Sachi Edwards

This edited volume brings together exciting new research and ideas related to the ongoing internationalization of higher education, particularly in the Asia Pacific region, where this phenomenon has been rapidly developing in recent years. It also specifically focuses on analyzing the extent to which resurgent nationalisms from around the world effect the growth and direction of this sector of education. As cultural and political tensions rise globally, many are turning to educators and education researchers for suggestions on how to respond to this trend. This volume seeks to answer that call. Moreover, as authors share perspectives and data from a wide range of national and institutional contexts, the applicability of this volume extends beyond national or regional boundaries, offering questions, challenges, and lessons for educators worldwide.

This series will publish books that examine fundamental questions of life, touching on the meaning, purpose, and mission of education from a variety of spiritual and religious perspectives. The series will provide a forum for scholars to explore how to engage learners spiritually and holistically. It will study how spirituality, religion, and education intertwine with the learning of wisdom, peacebuilding, cultural and interfaith dialogues, and the integration of learners' body, mind, emotions, and spirit. Commonalities and differences among spiritual and religious traditions will be explored alongside new developments from science that bridge the spirit and the mind. The series especially pays attention to the educational initiatives, outcomes, and programs that simultaneously engage the cognitive, affective, and spiritual dimensions of both students and educators. The world we live in focuses mostly on education for the intellect, thus restricting our ability to explore and understand deeply the nature of the cosmos and the meaning of our life. Although education is accessible to more people than ever before in human history, the dominant paradigm focuses solely on knowledge, skill, and material acquisition that neglects the meaning and purpose of life. This creates a huge void in learners and produces a huge number of people who are unhappy, unfulfilled, restless, lost, or desperate. An education that distills and recovers wisdom from spiritual and religious traditions can fill the void and help cultivate citizens who have love, compassion, knowledge, and the capacities for enlightened action. Books in the series will address these age-old pursuits of inquiry, meaning, purpose, growth, transformation, and change.

This paper discusses the history and current manifestations of white Christian nationalism, with a focus on the implications for religiously minoritized people and groups in the United States. Emphases within include: the problematic responses to this phenomenon-including claims that Christian nationalism is not "real" Christianity and promoting an idealized secular neutrality-which are harmful to religiously minoritized people, and the discourse around ethno-religious nationalist movements in other countries around the world. The paper ends with an outline of future research in this area that would help improve our understanding of how to best respond to white Christian nationalism in ways that consider the experiences of religiously minoritized people and groups.

There is scant available research and scholarly discourse related to the unique needs and experiences of Buddhist students in US higher education-even in the small but growing body of literature on religiously minoritized college students. In this chapter, I summarize what little research does exist on Buddhist students, and explain the broader historical, societal, and cultural factors that serve as important context for making sense of that research. Focus points include curriculum, institutional policy, and student affairs. In the end, I offer recommendations to faculty, administrators, and student affairs professionals regarding what they can do to help create more welcoming and supportive campus climates for Buddhist students.

Last year, Glanzer (2022) published an article in this journal asserting that discourse in the field of higher education that names Christian privilege as a concern is fundamentally flawed, simplistic, and unfairly disparaging in its portrayal of Christianity, and that it ignores the phenomenon of secular privilege. We, as the scholars whose work and ideas he directly critiques in his article, responded by detailing the history, theory, and contemporary politics that inform our analysis of religion and higher education and explaining how and why we understand secular privilege as a phenomenon that, in many spaces, serves to reinforce Christian privilege and hegemony (Small et al., 2022). Then, Glanzer and Martin (2023) responded by reiterating that our articulation of Christian privilege and hegemony is unnecessarily divisive and suggesting that our discussion of the relationship between secular privilege and Christian hegemony is not sufficiently supported by evidence. This essay is our next, and final, response in this series. We focus on an analysis of the data (both empirical and not) that Glanzer and Martin (2023) point to as evidence of a pervasive secular privilege that specifically disadvantages Christians and a discussion of some recent large-scale studies on support for diverse religious identities and practices in higher education. We then summarize our interpretation of the foundational differences in perspective and priority at the root of this academic discourse. Our hope is that this discussion—all four papers taken together—can highlight areas of tension that exist in our field at present and point to areas for further research and ideas in need of additional exploration as our field proceeds.

In this article, members of the Critical Religious Studies in
Higher Education (CRSHE) network respond to Glanzer’s
Recognizing Christian Complexity and Secular Privilege in Higher
Education. We aim for the following goals: making explicit our
fundamental assumption about Christian privilege and
Christian hegemony, and their relationship to secular privilege;
detailing our thinking about definitions, historical influences,
social phenomena, and higher education practices related to
critical theories of religion; and welcoming scholars from outside
the CRSHE network into conversation about the topics of
Christian privilege and critical theories of religion, so that we
may, in community, move the theories forward.

In a recent volume of the Journal of College and Character, Matt Mayhew and Alyssa Rockenbach presented their frameworks by which they have designed and utilized their IDEALS study over the past several years. In this present article, the authors contend that despite their rigorous research, the researchers and measurements oftentimes have lacked recognition and acknowledgement of Christian biases and hegemony and thus have limited their results. We propose several remediations for how the data can be helpful and effective and suggest future scholarship which evaluates more critical approaches to the subject of religious, secular, and spiritual identities (RSSIs).

This article problematizes the practice of relying on participant self-identification in research on religious, secular, and spiritual identity (RSSI) within the field of higher education, with particular attention to the implications related to participants who chose non-religious labels. While this practice is commonplace in the field, it is rooted in Western/Christian assumptions about foundational concepts such as self, agency, knowledge, and religion. The article describes alternative understandings of these concepts in order to point out the onto-epistemic biases present in existing higher education RSSI research. It goes on to share descriptive data about “non-religious” students from a qualitative study on RSSI themed intergroup dialogue courses. The way these students understood, and sometimes struggled with, the concepts of self, agency, knowledge, and religion illustrates why and how the exclusive reliance on RSSI self-identification can ultimately lead to the erasure of religious minorities and the perpetuation of a hegemonic Western/Christian-centric worldview.

The editors of the special issue on critical religious studies frame the articles, discussing examples of new critical religious theories and scholarship and setting the agenda for how research and writing in this area should develop in the future.

As a field, we increasingly recognize how the “internationalization” of higher education globally often means the spread of Westernization, marketization, and neocolonialism.  But, where do Christianity and Christian supremacy belong in this discourse?  In other words, given that Christianity is deeply entangled with—and some argue foundational to—colonization, Western onto-epistemology, capitalism and even the concepts of race and the nation state, in what ways is Christianization a consequence, or perhaps even a goal in some cases, of internationalization efforts?  I respond to these questions and share examples from my research on higher education internationalization in Japan.

This chapter presents a new angle of analysis on the phenomenon of rapidly increasing student mobility by applying the lenses of “knowledge diplomacy” (Knight in International Higher Education 80: 8–9, 2015) and “worldview diversity education” (Ilisko in Re-Enchanting Education and Spiritual Wellbeing: Fostering Belonging and Meaning-Making for Global Citizens. Routledge, New York, 2017; Mayhew et al. in The Journal of Higher Education 85 (2): 219–245, 2014). In current discourse around the internationalization of higher education, the concepts of soft power and global market competitiveness have become predominant reasons for pursuing increased student mobility (Knight in International Higher Education 80: 8–9, 2015). As an alternative, this chapter will discuss the potential and the responsibility of higher education, through internationalization efforts, to promote understanding of differences in worldview and to temper the recent resurgence of nationalism and xenophobia we are w...

Sachi Edwards is a lecturer at the University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, and also at the University of Hawai’i, Mănoa, Honolulu, Hawai’i. The critical-dialogic model of IGD combines the pedagogical features of this four-stage process with dialogue that explicitly addresses social (in)justice and incorporates psychological processes such as identity engagement and self-reflection (Sorensen, Nagda, Gurin, & Maxwell, 2009). In contrast to other forms of dialogue that embrace a democratic model (in which students have complete control over dialogue topics, and facilitators do not attempt to change the direction of the conversation), the critical-dialogic model is designed such that facilitators purposefully and unapologetically raise issues of privilege and oppression pertaining to the relevant identity category, even if students are uncomfortable doing so. Literature on social justice and critical identity studies has shown that privilege and oppression are often unseen and d...

Purpose: This paper reviews the national and institutional internationalization activities in Japan's higher education sector and considers the extent to which these efforts have attempted to incorporate and/or contribute to meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Design/methodology/approach: This paper was developed based on a review of available demographic data on internationalization in Japan (in both English and Japanese), a survey of recent scholarly literature on this topic and conversations with numerous faculty and staff members working on internationalization issues in a wide range of higher education institutions throughout the country.
Findings: There are substantial internationalization efforts being made at both national and institutional levels, yet scholars and practitioners of higher education question the extent to which genuine internationalization is occurring. Moreover, the metrics used to track internationalization are somewhat limited and the available data, in many cases, can be complicated to interpret. A bit of tension also exists in Japanese universities between those who support the movement to internationalize and those who see it as a passing fad, an intrusion on their academic freedom and/or as a guise for Westernization – a tension that some cite, along with language barriers and system misalignment, as a challenge to internationalization.
Originality/value – Numerous scholars discuss the internationalization of higher education in Japan. The originality of this paper is in the comparison of Japan’s higher education internationalization efforts to the movement to achieve the SDGs – both in Japan and as a global effort.

This paper unpacks the concepts of allyship, solidarity, accompliceship,
and coconspiratorship, and applies them to religious
identity. It reviews the literature that describes the processes,
aims, and limitations of these labels, and then develops a
framework for understanding the role of Christians as allies/
accomplices/coconspirators for religious minorities based on
the themes and warnings of existing allyship/solidarity literature.
Next, the paper outlines a reflective process that aspiring
allies/accomplices/coconspirators can use to better understand
their role and their responsibility in the movement to resist
Christian supremacy and liberate religious minorities from systemic
oppression.

This chapter explores the use of reflective journaling as a contemplative practice for educators, particularly those who are pursuing social justice work in their classrooms, institutions, or other educational spaces. Engaging students in critical thinking about injustice and attempting to facilitate transformative learning experiences for others can be a challenging spiritual and emotional endeavor. Reflective journaling can serve as a tool for educators to build their own capacity for social justice work by helping them achieve an internal sense of peace, compassion, and awareness. When educators develop their inner wisdom in this way, not only does it help them understand injustice more clearly, they can also become better equipped to help others do the same. By sharing stories from my own experience engaging in reflective journaling throughout my career, I use this chapter to describe an example of how contemplative practice on the part of the educator can be used to strengthen and supplement efforts in the classroom (or elsewhere) aimed at social justice and transformative learning.

Current literature about religion in higher education typically emphasizes belief as a central component of religious identity. Through framing this discourse with a critical social justice lens, I argue that there needs to be a purposeful distinction between religious/spiritual belief and religious identity/culture in order to acknowledge the socio-cultural nature of religion and to more clearly understand the privilege/oppression dynamic associated with it. By describing the way Christian privilege and religious oppression are often independent of individuals' religious or spiritual beliefs, I discuss implications of this over-emphasis on belief for religious minorities and explain how focusing instead on religious culture can help make campus-based interfaith initiatives more social justice oriented. Since 2001, there has been a substantial increase in the amount of research and discourse on religion, religious identity, interfaith dialogue, and religious diversity initiatives in the realm of higher education (Astin, 2004; Clark, Brimhall-Vargas, Schlosser, & Alimo, 2002; Rockenbach, Mayhew, & Bowman, 2015). As religious tension has risen (and continues to rise) both domestically and abroad, so too have campus-based initiatives aimed at reducing this tension by promoting respect for religious diversity and social justice for religious minorities. The current body of scholarship related to this phenomenon typically relies on an interpretation of religion and religious identity that emphasizes belief as a central (if not the only) component defining this aspect of students' identities (Astin, Astin, & Lindholm, 2011). This widely accepted and unchallenged perspective downplays (or overlooks entirely) the socio-cultural nature of religion, contradicting literature in both religious studies and critical identity studies that explains how persons' religious cultures are largely unrelated to their personal beliefs. In this article, I reflect on the concept of religious identity using a critical social justice lens and argue that there needs to be a purposeful distinction between religious/spiritual belief and religious identity/culture in order to more clearly understand privilege and oppression as they pertain to religion. Making this distinction can shed light on the ways culturally Christian agnostics/atheists may benefit from Christian privilege and how oppression of religious minorities stems from their religious culture in addition to their beliefs, perhaps even more so.

There is a burgeoning interfaith movement in U.S. higher education, inspired, in large part, by global events, and aimed at promoting tolerance of religious diversity. While there are various supporting arguments and approaches to this type of student programming, social justice oriented approaches—that is, approaches specifically centered around addressing systemic oppression and uplifting marginalized perspectives—remain rare. This lack of critical social justice reflection in the interfaith movement puts institutions at risk of alienating and/or further marginalizing religious minorities, despite intentions to do otherwise. In this article, I describe the current trends in the interfaith movement, reflect on them from a critical social justice standpoint, and envision a future for the movement that is more inclusive of, and attentive to, religious minorities. Specific critiques from a social justice perspective include (a) the lack of overt examinations of power dynamics and Christian privilege, (b) the tendency to ignore the sociocultural nature of religious identity, and (c) the frequent exclusion of non-Abrahamic religious groups.