Short Description:
Exploring how international education has transformed from Cold War cultural diplomacy to market transactions, and now to a precarious new era requiring adaptive leadership strategies.
Article:
In an increasingly fractured global landscape, belonging has become both essential and elusive for international students. At a recent AIEA Thematic Forum, I shared how we’ve moved through three distinct eras, each fundamentally reshaping international student mobility and belonging.
Cold War Era (1945-1990): “We Will Give You a Place”
During this period, international student mobility operated primarily as ideological competition. The 1946 Fulbright Act institutionalized academic mobility as statecraft, bringing 30,000 foreign students to U.S. universities by 1950—a 328% increase from 1945. Belonging was structured through ideological alignment, with international students “given” a place under cultural diplomacy frameworks.
Market Liberalization Era (1991-2016): “You Can Buy a Place”
With the Soviet Union’s collapse, neoliberal logic reframed students as consumers and universities as global brands. The General Agreement on Trade in Services transformed higher education into an export commodity, generating over $40 billion for U.S. institutions by 2020. U.S. universities were accessible so long as international students could afford to buy a place. Belonging became depoliticized and transactional.
Cold War 2.0 (2017-Present): “You Must Secure a Place”
We now face the most profound restructuring of global student mobility since the Cold War’s end. The market-based model is unraveling as techno-nationalism reshapes government policies. In this new era, simply buying access is no longer sufficient—international students must now secure a place within increasingly restrictive systems. This shift is evidenced by mixed signals in the IIE Open Doors 2024 report, which marked both “record high” overall enrollment but also a 5% decline in new international student enrollment. 2024 saw historically high visa denial rates (41%), and 2025 was marked by thousands of visa revocations.
Where To Go From Here
Belonging itself is multidimensional—encompassing relational, cultural, spatial, economic, and legal aspects. It’s both “place” (that personal feeling of being at home) and “politics” (the power to define who belongs and who doesn’t). A student may feel personally at home on campus yet sudden policy changes challenge their right to be there. Conversely, they may have legal permission yet feel alienated in daily campus life.
The hard truth is that our field must confront a new geopolitical reality. The comforting narratives we’ve constructed about belonging often mask the complex power dynamics at play. The question isn’t whether students belong to our institutions, but whether our institutions can truly belong to them.
Article
You can read the full article “The End of Belonging: From Gift, to Transaction, to Securing a Position in Cold War 2.0” from Chris Glass presentation at the AIEA Thematic Forum on his Substack.
