How to stop neo-nationalist leaders subduing universities

In many parts of the world, neo-nationalism is on the rise – a term that describes the emergence, and in some cases revival, of extreme right-wing movements in key areas of the world, often characterised by anti-immigrant and xenophobic rhetoric; economic protectionism; constraints on civil liberties; attacks on critics, including journalists and academics; denial of science related to climate change and the environment; and the emergence and empowerment of demagogues and autocrats.

As in past right-wing movements, economic dislocation and status anxiety play an important part in fuelling political support for modern-day adoptions of nationalism. But today’s breed of right-wing populism has the addition of three accelerators: the postmodern pace of globalisation and technological change that generates economic uncertainty for many, the speed of immigration and demographic change and the ubiquitous use of social media and technologies that bypass traditional forms of media and that allow for increased forms of surveillance and targeting of political opponents.

And it appears that the COVID-19 pandemic has emboldened many nation-states and their autocratic-leaning leaders to further expand restrictions on free speech and mobility and to bolster self-supporting conspiracy theories.


Geopolitical events play a role in this story. The unstable political environment in the Middle East and northern Africa led to a surge of political and economic refugees; the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York’s World Trade Center raised tensions between nations and generated increased visa restrictions; and the onset of the Great Recession brought increased economic disparity and, in some nations, the pursuit of severe austerity policies that hurt the most economically vulnerable.

In the modern world, universities are institutions that promote both national development and global integration – mutually dependent pursuits, particularly for research universities. Yet in a number of important national examples, the contemporary political environment poses a major challenge to the societal role of universities.

The neo-nationalist’s playbook

In Neo-Nationalism and Universities: Populists, autocrats and the future of higher education, a number of case studies chronicle this drift to the right, and toward greater control of universities, and a pattern emerges in illiberal democracies and revived autocracies: in Hungary, Turkey, Russia, and in Hong Kong and elsewhere, neo-nationalist leaders have pursued ways to alter the governance of universities with the objective of directly or indirectly choosing rectors or presidents and other key academic administrators, influencing or controlling faculty hiring and advancement, punishing dissent and more overtly denying funding for research in areas such as climate change or gender studies thought to counter conservative values.

This is usually accompanied by increased control and ownership of the judiciary, as well as the media, and laws that hinder elections and expand the ability of neo-national governments to issue lucrative contracts to supporters in the private sector. Universities are one part of the formula for right-wing leaders to solidify their power.

China’s resurgent nationalism under Xi Jinping, for example, had brought measures for greater control not only of Hong Kong’s government but its public universities – changes in governance that mirrored similar reforms on the mainland.

All Hong Kong universities are formally under the direction of the chief executive of Hong Kong, who serves as the official chancellor of all the city’s universities and appoints 15 of the 23 council members.

These councils hold the power to block faculty and staff appointments and to steer selection of academic leaders, including university presidents, toward individuals sympathetic to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government. The ‘councils’ (read: governing boards) are increasingly populated by those who support Xi’s policy agenda.

Meanwhile, the student unions at various universities that buttressed much of the protest movement are disbanding over fear of being arrested and charged with sedition under China’s 1 July 2020 National Security Law.

As discussed in the book, Turkey and Russia also provide clear examples of autocratic government leaders re-organising and gaining greater control of governing and leadership positions in their universities and providing mechanisms for screening faculty hiring and advancement.

Turkey’s playbook, under Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was enhanced by the mass firing of academics and staff alleged to be supporters of rival Fethullah Gülen following the failed coup attempt in 2016.

Neo-nationalist trajectory

The global trajectory of neo-nationalism is hard to determine. One might surmise, however, that an anticipated downturn in the world’s economy, with recessions or depressions in developed and as well as developing economies, might exacerbate extreme nationalist movements.

Perhaps more certain is that the scars of the most extreme examples of neo-nationalism on the role and operation of universities – such as in China with the jailing of Uyghur academics and in Turkey with the mass firing of academics – will remain for decades.

There is the human toll as well as the toll on the culture and behaviours of universities and the degradation of the ideal of independence in teaching and research that is the hallmark of the best universities.

Another casualty of the era is the validity of science and expertise, in academia and elsewhere, manifested most importantly in the denial of climate change on ideological grounds and assertions that the COVID virus was a hoax. Neo-nationalist discourse tends to suggest that academic research – and facts – are hopelessly politically biased and, hence, part of the fake news machine of the opposition.

Today’s factual relativism adds to the degradation of public institutions, creating obstacles to the identification of real societal and environmental challenges and the search for solutions with likely lasting effects.

What can be done about it?

What can universities do to combat the worst aspects of neo-nationalist movements within their own national contexts?

This relates to the concept of when universities are societal leaders and when they are followers explored in the initial chapters of the book.

Student-led protests in Hong Kong are reminiscent of other major periods of student protest, often with complicated and unexpected results.

Universities can be conduits for pushing society toward substantial change – like student protests in support of the civil rights movement in the United States – but that can also result in further oppression: the Tiananmen Square uprising led, arguably, to even more conservative Communist Party leadership in China, paving the road for Xi’s rise to power.

Academic research can lead to breakthroughs that improve human health and the well-being of a nation; it can also contribute to the development of a surveillance state or provide basic research that supports what former US president Dwight D Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex in the United States.

The larger reality is that universities are part and parcel of the national context in which they operate. They are most effective in instituting change when they have the political support to pursue their mission of teaching, research and public service relatively independently. Under severe autocratic regimes and many illiberal democracies, universities have little room to be a force for progressive change.

A number of the authors of chapters in our book discuss how universities can pursue greater interaction with society. They explain the value of international engagement, including international students and academic staff, with joint research on topics of worldwide value. Universities can show the positive aspects of globalisation, including talent mobility and a more diverse society.

Many universities are not doing enough to engage with the national and regional stakeholders that give them life and meaning or to convey the importance of international exchanges or universities’ role as agents of progress. This is a topic I advocated for in my 2016 book The New Flagship University.

Arguably, the pursuit of many universities to improve their international rankings, largely based on a narrowly defined band of research productivity, has distracted them from their larger purpose and influence within their own national and regional context.

Government policies and funding fed into a ranking frenzy that devalues, for example, research and public service activities that improve the life and environment of local communities.

There is much room for innovation. Universities should generally pursue strategies to expand their societal impact and their links with key stakeholders. Universities can be agents of change.

But one recognises the limitations universities and their students and faculty have in shaping national cultures that embrace radical right-wing, nationalist movements or that operate under autocratic governments.

They need the help not only of the global academic community and the array of non-governmental organisations that, for example, monitor and condemn blatant violations of academic freedom. They need the support of government leaders and the political pressure that can come only from major democracies.

These same political leaders additionally need to espouse at home the value of international engagement, generally but also in specific reference to universities; they also need to support through government policies and money the promotion of international research collaborations and exchange programmes, as well as champion the importance of science and academic research.

The COVID-19 pandemic, and the rapid and successful search for therapies and vaccines, should elevate in the public mind, and the minds of national leaders, the value of shared data and research findings, scientific expertise and international academic cooperation.

Combating the worst aspects of neo-nationalist rhetoric requires not only an alternative and persuasive narrative, but a collective and international effort.

John Aubrey Douglass is a senior research fellow and research professor of public policy and higher education at the Center for Studies in Higher Education, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, United States. This article is the second in a series of excerpts from his new book Neo-Nationalism and Universities: Populists, autocrats and the future of higher education, published by Johns Hopkins University Press as a paperback and as an open access book accessible via Project Muse. An online book launch event co-sponsored by University World News will be held on 14 September at 10am to 11am PDT.