The politicization of international higher education is not new, but a recurring pattern shaped by global shifts. This essay traces historical debates documented by International Higher Education over the last 30 years, analyzing how past challenges—nationalism, economic rationales, and security concerns—mirror today’s discussions. By recognizing these cycles, we can explore strategies to move beyond reactive policies and foster more purposeful and sustainable internationalization approaches.

History may not repeat itself, but it often rhymes. We tend to view our current times as uniquely challenging, a departure from all that came before. However, a closer look reveals that many of the debates and issues we face today are echoes of past conversations. Luckily for us, Boston College’s International Higher Education (IHE) has been documenting these discussions for the last 30 years, providing invaluable insights into the cyclical nature of internationalization in higher education. In this essay, I reflect on what the next 30 years might look like by analyzing how the past informs the present and considering what type of future might therefore await us.

A deep dive into the IHE archive reveals several overarching themes. Our understanding and definitions of internationalization have evolved, as have the rationales driving institutional engagement. However, a sense of politicization and economic impact has remained prominent, alongside aspirations for internationalization as a force to effect positive change.

Internationalization Through Cycles and Waves

In 1996, Barbara Burn—then president of the Association of International Education Administrators—shared concerns about how the November 1994 election in the United States presented a threat to federal support for international education in the country’s colleges and universities. Twenty years later, with Brexit and Trump taking global headlines, conversations returned to this fear. The rise of nationalist sentiments and protectionist policies once again placed international education in the crosshairs, demonstrating the cyclical vulnerability of the field to political shifts.

Hans de Wit’s 1999 IHE essay highlighted shifting rationales for internationalization. He discussed how the once-priority political approach was being relegated to favoring economic rationales consistent with the rise of globalization. Current debates echo another shift calling to move beyond economic rationales and to return to a political and “more optimistic view of international education as a force for peace.” Yet, de Wit’s 1999 article warned us of the dangers of doing so by posing the following questions: “Whose concept of peace and whose understanding of the world would be served? Have higher education systems in the rest of the world ever been in the position to promote their own understanding of these issues on equal terms with the American and European academic world?”

These types of questions resonate today. We have observed numerous calls to change our approach to internationalization toward one that is more “intelligent,” “purposeful,” “critical,” and “solidary,” among many other adjectives. However, the recent emphasis on “responsible internationalization,” as highlighted by de Wit and Glass (2024), reveals a concerning trend of (re)politicization in a now multipolar world that, without a clear understanding of historical context and power dynamics, risks being just another turn in the cycle.

In 2004, Philip Altbach declared “the end of civic diplomacy and international education” following the securitization policies introduced in the United States after the September 11 attacks. His reflections included: “The buzz in student dormitories and faculty offices from Mumbai to Montevideo is that America no longer welcomes foreigners… [The United States] remains a favored destination for foreigners wishing to study overseas... [they] like US universities and American culture, but feel that access is no longer possible or worth the trouble or achieving… There is still a reservoir of support for American education and culture… but it is quickly being drained.”

Since 2004, the United States has more than doubled the number of international students and scholars. In fact, since 2005, the only thing that stopped a yearly increase in the number of international students was COVID-19. Yet, Altbach’s 2004 words were equally applicable in the United States during the 2016 election, and the same arguments now inundate our conversations under this second Trump era.

These examples raise a critical question: can we break this cycle? Are we destined to repeat the same debates with different players every decade? While I certainly do not want to minimize the size and seismic impact of current challenges, I want (and need!) to remain cautiously optimistic. Internationalization’s future depends on our ability to learn from the past, adapt to the present, and proactively shape the future.

Charting a Course for the Future

If the past teaches us anything, it is that once our collective panic eases and we find ourselves transitioning from shock and complaints to innovation and action, we will probably be in a better position to work toward the more equitable, meaningful, and impactful internationalization that we have been writing about for the past 30 years. Education, with its inherent connection to democratic, liberal, and moral ideals, remains a powerful force for positive change in the world. It is a force worth fighting for, and a force that, if guided by the lessons of the past, can help us build a more just and interconnected future.

Santiago Castiello-Gutiérrez is assistant professor of higher education at Seton Hall University, New Jersey, United States. E-mail: [email protected].