teaching – Critical Internationalization Studies Network

March 12, 2025

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.

February 13, 2025

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.