Editorial

In a recent piece entitled “The Dangers of Dismantling Internationalization,” Hans de Wit (2025) challenges the “radical undoing of all internationalization of higher education,” and calls for a return to what he described as the “traditional” values of international education. He offers a commonly discussed historical narrative of internationalization, what he calls “from optimism to neoliberalism.” In this arc the 1980s and 1990s are characterized as a period of “hope and optimism” as higher education institutions in the so-called Global North embraced internationalization in support of values such as “collaboration, exchange and solidarity.” Although de Wit acknowledges that by the turn of the century internationalization had become more “competitive and market-oriented,” he suggests that it is not inherently extractive. In his analysis, the current crisis of internationalization in higher education is a result of the depredations of a generation of neoliberal policymaking, not a reflection of fundamental limitations of internationalization as it was originally conceived. To put it mildly, it would surprise many international students from the 20^th century to discover that internationalization was collaborative before the year 2000. The post-WWII history of internationalization, especially international student mobility, is a history of Cold War politics and neocolonial aid schemes. It is true that international education was not always as marketized as it has been under neoliberalism, but it would be misleading to suggest it was characterized by solidarity or mutual exchange. International student mobility, especially from nonaligned countries to either capitalist of communist metropoles, was a neocolonial project meant to reshape the global order by influencing the future leaders of the Global South. In the West it was meant to centre Europe, the United States, and their allies in global science and capitalist economic development, and to a considerable extent it was successful. Even after the Cold War came to an end there is little evidence in the history of international student policies in countries such as Canada, the U.S., or Australia of a genuine spirit of collaboration or exchange (see, for example, Indelicato, 2018; Kramer, 2012; McCartney, 2020). Yet de Wit is right that with crisis comes opportunity. The apparent end of one era of internationalization invites us to create a new era, one that could be built on more equitable values. However, to do so requires an honest conversation about our entanglements with both the neoliberal era of internationalization and the neocolonial era that preceded it. We should not be paralyzed by this recognition, but we cannot pretend that there has ever been an innocent or pure era in the history of international education. Without this honesty, we have no hope of actually building a future of collaboration and solidarity. Thus, this issue of Comparative and International Education/Éducation comparée et internationale arrives at an increasingly fraught time for international education. Our authors offer compelling analysis of international education from several perspectives, deepening our understanding at the very moment insight is needed most. First, Marianne Jacquet’s article “L’équité en acte : retour sur l’expérience d’étudiants.e.s d’origine immigrante inscrit.e.s dans un dispositif novateur de formation initiale en enseignement en Alberta” examines the training of students of immigrant origin in Francophone teacher preparation programs in Alberta, Canada. She focuses on a pilot course meant to support these students’ socio-professional integration into the teaching profession. The course, which emphasizes anti-racism and reflective practices, appears to have been a very positive experience for students. It seems that they especially benefitted from a supportive, reflective atmosphere that helped prepare them for their own teaching practicums by giving them an opportunity to see and discuss teaching in real classrooms. In a context of challenges …