Riding the nationalism wave requires a collective approach

A wave of nationalism is washing through Europe, leaving a profound and detrimental impact on higher education and society. Over the past few years, many countries have veered to the political right, sparking questions about the origins and consequences of this shift, particularly in relation to higher education and internationalisation.

In this article, three higher education professionals from Denmark, the Netherlands and Ireland share their unique perspectives on this wave, examining its effects on (inter)national higher education policies and practices within their contexts.

We aim to ignite a conversation and invite readers to reflect on what role we, as institutional leaders, academics, practitioners, students and citizens, can play in responding to this wave, and how we can safeguard and promote internationalisation and intercultural learning.

Denmark: A political U-turn

Denmark was among the first European Union countries to embrace nationalistic parties and approaches. This had severe consequences for higher education institutions, resulting in a significant reduction in English-medium instruction (EMI) programmes, cuts in admissions and faculty, labour shortages and significant reputational damage.

Recognising the negative impact these restrictions had on both knowledge and the economy, the Danish government eventually did a U-turn, reversing its stance and resuming international student recruitment.

For decades, Denmark has had some of the strictest immigration laws in Europe and the world. However, as a small country of just under six million people, the economy is heavily dependent on international trade, and the higher education sector has traditionally been very good at including international topics in various learning environments.

Therefore, when the Danish government announced a significant reduction of EMI courses in 2021, the initial reaction within the sector was one of shock and disbelief, followed by outcry.

While the reductions were mainly aimed at undergraduate programmes at business academies (similar to universities of applied sciences), where a total of 87 courses offering just under 4,000 EMI places were cut, the implications were felt across all higher education institutions, with a 46% drop in STEM admissions, 51% in IT and 24% in engineering.

This reduction in admissions was also experienced across English and Danish language courses, with a drop of 10% in STEM students from 2021-22, resulting in a shortage of knowledge workers in just a few years.

The effects of this policy were initially felt in the higher education sector, where some regional institutions struggled to recover from the loss of international students. Some of the larger institutions in Copenhagen were even forced to merge to cope with the fallout, further exacerbated by falling fertility rates which were already causing a reduction in Danish student admissions.

The purported reason for closing higher education to international students was to save on Danish state educational support (SU). It was argued that only one in three international graduates remained in Denmark after two years and educating those who would potentially leave the country was deemed too costly. However, the result was that it proved too costly not to educate international students.

Taking those who leave the country into account, each international student contributes on average more than DKK2 million (approximately €268,000 or US$280,000) in the 13 years subsequent to graduation.

Initially, the business sector in Denmark was slow to react to the restrictions on international students, but it soon realised the implications. It is estimated that five years from now, there will be a shortage of more than 20,000 STEM graduates and a shortage of a staggering 32,000 people with a degree in social sciences in Denmark.

The short-term savings on education grants will be offset by a massive shortage of knowledge workers who would have contributed to the growth of the Danish economy.

The Danish government has started to respond. Although the cap on EMI courses remains, some gradual easing is evident. First, the government permitted 1,100 EMI places in business graduate programmes, and recently a further 400 places were permitted in undergraduate STEM programmes.

This summer, Aarhus University will introduce three new EMI IT undergraduate programmes, and other Danish higher education institutions are applying for new programmes.

The most recent numbers (November 2024) also show a significant improvement in the employability of international graduates: 44.1% of all international students remained in Denmark two years after graduation, up from 35%. About four in 10 international students receive state education grants, and what is even more impressive is that the number of students paying full tuition (Danish students do not pay any tuition) was just under 3,000 in 2023, more than four times higher than in 2013.

In politics it is very difficult to admit mistakes, but it seems as though the government is acknowledging that Denmark cannot maintain its current wealth without attracting an international workforce. And it seems clear that the pivotal role that Danish higher education institutions play in developing the competencies required to sustain economic growth is evident.

The Netherlands: Drowning in volatility

In recent years, internationalisation in the Netherlands has faced criticism from some Dutch politicians, who blame it for overcrowded lecture halls and cultural erosion. They argue that international students are taking opportunities away from Dutch students, draining public funds, adding pressure to the housing crisis and causing the Dutch language to disappear due to the overuse of English.

Pieter Omtzigt, leader of the New Social Contract party, was among the first to criticise the dominance of English in universities, advocating for Dutch as the primary language of instruction. He has compared the situation to Ireland, where English became the majority language, overlooking the fact that the historical context of the demise of the Irish language is not comparable to the Netherlands; the Irish language was forcibly driven out by the British during their occupation of Ireland.

Interestingly, Omtzigt himself was an international student, completing his undergraduate and PhD studies abroad, studying in English, yet he now criticises internationalisation, the use of English and the number of international students in the Netherlands.

Omtzigt argues that internationalisation has gone too far and that there are too many international students, often exaggerating statistics, cherry-picking data and using anecdotal evidence. Statistics show the situation is less extreme than portrayed by Omtzigt and his colleagues, and only affects specific educational programmes at specific universities.

Nevertheless, such populist rhetoric appears to strike a chord with many Dutch voters, leaving one to wonder about the broader implications of government decisions and plans that often seem influenced more by sentiment than by evidence or facts.

These developments have created a misrepresentation of internationalisation in the Netherlands and led to the proposal of the Internationalisation in Balance Act.

This legislation aims to address perceived challenges related to the increasing internationalisation of Dutch higher education. It would include heavy restrictions on internationalisation at universities, including a test for foreign language which would ensure that a bachelor degree course can only be taught entirely in another language after approval from the education minister, and a cap on international EMI programmes and the number of international students.

However, the proposal appears to be under-researched and contains flaws, with financial and practical implications. These include the application of the same restrictions to both research universities and universities of applied sciences, even though less than 10% of students at universities of applied sciences are international, and Dutch is the language of instruction in 92% of bachelor programmes.

In November 2023, the far-right political party PVV became the biggest party in the Dutch national elections, forming a coalition with three other right-wing parties. This deepened anti-immigrant and anti-internationalisation sentiments, creating a volatile and uncertain landscape for Dutch international education.

The new government’s proposals for restrictions on internationalisation and planned austerity measures on higher education are considered detrimental by various higher education institutions and organisations.

Many, including students, have raised their objections, highlighting the consequences of the proposed restrictions as well as emphasising the benefits and potential of internationalisation. This resulted in a large national protest against the restrictions and budget cuts organised by Dutch labour and student unions.

However, despite widespread opposition from academic institutions, stakeholders and student organisations, the Dutch government announced it will still proceed with most of the plans for the proposed budget cuts and restrictions.

Dutch universities have now started to make contingency plans, with some already taking action such as staff recruitment freezes and cancelling EMI minor subjects and bachelor language programmes, with financial concerns being cited.

Consequently, some international students and staff feel unwelcome and vulnerable and that the changes could potentially create a socially unsafe environment for them. Many also fear that international scientific talent will leave the Netherlands and research will be limited, affecting the economy, society and the Netherlands’ reputation as a leader in science and innovation.

However, it is important to note that, to date, no restrictions or austerity measures have been passed. The Internationalisation in Balance legislation is still in the making and austerity measures still have to be approved by the senate. Dutch higher education institutions are still waiting on the government’s decision on proposed restrictions and cuts. Furthermore, if finalised, these plans could be used as a legal instrument for labour unions to call for strike action.

Notably, the Dutch coalition has faced significant challenges since its inception, making it fragile, so there is some speculation that it might collapse in the near future, but even if this happens, the budget plans, if accepted by the senate, will most likely go ahead for the coming year.

Ireland: A beacon of hope, but for how long?

Unlike Denmark and the Netherlands, Ireland is currently seen as a beacon of hope and also a leader in the field of internationalisation in Europe. The centrist government actively supports internationalisation policies and acknowledges that international education played a crucial role in the economic recovery post-2008. International education is currently estimated to be worth €2 billion (US$2.09 billion) to the Irish economy.

A pro-international education sentiment has been reinforced through the government’s launch of its third international education strategy in 2024, which aims to cement Ireland as an international hub for education, research and policy, largely through the recruitment of highly skilled international students.

However, despite the government indicating its support for international education, underscoring its benefits to the Irish economy, and despite the ageing population issue, higher education remains largely underfunded in Ireland.

Some academics argue that Irish universities continue to face increasing student numbers as budgets dwindle, causing deficits in education quality and offerings and potential closures, while others highlight that underfunding threatens the very aim of the new international education strategy: to attract investment and grow research and innovation in Ireland.

This all suggests that the government relies heavily on the recruitment of lucrative non-EU international students to bolster Irish higher education institution budgets.

Should this situation continue, the Irish story could very quickly change direction to follow the Dutch narrative of claiming that international students are pushing out local students or putting the system under added pressure.

This narrative is already evident in the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, where restrictions on international students have also recently been put in place.

In Ireland, concerns such as the current accommodation shortage are already causing fingers to be pointed at migration numbers, and this could easily turn attention to international student recruitment targets. It is perhaps not surprising that the current government tried to mitigate this in the latest international education strategy by stating that it would “pursue a modest growth strategy” in this area, where they had pursued, and achieved, aggressive growth in the previous two strategies.

Meanwhile, the Expert Group on Future Funding for Higher Education reported in 2016 that while it was in no doubt that international education was an important money generator for the Irish economy, it was vital for the student experience and international student value-for-money that sufficient resources are invested in programme delivery and support services.

Marie Clarke et al, Mairead Finn et al, and Tom Farrelly and Tony Murphy all report that international students struggle with accommodation, the cost of living and integration.

Sinead O’Connor, highlighting that international students are not being adequately integrated into Irish communities, stated that “to address this imbalance requires the implementation of holistic internationalisation strategies and migration policies”. It could be argued that this need for better inclusion and integration support extends beyond international students to all migrants into the country.

While nationalism remains marginal – all far-right politicians were defeated in the recent general election in Ireland – it is growing, and continued underfunding of higher education and lack of meaningful integration policies will both prevent internationalisation and intercultural learning opportunities and intensify the nationalist cause.

Arguably, rising nationalism raises concerns about future education policies and strategies, but current policies that affect education may already be lighting nationalist ideals.

What action can we take?

We argue that there needs to be a collective, cohesive and active approach to ensure that internationalisation is not restricted and is not used as a scapegoat. We believe that such actions ensure that internationalisation remains a priority and necessity within educational institutions and programmes and is not phased out by those who do not see its value, or who believe it is simply a tick box nice-to-have which is no longer a strategic priority.

• Open dialogue and activism: This requires more than a one-way bottom-up or top-down approach. Institutional leaders, educators, students and stakeholders need to actively raise their voice in support of internationalisation and in opposition to far-right nationalistic sentiments. It requires universities to demonstrate that internationalisation and integration are at the core of their values.

Institutional leaders have already started to do this. For example, Arend Hardorff, member of the executive board at the Hague University of Applied Sciences, has sent a clear message that internationalisation is important.

President of Utrecht University Anton Pijpers has recently stated: “Let me be clear: we cherish our international students and colleagues. They bring with them new perspectives that enrich our teaching and academic climate. I’d therefore like to reiterate how much we value our international colleagues and students. They are welcome, and they will remain welcome”.

However, such messages cannot be a one-off, but must be consistently reiterated and reinforced to ensure they become deeply ingrained in the belief systems and cultures within educational programmes, and throughout educational institutions words must be backed by action – while a university head may issue a supportive statement, the reality at the department or faculty level can often tell a different story.

Furthermore, it is essential to engage in respectful and constructive dialogue with those who hold anti-immigration or anti-internationalisation views. Addressing concerns with empathy and evidence can help dispel misconceptions and foster a more inclusive environment. By prioritising activism and open dialogue, universities can lead the way in promoting integration, diversity and understanding.

• Bridging the gap: Connecting universities with communities: Universities, often perceived as elite institutions isolated in their ‘ivory towers’, have a responsibility to remain firmly connected to the local communities and societies they serve. We need to actively work to bridge gaps and correct misconceptions, ensuring there is no disconnect between the realities of everyday people and the work we do.

This can be achieved by involving local communities in activities and showcasing the importance and value of research and internationalisation for local communities and society. This can also be achieved by sharing research insights and engaging in dialogue in an inclusive and relatable way to empower individuals to make informed decisions in their personal and professional lives.

• Critical thinking, collaboration and intercultural competence: We believe that further investment is needed in educational methods that promote critical thinking skills and the development of intercultural competence.

Given the advancements in social media and generative artificial intelligence, and the rise of radical right-wing populist politics, it is crucial for educational institutions to empower students, staff and the broader public with the essential skills needed to be able to fact-check and critically evaluate sentiments rather than accepting them at face value.

In an era in which disinformation is increasingly prevalent, these skills are fundamental to fostering a well-informed, resilient and discerning society. By integrating media literacy, critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning into education and outreach efforts, educational institutions can play a pivotal role in preparing individuals to navigate complex information landscapes, make informed decisions and contribute meaningfully to public discourse.

Finally, we need to provide opportunities for both staff and students to learn to understand each other better in a safe environment. For example, investing further in approaches such as Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) can help facilitate intercultural competence and international collaboration for both students and staff.

Through these activities, students and staff are exposed to (culturally) diverse perspectives and approaches. Moreover, we can ensure that both international staff and students are made to feel welcome and that their knowledge, skills and experience are valued and cherished at our institutions.

Lessons from other countries

All of these measures would ultimately lead to more openness, understanding and collaboration, which is needed to solve societal and global problems and, in return, contribute to creating a more just and equal world. We also need to look to countries such as Denmark, where the U- turn on restrictions to internationalisation in higher education serves as a cautionary tale for other countries considering similar measures.

By learning from Denmark’s experience, other countries can avoid similar pitfalls, and instead focus on fostering a balanced, inclusive approach to internationalisation, based on evidence and facts as opposed to feelings or anecdotal evidence, benefitting society, local communities and domestic and international stakeholders.

We urge readers to consider what additional actions they and our institutions, schools, communities, industries, governments and citizens can take to safeguard and strengthen internationalisation while riding the wave of nationalism.

Simone Hackett is a researcher and senior lecturer in sociology and education at the Hague University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands. Simone is the chair of the Research on Internationalisation Committee at the European Association for International Education (EAIE). She regularly publishes research articles on international education and articles on trends and developments in international higher education.

Denise McAllister Wylie is a Research Ireland scholar, currently researching inclusive internationalisation in Irish higher education for her PhD at South East Technological University, Ireland, looking at government and higher education institutional strategies and implementation. She holds a Masters in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages and spent 13 years teaching English and intercultural communication in South Korea, Spain and the Netherlands before starting her PhD. While working at Maastricht University, she was the university lead on a number of European internationalisation and English as a medium of instruction projects and was a member of its International Classroom Task Force.

Steffen Saxil holds an MSc in international marketing and management from Copenhagen Business School. After graduating he spent almost two decades in international consulting before switching to academia where he has been working both as associate professor and as manager in international education. He is currently with Copenhagen Business College where he teaches management to international students.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.