International Conflict's Impact on American Higher Ed

Following the struggle to remain fiscally buoyant after nearly two-years battling the pandemic, Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL’s) were beginning to ramp-up their international programs hoping to rebuild their revenue streams. Unfortunately, the hostilities in Eastern Europe have forced IHL’s back into the war room, strategizing to revamp their international programs. It is difficult to imagine what the situation will be by the time these words are published. However, there are short and long-term effects that IHL’s will need to consider on several fronts.

Is it Safe?

IHL’s are experienced at utilizing the information provided by the U.S. Department of State – Bureau of Consular Affairs  before scheduling any sponsored travel abroad. The State Department captures critical information from around the world and instantaneously posts a global travel advisory status for involved countries. IHL’s reference this information to ensure their international program sites are appropriate and safe for United States students. In recent years, risk management surrounding these programs has improved greatly including, among other safeguards, tracking where every individual is situated. Trip leaders have been schooled on emergency actions and often IHL’s contract with affiliate partners who are ready to engage if emergencies arise. 

Although the current military conflict had been forewarned in the media with the build-up of Russian troops on the Ukraine border, the North American college culture a continent away never envisioned it would have to assess the viability of its international programs for this reason. After years of improving the safety and security of travel abroad programs, IHL’s again find themselves under fire and having to reexamine whether the risks of these programs out-weigh the rewards.

Immediate Considerations

Of utmost concern is deciding what to do with students, faculty, and staff currently in harm’s way. The two options with equally undesirable ramifications are to evacuate or have them remain in place. The specific location of some of these individuals may seem far removed from the current military action geographically. However, the unpredictability of such an aggressive conflict can give rise to sudden change, necessitating immediate action. 

Program administrators and trip leaders are trained and hopefully well-prepared to coordinate a quick return home, if necessary. But what if they face requests by staff or students to remain behind to support the humanitarian efforts or for any other worthy reason? These requests are inevitable so it is important that leaders of abroad travel programs handle those conversations seriously and with respect without degrading the individual for asking. This is reminiscent of events surrounding the World Trade Center attack on September 11, 2001, when many young students rushed to assist after the collapse. It only takes a few hold-outs during an evacuation to derail the swift and safe process for the entire group.  

This isn’t the first time that sudden changes in circumstances internationally have required IHL’s to rethink the immediate impact to overseas programs. However, after several years of IHL’s being absorbed in sustainability discussions to fend off pandemic-related risks, the worry now is that crisis management plans have become stale, outdated, and untested. Considering current circumstances, these plans must be pulled from the shelf, reviewed, revised, and retested.  This is especially true since one of the major fallouts from COVID-19 was the reduction of the IHL workforce caused by employee retirements, terminations, reassignments, and remote work.  These changes may have left staffing gaps that could interfere with proper activation of these plans. 

Financial stress will continue to plague decision-makers if an international program ends early. Refunds will most likely be expected and will need to be processed efficiently without question to avoid any negative publicity or worse, litigation. Even if the IHL’s elect to keep certain program participants in place because travel is deemed too risky, having funds available to help could be problematic.  Also, if staying in place is being considered, it is important to factor in the risk that proponents of the warring factions may not confine themselves to the battlefield and may well reside in other parts of the world posing risks, such as violence or hostage taking.  Regardless of what decisions are made by IHL’s, those decisions will be challenged, and the resulting cost of lawsuits will be problematic.