the most popular choices for international students, including Japanese students, thanks to its geographic proximity, relatively affordable airfare, and well-known working holiday program. In this post-COVID era, Japanese students are eagerly pursuing “revenge” study abroad, an opportunity to reclaim study, work, or living abroad experiences they missed during the pandemic. In 2023, about 10,000 students from Japan studied in Australia, which ranked 16th, accounting for one percent of all international students there (Department of Education, 2023; Department of Home Affairs, 2023). 

International education functions not only as an academic exchange but also as a vital economic sector. Tuition paid by international students in 2022 accounted for 25% of public university revenue. Their economic impact is estimated at more than 30 billion AUD annually (Nikkei Asia, 2024). International education income is a critical financial source “to bridge funding gaps for domestic health education and to underwrite services for socio-economically disadvantaged Australian students” (Ross, 2024). Nonetheless, domestic concerns have prompted the government to shrink the international student population through new policies, including doubling the student visa fees and NPL. The government officials see that increased migration has made housing less affordable. They also want to fix the labor shortage after the pandemic by reducing immigration (Nikkei Asia, 2024). The NPL is intended to free housing and redistribute international enrollments more equitably (Ross, 2024). 

While there is a concern that the NPL would limit study opportunities in Australia, it exempts school students, full-time students in English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students (ELICOS), and students in transnational education programs (Study Australia, 2024). Japan is the second-largest source country with 13% of the ELICOS market (BONARD, 2024). Thus, many Japanese students on short- or mid-term study abroad programs may not be significantly affected by the cap. However, these exemptions do little to ease the broader tension. The government’s restrictive measures, driven by concerns over housing affordability and labor market adjustment, curtail the long-term benefit of international education, challenging policymakers to balance immediate domestic needs with sustainable benefits.

Beyond traditional study abroad pathways, Australia’s shifting policies and the post-COVID society are reshaping alternative mobility options like working holidays, which are becoming increasingly popular among Japanese students. In my experience, I have observed students opting for working holidays even after securing full-time job offers, driven by the desire to live abroad without concrete long-term career plans. According to the Japan Association for Working Holiday Makers (JAWHM), the largest number of Japanese people traveled to Australia in June 2023. Factors driving this trend include accelerated yen depreciation and Australia’s higher minimum wage compared to Japan, making this option attractive. Social media fuels an appealing myth that even individuals with limited English proficiency or prior work experience can earn higher wages on a working holiday in Australia. Reality, however, can be less glamorous. Despite the attractive image portrayed online, finding stable employment can be challenging. Increased migration contributes to a crowded labor market. With raising wage costs, employers may be reluctant or even unable to hire additional people. Many young Japanese embark on working holidays without sufficient planning, leaving them vulnerable when the stark realities of a competitive job market and high living costs set in. Consequently, some rely on free meals provided by local charities while struggling financially. The JAWHM warns that success in Australia requires more than determination; it demands local networks, professional connections, business etiquette, professional experience, and English skills to obtain jobs (Handa, 2024; Shūkan Gendai, 2024a; 2024b).

Australia’s new policy may drive interest in other study abroad options (Packer, 2024). Some Japanese universities offer study abroad programs in Southeast Asia, attracted by lower costs in the face of a weakening yen and rising energy prices (Nakagawa, 2023). For example, After COVID, Kyoto Tachibana University saw more interest in its Malaysia program (Matsutani, 2023). Interestingly, Malaysia and other Asian countries host Australia’s transnational education (TNE) programs, providing cost-effective Australian education at offshore campuses. While TNE offers financial advantages for budget-conscious students, it cannot provide the authentic living experience in Australia (Harris, 2024). This fundamental limitation could mean TNE remains an imperfect solution for Japanese students wanting immersion in Australian culture, even as it presents a more affordable pathway to Australian qualifications.

In conclusion, the shifting landscape of Australia’s international education policies has impacted Japanese students’ choices and the development of study abroad programs. These policy changes are in response to social changes and challenges in the post-COVID period, but they require study abroad program developers, scholars, and policymakers to remain agile and forward-thinking. While traditional destinations, such as the US, Canada, and Australia, still hold appeal, especially to English language learning students, there lies a potential for expanding study abroad programs to non-traditional locations and forms. Furthermore, it is essential to provide careful guidance on working holiday pathways. Much like study abroad programs, working holiday opportunities require meticulous planning and preparation. By understanding how these changes affect student mobility and program design, stakeholders can proactively address emerging challenges and leverage new opportunities in the global education market.

References

BONARD. (2024, June). National ELICOS market report 2023. English Australia. https://www.englishaustralia.com.au/documents/item/2442

Brunner, L., & Cervantes-Macías, M. E. (2025). Reflections on Canada’s first international student cap. Critical Internationalization Studies Review, 4 (1), Article 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.70531/2832-3211.1043

Department of Education, Australian Government. (2023, March 11). International students studying in Australia (2005-2023). International Education Data and Research. https://www.education.gov.au/international-education-data-and-research/international-students-studying-australia-between-2005-and-2023

Department of Home Affairs, Australian Government. (2024a, September 23). Genuine student requirement. https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/student-500/genuine-student-requirement

Department of Home Affairs, Australian Government. (2024b, March 20). New genuine student requirement. News. https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/news-media/archive/article?itemId=1187#:~:text=New%20 Genuine%20 Student%20requirements Text=This%20change%20was%20 announced%20as,or%20after%2023%20March%202024

Department of Home Affairs, Australian Government. (2023, November 7). International student and education statistics by nationality.https://www.education.gov.au/international-education-data-and-research/international-student-and-education-statistics-nationality

Handa, N. (2024, September 11). Jobs difficult to find for those on working holiday in Australia. The Asahi Shimbun. https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15395932

Harris, T. (2024, June 18). Transnational education – not a solution to the caps problem. The Koala – International Education News. https://thekoalanews.com/transnational-education-not-a-solution-to-the-caps-problem/

ICEF Monitor. (2024, January 22).Canada announces two-year cap on new study permits. ICEF Monitor. https://monitor.icef.com/2024/01/canada-announces-two-year-cap-on-new-study-permits/

Masutani, F. (November 17, 2023). Study-abroad programs hurt by weaker yen, soaring prices. The Asahi Shimbun. https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15038692

Nakagawa, H. (2023). Shiritsu daigaku ni okeru kaigai ryuugaku puroguramu no genjyou to sono tokuchō – koukateki na kaigai ryuugaku puroguramu kaihatsu ni kansuru ichikousatsu- [Characteristics and current trends of study abroad programs at japanese private universities]. Ikoma Journal of Economics, 21 (1), 85-97,

Nikkei Asia (2024, July 4). Australia ryugakusei visa tesuryo2baini imin yokusei nerai [Australia doubles student visa fees aminig to curb immigration]. https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOCB0345Q0T00C24A7000000/

Packer, H. (2024, September 3). UK universities expected to benefit from Australian caps. Times Higher Education (THE). https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/uk-universities-expected-benefit-australian-caps

Ross, J. (2024, September 5). Who wins and who loses if Australia goes ahead with overseas cap? Times Higher Education (THE). https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/who-wins-and-who-loses-if-australia-goes-ahead-overseas-cap

Shūkan Gendai. (2024a, September 24). “Ichinichi ni rirekisyo 50mai dashitemo saiyou zero” “Comyuryoku ga zetsubouteki” Australia zaijyu nihonjin ga kataru “mukeikaku sugiru wahorisei” no kibishii syusyoku jijyou [Japanese living in Australia talk about the harsh job-hunting conditions of “unplanned working holiday students” who “send out 50 resumes a day and get zero employment” and “are hopeless at communicating]. https://gendai.media/articles/-/138001?imp=0

Shūkan Gendai. (2024b, September 24). “Waholi wo amakumita” nihon no wakamono tachi, sono hisansugiru matsuro… Australia ni sattoumo “homeless muke no syokuryouhaihu ni tyoudano retsu” “shikatanaku genchino kyabakura de hataraku hito mo” [Japanese youths who “underestimated working holiday” and their miserable end… Rushed into Australia but “waiting in a long lines for food distribution to homeless people” and “no choice but to work in local cabarets”]. https://gendai.media/articles/-/138000?imp=0

Study Australia. (2024, August 29). The new student cap: what it means for you. News. https://www.studyaustralia.gov.au/ja/tools-and-resources/news/national-planning-level-2025

Tsukamoto, K. (2009). The Interconnection Between Australia’s International Education Industry and Its Skilled Migration Programs. In: Fegan, J., Field, M.H. (eds) Education Across Borders. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9411-8_4

About the Author

Yuka Jibiki is an assistant professor at Department of International Studies in Tokyo Seitoku University and a PhD student in the University of Sacred Heart, Tokyo. Her work focuses on teaching English as a foreign language, study abroad preparation, reflection, and program management. She is currently exploring how students integrate study abroad experiences with learning at home, with a focus on fostering lifelong learning attitudes and skills. 

Posted on

Eulogy: An Update on the Leadership Under Fire Seminar Series

by Abu Arif

Yes, you heard it right. After an 18-month run and six episodes of inspiring dialogue, I have decided to end the Leadership Under Fire seminar series.

Some of you know me; others may not. I’m Abu Arif—son of a Bangladesh liberation war freedom fighter and a poet; husband to a very handsome man; brother to some annoying siblings; an uncle to half a dozen mischievous nephews and nieces; and a self-proclaimed best friend of my best friend. I write to you from the comfort of my home while listening to Meghero Gohonokale and debating whether to record my husband’s snoring. My home is situated on the traditional territory of the Mi’kmaq and Beothuk peoples, known as St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador. I am a doctoral candidate and PhD Fellow at the Faculty of Education at Memorial University and an assistant editor of the Critical Internationalization Studies Review.

It was my honor to curate six episodes of the Leadership Under Fire seminar series—a journey through the rugged terrains of internationalization in higher education, where each episode critically examined leadership in international higher education. After several conversations with peers, mentors, and colleagues, I have decided to end this journey so that another can begin.

For the past six months, my heart, like many of yours, has been stirred by global crises. Everywhere I look, I see valleys of loss—bodies, trees, rivers, progressive ideas and policies, our joy, dreams, and faith in our ability to weave a different world. These moments have impelled me to shift my focus from shedding light on the complexities of leadership in the internationalization of higher education to exploring how we might cultivate joy and self-care while living out our purpose amid forces intent on division and despair.

In the words of Maya Angelou, “We may encounter many defeats, but we must not be defeated.” Her wisdom reminds us that resistance work need not be devoid of relational care or moments of joy. As a disobedient son, loving partner, occasionally annoying brother, fun uncle, and an unsure scholar navigating these complex intersections, I affirm that our struggles are interwoven with the necessity of healing, creativity, and deep connection. Stay tuned for a new series launching this summer, where we will continue exploring how to live our truths and cultivate hope and joy—even when we must organize for profound resistance.

Reflecting on the Journey

Our series was a vibrant platform for critical reflection and bold ideas throughout six episodes. Each session offered a unique perspective on the complexities of internationalization in higher education and its intersections with equity, diversity, and inclusion.

  • Episode One: In our inaugural session, we opened with a candid exploration of the “bruises and breezes” of international higher education. Esteemed voices—Dr. William Radford, Dr. Clayton Smith, and Ms. Kate Jennings—set the stage by sharing their diverse experiences, sparking a dialogue about the human cost and promise of internationalization. I asked everyone to bring popcorn, and the panelists gave you the real talk – Dr. Radford stirred controversy, Dr. Smith hung on to his usual balancing tactic, and Ms. Jennings – like a truly international education cadre – walked the rugged terrain as if it were a breezy sea beach. You can find the recording here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIvYQ8FAaIk.

  • Episode Two: This session focused on the lived experiences of international students and the persistent challenges of racism in academic settings. My dear friend and brilliant student advisor, Georginne Worley, hosted the event. Under the guidance of Priscilla Tsuasam, the conversation was enriched by the insightful contributions of Danai Bélanger and Rohene Boujram. The powerful opening by Dr. Shetina M. Jones will hook you right away, and what follows can be described as weaving strategies for how far the light can reach. Their combined perspectives underscored the necessity of deep listening and systemic change to dismantle barriers to inclusion and Black women leaders’ experience in the Canadian higher education system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqsXuPaH3VE&t

  • Episode Three: A pivotal moment came in the third episode, as the series shifted its lens to grassroots movements within international higher education. With an inspiring opening from Dr. Sharon Stein and thoughtful moderation by Dr. Melissa Whatley, panelists Dr. Santiago Castiello, Dr. Jenna Mittelmeier, and CJ Tremblay illuminated how community-led initiatives can challenge entrenched norms and ignite transformative change. I hoped for greater live participation, but people wanted to listen to the recording instead. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHVz3XrbME8

  • Episode Four: The fourth episode broadened our perspective by engaging leaders of national and regional organizations lobbying for the internationalization of education. Moderated by Dr. Sonja Knutson, this session featured the powerful contributions of Dr. Dorothea Antonio of NAFSA: Association of International Educators, Dr. Lavern Samuels of International Education Association of South Africa (IEASA), and Vinitha Gengatharan of York University. Their insights reinforced that equitable leadership in international education requires collaboration across borders and sectors. Participants were not shy to ask difficult questions – yes, that which shall not be named – was named. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj50l6gSb4I&t

  • Episode Five: Shifting the focus to student affairs, the fifth session showcased how universities integrate global perspectives into local contexts. Opening speaker Dr. Birgit Schreiber, President of the International Association of Student Affairs and Services (IASAS), laid a great foundation by emphasizing that student success is everyone’s business. Denai Belanger returned once again (this time as Vice President of Student Affairs of Bishop University – yes, the light will go further than our imagination) and, joined by Dr. Ainsley Carry, discussed the infamous cap that has thrown the “greedy internationalization complex of Canada” into a whirlwind. No, they did not address the unsettling chuckling of the Canadian Minister of Immigration as he bulldozed the dreams of many international students, but they covered everything else. Dr. Christine Arnold—who moderated the session—posed challenging questions for all the popcorn lovers. Their insights painted a vivid picture of the evolving role of student affairs in supporting the diverse needs of both international and local student populations, especially during crises like the “year of sledgehammering.” The recording is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHVz3XrbME8

  • Episode Six: In our final episode, the dialogue came full circle by examining the intersections of internationalization, diversity, equity, and inclusion. The panel discussion, framed by Rohene Boujram (yes, she came back this time to moderate the conversation), explored the pandemic’s complex aftermath alongside rising geopolitical tensions, evolving international funding and immigration policies, and recent U.S. policy shifts. Panelists Punita Lumb and Dr. Amie Mclean shared personal journeys that underscored the nuanced definitions of DEI/EDI and internationalization in higher education. They debated how institutional frameworks—from neoliberal risk management to visions of socially just communities—intersect with lived experiences, emphasizing the need for safe, authentic dialogue and critical, relational practices. The conversation also highlighted practical strategies, such as co-leadership and decolonial approaches, to bridge gaps between policy and practice, ultimately urging a collective, hopeful journey toward justice and inclusion. You can find the recording here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLzjFiGCGzA&t

Looking Forward

The conclusion of this series is not an end but a transformative moment—a turning point that signals the beginning of new explorations. The insights shared across these sessions have profoundly enriched our understanding of international higher education leadership and have sown the seeds for future initiatives that will continue challenging the status quo and amplifying the voices working at the margins.

We thank every speaker, panelist, moderator, and participant who supported these sessions. Your contributions—whether through thoughtful dialogue, courageous storytelling, or innovative ideas—have been the lifeblood of this series.

As we close this chapter, we remain dedicated to reimagining higher education—a journey fueled by the courage to confront inequities and the collective will to create spaces of hope, joy, and transformative resistance.

Posted on

Practice Implications for Supporting International Students’ Racial Learning in the U.S.

A practice brief by Mianmian Fei

In my recently published article, Fei (2024), I reviewed 11 studies that explored the micro-narrative of international students in the U.S. to re-examine the Learning Race in a U.S. Context emergent framework (Fries-Britt et al., 2014) a decade after its publication. The article concluded with three theoretical implications, suggesting that the framework expand the scope of ethnic/racial encounters, emphasize the influences of home country context, and maintain flexibility regarding racial learning outcomes. While several empirical studies on international students’ racial learning and racial identities have touched on practice implications, no article to date has systemically discussed practice-orientated recommendations for supporting international students’ racial learning. Drawing on additional literature, this practice brief fills that gap and provides actionable insights for higher education practitioners. 

Racial Learning of International Students in the U.S.

As highlighted in Fei (2024), empirical studies on international students’ racial learning over the past ten years reveal that most international students enter the U.S. with limited understanding of race in the country’s context. Their racial learning is generally informal and experiential, which can either prompt them to examine their racial identities within the U.S. context or reinforce preexisting racial stereotypes from their home countries. While some students attempt to resist dealing with race or accepting the racial identities imposed upon them, the ubiquity of race in everyday life in the U.S. often leaves them feeling confused or frustrated. Moreover, international students’ stereotypical views of certain racial groups can potentially harm their racially minoritized peers and jeopardize efforts to foster an inclusive campus climate. 

Practice Implications

Drawing on existing literature, the following sections present practice implications regarding higher education administration, curricula, and student affairs programming for supporting international students’ racial learning.

Administrative Implications

Higher education institutions around the country tend to aggregate international student data solely based on geographic origins while neglecting their racial/ethnic identities, following the example of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System of the National Center for Education Statistics (Buckner et al., 2021; Hou et al., 2023; Jiang, 2021). Even when race is mentioned in institutions’ internationalization strategies, it is typically framed as a global issue rather than an institutional concern, reinforcing the othering of this population and overlooking their struggles with race in the U.S. (Buckner et al., 2021). U.S. higher education institutions must acknowledge international students’ racial/ethnic identities along with their national identities. Doing so would be an important first step toward recognizing their racialized experiences on campuses and thus incorporating them into discussions of racial diversity and multiculturalism policies (Jiang, 2021; Yu, 2024). 

Curricular Implications

Coursework on American history, particularly its racial foundations, is one widely recommended practice in existing literature (Mitchell et al., 2017; Ritter, 2016; Yu, 2024), although whether such courses should be required remains a topic of debate (Althen, 2009). Beyond credit-bearing courses, creative alternatives like for-credit intergroup dialogues, which combine classroom instruction with conversations and community action projects, offer flexibility and practical relevance (Mitchell et al., 2017; Ritter, 2016). While ethnic studies courses available in most universities and colleges address race-related content, their focus on U.S.-based racial-ethnic groups may limit their relevance for international students from different cultural and historical backgrounds (Ham, 2023; Jiang, 2021). Jiang (2021) therefore proposed joint coursework between ethnic studies and international studies, making discussions about race in the U.S. context more relevant for international students. Additionally, specifically regarding economically privileged Chinese international students, Yu (2024) called for civic education curricula that address the intersections of race, nativity, and class. Such curricula aim to encourage students to reflect on their intersecting yet inconsistent social identities, ultimately fostering a commitment to social justice.

Programmatic Implications

The most common practice recommendation in the literature is to formalize international students’ racial learning through student affairs programming. These programs can include initiatives to foster meaningful connections between international students and racially diverse domestic students, faculty, and staff (Fries-Britt et al., 2014; Jiang, 2021; Mitchell et al., 2017; Ritter, 2016; Yu, 2022, 2024), facilitated space where international students can ask questions and engage in discussions without fear of reprisal (Yao et al., 2024; Yu, 2024), and targeted orientations for international students which openly address racial issues in the U.S. (Jiang, 2021; Yao et al., 2023; Yu, 2022, 2024). 

Surveying the programming efforts of international students offices across the U.S., Althen (2009) found that higher education institutions in urban settings with racially heterogenous populations often offered limited programming on racial learning, assuming that international students would acquire racial knowledge from daily interactions with diverse campus populations. Fei’s (2024) findings, however, underscored the need for such programming regardless of an institution’s geographic location, since even international students in diverse states like California might retain problematic racial biases against certain minority groups, shaped by perspectives from their home countries. Althen (2009) also found that some institutions only offered programming for international undergraduate students, assuming that international graduate students were uninterested in anything beyond their academic pursuits. However, research has shown that international graduate students also face challenges stemming from their lack of racial knowledge in the U.S. context (Bardhan & Zhang, 2017; Feraud-King & George Mwangi, 2022; Jiang, 2021; Mitchell et al., 2017; Okura, 2019; Ritter, 2016). While they might be less inclined to spend time learning about race in the U.S. context, insufficient knowledge to cope with racist encounters could distract them from their academic goals and negatively impact their overall well-being. 

At the institutional level, recognizing the intersecting identities of international students, Feraud-King and George Mwangi (2022) and Yao et al. (2023, 2024) recommended fostering collaboration between offices responsible for international students and those overseeing multicultural affairs. Such partnership would allow student affairs professionals to leverage the expertise of multicultural affairs offices in developing race-related programming while addressing the intersection of nativity and race in supporting international students’ racial learning (Althen, 2009). Feraud-King and George Mwangi (2022) further advocated for restructuring student support services beyond these two offices, emphasizing the need for integrated approaches that transcend silos based on social identities.

It is important to stress that the burden for racial learning should not rest solely on international students. Fries-Britt et al. (2014) and Yao et al. (2024) advocated for formalized learning opportunities for faculty and staff, particularly those working in departments with a high proportion of international students. These opportunities can equip educators and administrators with an understanding of how race is perceived differently outside the U.S., enabling them to better support international students as they navigate racial learning. Malcolm and Mendoza (2014) also highlighted the prevalence of U.S.-superiority attitudes among domestic students in their interactions with international peers, calling for programming efforts that foster global awareness and sensitivity. Similarly, Jones et al. (2020) emphasized the responsibility of faculty and the institution to cultivate an appreciation of cultural diversity and to encourage thinking beyond U.S.-centric cultural norms in domestic students. This is especially important as U.S. higher education institutions increasingly rely on graduate students––many of whom are international––to fulfill teaching duties.

Conclusion

In conclusion, drawing on existing literature, this practice brief recommends that U.S. universities and colleges support international students’ racial learning by recognizing their racial/ethnic identities in institutional data and providing relevant coursework and student affairs programming for both international and domestic students and faculty.

References

Althen, G. (2009, June). Educating international students about ‘race.’ International Educator, 18(3), 88–93.

Bardhan, N., & Zhang, B. (2017). A post/decolonial view of race and identity through the narratives of U.S. international students from the Global South. Communication Quarterly, 65(3), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2016.1237981

Buckner, E., Lumb, P., Jafarova, Z., Kang, P., Marroquin, A., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Diversity without race: How university internationalization strategies discuss international students. Journal of International Students, 11(S1), 32–49. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v11iS1.3842

Fei, M. (2024). Re-examining Fries-Britt’s Learning Race in a U.S. Context emergent framework drawing on the micro-level narratives of international students in the United States. Journal of Comparative & International Higher Education, 16(5). https://doi.org/10.32674/etcvg369

Feraud-King, P. T., & George Mwangi, C. (2022). “I don’t feel oppressed at all”: Foreign-born Black college men’s perceptions of U.S. racism. Journal of African American Males in Education, 13(2), 1–16.

Fries-Britt, S., George Mwangi, C., & Peralta, A. (2014). Learning race in a U.S. context: An emergent framework on the perceptions of race among foreign-born students of color. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035636

Ham, S. (2023). Understandings of race and racism in globalizing higher education: When East Asian international student perspectives resonate with color-blindness. Race Ethnicity and Education, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2023.2257138

Hou, M. H., Yu, J., & Katsumoto, S. (2023). Methodological approaches to the study of international students. Critical Internationalization Studies Review, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.32674/cisr.v2i1.5372

Jiang, S. (2021). Diversity without integration? Racialization and spaces of exclusion in international higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 42(1), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2020.1847635

Jones, V., Kim, Y., & Ryu, W. (2020). Intersecting roles of authority and marginalization: International teaching assistants and research university power dynamics. Journal of International Students, 10(2), 483–500. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v10i2.757

Malcolm, Z. T., & Mendoza, P. (2014). Afro-Caribbean international students’ ethnic identity development: Fluidity, intersectionality, agency, and performativity. Journal of College Student Development, 55(6), 595–614. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0053

Mitchell, D., Steele, T., Marie, J., & Timm, K. (2017). Learning race and racism while learning: Experiences of international students pursuing higher education in the Midwestern United States. AERA Open, 3(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417720402

Okura, K. (2019). There are no Asians in China: The racialization of Chinese international students in the United States. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 28(2), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.2019.1663053

Ritter, Z. S. (2016). International students’ perceptions of race and socio-economic status in an American higher education landscape. Journal of International Students, 6(2), 367–393. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v6i2.362

Yao, C. W., Gause, S., Hall, K., & Dou, J. (2024). “Why is this still happening?”: International students of color’s racial sensemaking and perceptions of racial conflicts and racial movements in 2020. The Journal of Higher Education, 95(4), 450–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2023.2203627

Yao, C. W., Oates, E. Q., Briscoe, K. L., Buell, K. J., & Rutt, J. N. (2023). Re/negotiating race and racialization for international students of color in the US. Journal of College Student Development, 64(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2023.0003

Yu, J. (2022). The racial learning of Chinese international students in the US: A transnational perspective. Race Ethnicity and Education, 28(1), 154–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2022.2106878

Yu, J. (2024). “I don’t think it can solve any problems”: Chinese international students’ perceptions of racial justice movements during COVID-19. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 17(5), 775–786. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000457

About the Author

Mianmian Fei, M.A., is a Ph.D. Candidate in Higher Education and Studies Affairs at The Ohio State University’s College of Education and Human Ecology. She also works as a Graduate Research Associate at the QualLab research center and an Editorial Assistant at the Review of Higher Education. Her research interests revolve around international and comparative higher education, particular global student mobility.