The Case Against a Crimson Empire

Top American universities have begun expanding
their services through the establishment of campuses abroad. These ventures include not only branch campuses such as New York University Abu Dhabi, but also joint ventures such as Yale’s and the National University of Singapore’s new Yale-NUS College and NYU’s Shanghai campus, a partnership with the East China Normal University.
Harvard, however, has chosen not to expand its physical presence through branch campuses—a wise decision. This does not mean that Harvard should isolate itself from the world. Rather, Harvard should spread education and solidify its brand abroad in ways that pose less risk to the institution.
For Fame and Fortune
Universities are constantly under pressure to raise money. Therefore, it is no surprise that they would pounce on an opportunity to establish a campus in a foreign country, especially if the host university is footing most of the bill. Jim Sleeper, a lecturer of political science at Yale and an outspoken critic of new campuses, wrote in a Huffington Post article that many of these foreign countries are “buying liberal education’s prestige by bearing all or most costs of constructing the campuses.”
Not only are branch campuses economically attractive, but they also appear to be the perfect opportunity for an American university to expand its brand name and compete more effectively with its peers. In an interview with the HPR, Sleeper argued that universities feel competitive and “act like business organizations much more than they should. Trustees and presidents think like multinational corporations and become competitive with one another. They want to expand brand name and market share, which philosophically and pedagogically goes against what a liberal arts education should do.”
Additionally, many universities see branch campuses as a way to globalize and reach out to the world. However, in an interview with the HPR, Steve Heyneman, professor of international education policy at Vanderbilt University, countered that although
a tendency exists towards thinking that American universities should open up their campuses globally to remain competitive, “The reality is very different.” A branch campus is certainly not the only way for a university to expand internationally, and in many cases, a full-blown foreign campus can become a detriment.
Cultures Clashing on Academic Freedom
Countries come in many categories. Some may have cultures and values similar to those of the United States, whereas others may have restrictions on ideals that American universities view essential, especially in an academic context.
Both Yale and NYU’s faculties have protested restrictions on publishing and open inquiry in their host countries. Often when these universities enter legal-financial relationships with authoritarian governments, it becomes difficult to maintain important ideals such as freedom of speech, thought, and association. Recently, Wellesley College warned Peking University that their partnership would end if Peking chose to fire a faculty member who is an outspoken critic of the Chinese Communist Party.
Johns Hopkins University is another university that has teamed up with a school in China. Students at the School of Advanced International Studies in Nanjing have had their right to political discussion restricted. Specifically, they have been prohibited from showing a documentary of the Tiananmen Square uprising and had one of their student publications censored.
It is for this reason that Heyneman believes that branch campuses are “suicidal” and “flawed goods.” He wonders, “What happens after you’ve invested $100 million into the infrastructure and find out you can’t teach history? That’s a problem.”
Of course, to circumvent this, a university wishing to expand abroad could make a conscientious effort to partner with a country that is democratic, humanitarian, transparent, espouses freedom of expression, and allows open inquiry, but countries that fit these criteria either already have flagship institutions of higher learning or can be helped in a plethora of other ways that do not involve a full-blown branch campus.
Don’t Kill the “Golden Goose”
In many respects, Harvard’s priority should continue to be its Cambridge campus. After all, many hope Harvard will perfect its current state of education before expanding, as Harvard is by no means perfect yet.
In an interview with the HPR, former Dean of Harvard College Harry Lewis spoke against the idea of opening campuses abroad: “I don’t think we are doing a good enough job for students already on this campus. We would be stretching ourselves too far and compromising ideals that are important to us.” He explained that while Harvard has “such incredibly talented students… It always hurts me when the opportunities we offer them are not as good as the students themselves—and that happens regularly.” This lack of opportunity comes in many forms, such as lotteries determining spots in popular courses or the large number of students packing into introductory lecture halls. Instead of allocating resources abroad, Harvard should focus on fixing the flaws it currently has.
However, Harvard should not dismiss any possibility of reaching out to the world. There is no doubt that isolation today is neither viable nor sustainable. Universities must “increase their cultural competencies as well as their real understandings of those regional differences,” Haiyan Hua, a lecturer at Harvard Graduate School of Education, told the HPR. According to Hua, education is not a zero sum game. Therefore, “the more you share, the more you [get back] too.” From this perspective, there is no reason why Harvard should not expand its global reach. The question is simply how.
Instead of trying to team up with a foreign university and build an actual campus, Harvard should instead dedicate certain resources like education funds that can be used for goals such as building learning facilities or reaching out to vulnerable children. Before it was shut down in 2000, the Harvard Institute for International Development did just that by overseeing international aid and development programs in foreign countries. Hua worked for the HIID and helped more than 50 countries improve everything from public health to education with financial support from the university.
Harvard could also follow a model similar to that of Columbia University, which created international learning centers that are not as invasive and are not complete campuses. The Columbia Global Centers are hubs of research and learning in cities such as Amman, Istanbul, Nairobi, Paris, and Santiago. Columbia has formed partnerships with host universities and governments, but unlike degree-granting branch campuses, these centers have formed flexible agreements, and the university can always leave if it decides that its hosts are hostile or if its values are jeopardized. Columbia takes advantage of the regional diversity of its center locations to collaborate with scholars on an international level to address global issues.
Massive Open Online Courses are another viable strategy
for expanding globally. Harvard teamed up with MIT in 2012
to found edX, a platform through which universities can offer college courses to the world for free to anyone with access to the Web. Most famously, 16-year-old Battushig Myanganbayar was featured in the New York Times for being one of 340 students out of 150,000 to earn a perfect score in Circuits and Electronics,
a sophomore-level class at MIT that he took as a MOOC from
a remote village in Mongolia. The ability for universities to increase accessibility of education to students such as Battushig is tremendous. Already, more people have signed up for MOOCs at Harvard than have attended the university since its founding in 1636. Harvard should continue harnessing the power of MOOCs because they have a huge potential to expand education in ways that were unthinkable even just a few years ago.
All of these initiatives would be just as effective as establishing a campus abroad and would still accomplish many of the same goals of a branch campus while giving Harvard independence and flexibility. The university would be able to provide
an environment conducive to scholarship while also allowing freedom of expression and open inquiry unrestricted by external forces.
Harvard must not stretch itself too far and be prevented from achieving its goal of fostering a world-class liberal arts community. In addition, it can still accomplish many of the goals of its peers who have already created full-blown international campuses by pursuing less precarious and less invasive initiatives. In the words of Heyneman, “What Harvard does best is solve world problems, but it must solve them from the base and center. It’s not only the world’s wealthiest university. It’s also the world’s ‘Golden Goose.’” So let’s not risk ruining it.