Universities have a role in forging tomorrow’s ideologies

Higher education in 2035 will mirror the profound ideological, technological and cultural shifts reshaping society. Three dominant forces – neo-nationalism, tribalisation and technological innovation – are driving this transformation, redefining how universities function, whom they serve and what they represent.

Neo-nationalism, which emphasises national identity, sovereignty and localised governance, is compelling universities to adopt regionally focused strategies. This shift is fostering ideological segmentation and integrating technologies tailored to national priorities. For instance, some countries design curricula that prioritise local histories and cultural narratives while leveraging domestic ed-tech platforms to align with state-driven values.

At the same time, tribalisation is breaking societies into cultural or ideological ‘tribes’, often referred to as ‘polarised societies’, ‘echo chambers’ or examples of ‘identity-driven fragmentation’. This trend is pressuring universities to cater to specific groups, turning them into arenas where societal debates about identity, sovereignty and coexistence take place.

Higher education is now tasked with more than just imparting knowledge; it must also balance localised priorities with the universality of education. This dual challenge is reshaping all aspects of academia – from curricula grounded in national and cultural narratives to governance structures influenced by ideological divides, as well as from student demographics to research agendas which are affected by competing priorities.

Despite these challenges, higher education stands at a crucial crossroads, faced with immense opportunities. Universities have the potential to serve as mediators, bridging ideological divides; as innovators, addressing global challenges; and as global connectors, promoting cross-border collaboration.

Their ability to adapt to this polarised and fragmented era will determine their survival and establish their role as pivotal institutions in shaping a future defined by both diversity and division.

Instead of resisting these forces, universities can evolve by redefining their role as bridges connecting diverse perspectives. By promoting inclusivity, fostering critical dialogue and leveraging technology thoughtfully, higher education can lead society towards shared progress and a more unified future.

National identity

As early as 2012, Russia intensified its efforts to promote state-approved historical narratives in its educational institutions, emphasising national pride while minimising critical perspectives of Soviet-era history.

Similarly, in 2015, China directed universities to ban textbooks promoting Western values. Education Minister Yuan Guiren stressed the need to tighten control over imported material, aligning educational content with socialist values and curbing the influence of Western ideologies.

Building on these efforts, since 2019, China has mandated the inclusion of ‘Xi Jinping Thought’ in university curricula, reinforcing socialist ideology and patriotic education while further restricting the use of foreign textbooks in order to align academic content with state narratives.

Both Russia and China have redirected research funding towards national priorities, such as defence technologies, cybersecurity and indigenous knowledge systems, signalling a broader trend of prioritising domestic agendas over international collaboration. These policies reflect a strategic move towards the consolidation of ideological control while at the same time fostering self-reliance in key areas of education and research.

This trend has led to significant challenges for academic freedom and intellectual diversity. Restrictions on international faculty, foreign textbooks and global partnerships, seen in countries like Hungary and India, limit the flow of ideas and reduce the diversity of perspectives within universities.

Hungary’s restrictive policies, particularly against liberal institutions like the Central European University, exemplify how neo-nationalism is reshaping academic priorities.

Policies promoting cultural pride and sovereignty may strengthen national identity but risk fragmenting the global academic ecosystem by prioritising local agendas over international collaboration. This shift undermines universities’ ability to address transnational challenges like climate change and pandemics.

To remain vital forces for progress, higher education must balance national identity with intellectual pluralism and global engagement, fostering cross-border dialogue and preserving their role as centres of universal knowledge.

In countries where neo-nationalism holds sway, curricula are increasingly being used as tools to assert sovereignty and resist perceived global homogenisation. National achievements, traditional practices and regional histories are prioritised to strengthen cultural heritage.

While this localised focus enriches students’ understanding of their own communities, it also risks creating intellectual silos.

Without a balance between local and global discourses, students may lack the ability to critically evaluate international perspectives or contribute to global problem-solving. For instance, a curriculum focused solely on domestic climate solutions may miss opportunities for collaborative innovation at a global scale.

Neo-nationalism is reshaping research priorities, with governments channelling funding into national interests like defence technologies, AI and renewable energy, while sidelining global collaboration.

The Trump administration’s ‘America First’ agenda exemplified this shift, prioritising national security and economic self-reliance by, in Trump’s first term, redirecting resources towards defence-focused research and development at the expense of international cooperation.

This focus on domestic research undermines shared scientific progress, fragmenting the global scientific ecosystem and weakening cross-border efforts to address transnational challenges.
Beyond research, neo-nationalism influences education systems, impacting university operations, technology regulation and academic mobility. To remain vital, universities must balance localised agendas with intellectual diversity and global collaboration.

Control over educational technologies

As data becomes a strategic asset, neo-nationalist governments are increasingly asserting control over educational technologies to safeguard data sovereignty and reduce foreign influence. For instance, blockchain-based credentialing systems are being implemented to secure academic records within national borders, ensuring transparency while protecting national interests.

Governments are also prioritising domestic ed-tech platforms over global providers, even when the latter offer more advanced tools. This preference ensures greater control over educational content and systems but risks isolating students from cutting-edge technologies and global innovation.

Russia, for example, has pursued policies that limit the use of foreign-developed software in schools and universities, citing concerns over national security and the influence of foreign narratives.

This trend reflects a growing mistrust of foreign platforms and their perceived influence over national education systems. However, it also complicates the global interoperability of credentials and knowledge-sharing, potentially creating barriers in an increasingly interconnected world.

The emphasis on domestic platforms may lead to challenges in standardising educational credentials across borders, affecting students’ mobility and international academic recognition.

The neo-nationalist agenda has also led to significant restrictions on the cross-border mobility of students and scholars. Visa regulations are tightening, funding for international exchange programmes is declining and universities are prioritising domestic talent pipelines.

While these policies strengthen local workforce development, they also undermine intellectual diversity and cross-cultural understanding. International students and scholars, often acting as bridges between cultures, are critical to fostering innovation and global collaboration. Without their contributions, academic environments risk becoming more insular, advancing localised versions of knowledge that restrict the global flow of ideas and innovation.

The dual-edged sword of neo-nationalism

Neo-nationalism presents both opportunities and challenges for higher education. On the one hand, it offers a platform to celebrate cultural heritage, strengthen community cohesion and empower local identities. On the other, it risks undermining the intellectual and cultural pluralism that has historically defined universities. Key questions remain as higher education navigates this shifting terrain:

• How can universities preserve academic freedom in the face of state-directed agendas?

• What strategies can mitigate the risks of intellectual isolation inherent in localised education?

• How can universities contribute to solving global challenges that require international collaboration, despite growing fragmentation?

The answers to these questions will determine whether universities emerge as vibrant centres of knowledge and innovation or retreat into insular institutions shaped by ideological tides.

By finding a balance between national priorities and global engagement, higher education can navigate the challenges of neo-nationalism and reaffirm its mission as a bridge between local identity and universal understanding.

Institutional polarisation

In an era of growing ideological, cultural and identity-driven divisions, higher education is increasingly reflecting the fractures within society.

Tribalisation – the separation of individuals into distinct ‘tribes’ based on shared beliefs and values – is transforming universities from bastions of intellectual diversity and open dialogue into institutions catering to specific worldviews. This shift raises fundamental concerns about the future of academic freedom, critical inquiry and the role of higher education in fostering global perspectives.

Universities, historically regarded as neutral spaces for intellectual exploration, are increasingly aligning with specific ideological identities. Conservative institutions often emphasise traditional values, national pride and religious teachings. For example, Liberty University focuses on Christian values and national heritage, while Hillsdale College emphasises classical liberal arts education, constitutional studies and Western heritage, rejecting federal funding to maintain ideological independence.

In contrast, progressive universities champion global justice, inclusivity and sustainability. Institutions like Oberlin College prioritise equity-driven education and environmental advocacy, while the University of California, Berkeley is renowned for its commitment to social justice and sustainability initiatives.

This ideological polarisation has profound implications. By aligning their missions with specific constituencies, universities risk creating echo chambers where opposing ideas are not just debated but excluded. Intellectual diversity is narrowed, and students are primarily exposed to perspectives that reinforce their pre-existing beliefs.

Even institutions like the University of Chicago, known for championing free expression through its Chicago Principles, have faced criticism for perceived ideological leanings. Such trends undermine the broader mission of higher education as a space for dialogue, critical inquiry and the exchange of diverse ideas.

The polarisation in higher education also affects research priorities. Conservative institutions tend to focus on defence technologies, national security and cultural heritage, while progressive universities prioritise climate change, racial justice and gender equity.

This divergence fragments the academic landscape and hinders collaboration across ideological lines. As universities increasingly align with specific ideologies, they risk becoming segmented silos that amplify societal divides. This situation diminishes their ability to foster dialogue, promote shared understanding and encourage critical engagement.

Localised campuses: Pros and cons

The trend toward tribalisation is also driving the rise of regional and community-based universities that prioritise cultural preservation and local traditions. These institutions craft curricula that emphasise indigenous practices, regional histories and community values, offering students a deeply rooted and contextually relevant education.

While this approach has value, it also presents significant challenges. Graduates of localised universities may struggle to navigate the globalised world due to isolation from global networks.

Lacking exposure to diverse perspectives and intercultural competencies, these students may find it difficult to engage in international collaboration or succeed in global marketplaces. Additionally, many regional institutions have limited resources, which can impact the quality of education offered and access to advanced technologies.

Striking a balance between preserving cultural heritage and preparing students for global challenges remains a delicate task. Without this balance, localised campuses risk becoming insular, unable to provide their students with the tools needed to address the complexities of an interconnected world.

Technology is reshaping higher education by offering personalised learning experiences, but that also poses significant risks. AI-driven platforms tailor educational content to individual preferences, which can enhance engagement but often creates digital echo chambers that limit exposure to diverse ideas.

At the same time, tribalisation is fragmenting higher education. Polarised campuses, localised universities and algorithmically curated environments undermine the university mission of fostering dialogue and intellectual exchange.

This situation raises urgent questions: How can universities preserve local traditions while preparing students for global challenges? What safeguards can prevent personalisation technologies from reinforcing divides? How can institutions maintain intellectual diversity amid growing polarisation?

The future of higher education hinges on addressing these challenges.

From metaversities to AI-driven personalisation

By 2035, technology will have revolutionised higher education, breaking traditional learning barriers while introducing new challenges. Two areas are particularly problematic: AI-driven personalisation and the rise of ‘metaversities’.

• Metaversities: Metaversities have the potential to revolutionise education by transcending geographic barriers and fostering real-time collaboration among students from diverse backgrounds. However, poorly designed platforms could amplify societal divides. For example, metaversities aligned with specific ideologies may prioritise certain values while excluding differing viewpoints.

Additionally, access restrictions based on resources or national affiliations risk turning these virtual campuses into exclusive environments. To promote inclusivity, metaversities must implement policies that prioritise equitable access and diverse perspectives.

Blockchain technology has a transformative potential for credentialing and academic governance by creating tamper-proof records and enhancing transparency. However, its misuse could legitimise conflicting narratives as governments or advocacy groups harness blockchain to validate their perspectives.

Nationally controlled systems may fragment global academic networks, complicating the recognition of credentials across borders. For blockchain to succeed as a unifying force, its implementation must prioritise collaboration and interoperability, avoiding isolationist tendencies.

• AI-driven personalisation: AI platforms like Coursera and edX provide personalised learning experiences tailored to individual needs. While this approach increases engagement, it risks fostering intellectual silos by curating content that aligns with a learner’s existing beliefs. This narrowing of perspectives threatens critical thinking and shields students from alternative viewpoints.

To counteract this, AI tools must challenge biases and expose learners to diverse ideas, fostering intellectual growth and equipping students to address global challenges.

Technology has immense potential to democratise education, especially in under-served regions. Low-cost platforms, mobile apps and solar-powered internet hubs can deliver quality education to millions.

However, persistent inequities remain. Neo-nationalist policies often prioritise domestic learners, excluding opportunities for international collaboration. Infrastructure gaps further exacerbate this divide, with rural and under-served areas struggling to access advanced tools.

Moreover, platforms that reflect narrow cultural or ideological frameworks risk alienating learners from diverse backgrounds.

Technological advancements like AI, blockchain and metaversities have the potential to bridge cultural and geographic divides, fostering collaboration on global challenges such as climate resilience and public health. Yet, without intentional design, these tools risk deepening societal divisions.

To counter these risks, universities must prioritise inclusivity by designing platforms that promote critical thinking, cross-cultural understanding and equitable access. Tools should reflect diverse perspectives and actively challenge systemic disparities, ensuring technology unites rather than fragments.

The future of higher education depends on leveraging technology as a platform for global collaboration and intellectual diversity. By balancing innovation with equity, universities can transform these tools into drivers of unity, preparing learners to navigate and thrive in an interconnected world.

The next decade presents an urgent challenge for universities: to redefine their role amid the intersecting forces of neo-nationalism, tribalisation and technological disruption.

No longer just centres of learning, institutions must decide whether to align with ideological or national priorities or remain bastions of intellectual exploration and critical inquiry. The choices universities make now will influence not only the trajectory of higher education but also the broader evolution of society.

To navigate this complex landscape, universities must embrace creativity, courage and an unwavering commitment to their mission of fostering knowledge, critical thinking and global engagement.

Education for sustainable development

In an era dominated by neo-nationalist rhetoric emphasising sovereignty and cultural identity, universities face a dual responsibility: preserving local heritage while equipping students with the global competencies needed to address transnational challenges.

Education for sustainable development (ESD) provides a pathway for achieving this balance by embedding sustainability goals into global citizenship education.

Dual-curriculum models integrating localised and global content can foster this comprehensive approach. Political science programmes, for example, could examine local governance systems alongside comparative studies of international frameworks, linking regional insights to global challenges like climate change and resource management.

Similarly, interdisciplinary programmes addressing issues such as public health, economic inequality and environmental sustainability could immerse students in real-world problem-solving, grounded in ESD principles.

Exchange programmes play a critical role in cultivating global citizenship. Hybrid initiatives – combining virtual and physical exchanges – allow students to engage with diverse cultures and ideologies while focusing on sustainability projects.

These programmes could involve collaborations on renewable energy strategies or conservation efforts, promoting cross-cultural understanding and preparing students to navigate an interconnected world. By integrating ESD into their strategies, universities can transcend ideological divides and empower students to tackle the pressing challenges of the 21st century.

Universal academies

The future of higher education lies in its ability to transcend boundaries – both ideological and geographic. Universal academies, governed by international consortia, represent a transformative vision for universities.

These institutions would prioritise global citizenship education, addressing transnational challenges like climate change, migration, and digital ethics. With equitable access funded through global partnerships, universal academies could become platforms for collaboration, bridging ideological divides and fostering shared progress.

As the world transitions into the era of Total War 2.0, where conflicts extend beyond military arenas into cyber, economic and ideological domains, higher education must adapt to an increasingly contentious and interconnected landscape.

Universities are uniquely positioned to prepare students as resilient problem-solvers, equipping them to navigate and address global tensions. From digital infrastructure to environmental stewardship, institutions must redefine their mission to foster unity, innovation and sustainable solutions in a world where cooperation is essential yet fraught with challenges.

The ideologies of tomorrow

Emerging ideologies such as Globalism 2.0, eco-sovereignty and technocratic governance offer potential frameworks for universities to address these new realities.

Globalism 2.0, leveraging decentralised technologies like AI and blockchain, could enable collaboration across borders to tackle transnational issues. Eco-sovereignty might emphasise balancing local sustainability efforts with global ecological priorities, while technocratic governance and post-humanism could focus on data-driven policy-making and human augmentation.

Simultaneously, movements advocating for spiritual renewal, eco-spirituality and ethical simplicity may arise to counteract the hyper-modern stresses of rapid technological advancement and ideological conflict.

Higher education must seize this pivotal moment to chart a course for inclusivity, critical engagement and global unity. By expanding their mission and addressing the challenges of Total War 2.0, universities can remain vital forces for progress. The decisions made today will determine whether higher education becomes a beacon of hope and transformation or succumbs to division and insularity.

As institutions grapple with these responsibilities, their ability to lead humanity towards a sustainable, interconnected future will define their legacy in shaping the ideologies of tomorrow.

James Yoonil Auh is the dean of the School of IT and Design Convergence Education and the chair of computing and communications engineering at KyungHee Cyber University in South Korea.

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