Donald Trump

America’s Nobel success is the story of immigrants

This article was written by Adil Najam

If it were not for Bob Dylan – the singer, songwriter and now Nobel laureate – 2016 would have become the first year since 1999 without a Nobel winner born in the United States.

Since World War II, the U.S. has dominated the four research Nobels (in medicine, chemistry, physics and economics). It did so this year too. But there was a difference: None of the nine scholars who shared the four research Nobel Prizes in 2016 was born in the United States. However, as many as six of the winners work at U.S. universities and now call the United States as their home.

In other words, this year, as in so many others, America’s Nobel success was a story of immigrants. At a time when immigration has become a hot-button issue, this fact did not go unnoticed, including by the White House.

So why does this matter?

I have been associated with U.S. academia for a quarter-century – first as a student from Pakistan and then as a researcher, a teacher and more recently a university administrator. I have experienced the magical embrace of U.S. higher education firsthand.

I believe the diversity of the Nobel winners is a testimony to the spectacular exceptionalism of U.S. higher education: U.S. academic institutions attract, welcome, embrace and ultimately benefit from the best intellectual talent from all corners of the world.

Race to the top

There are many things that make American higher education truly exceptional. Immigration, and the ease and openness of U.S. academia to scholars from across the world, is certainly not the only one.

But, it is an important one.

In fact, many other countries are trying hard, though less successfully, to replicate the U.S. experience. For example, countries such as Singapore, South Korea, even Saudi Arabia, which are investing heavily in building their own research universities, begin by trying to attract top researchers from across the world. They offer them incentives such as outstanding facilities and lucrative salaries.

Nobel Academy in Stockholm. William Marnoch, CC BY

Such incentives help. But they are not enough. U.S. universities are quite unique in the way they welcome and embrace talent, which helps attract the best in the world.

The journey of Nobel laureate Ahmed H. Zewail (who received the Nobel for chemistry in 1999) is illustrative of the exceptionalism of U.S. higher education and the culture of openness. Writing about his journey from his native Egypt to U.S. academia, Zewail describes how he was embraced by all the universities he was part of – whether as a student at University of Pennsylvania, as a postdoc at University of California, Berkeley or as a professor at California Institute of Technology.

“My science family came from all over the world and members were of varied backgrounds, cultures, and abilities. The diversity in this ‘small world’ I worked in daily provided the most stimulating environment, with many challenges and much optimism.”

America’s research excellence

The history of the Nobel awards is, in fact, a rather neat lens through which we can see this play out.

The very first American to win a Nobel in the sciences was Albert A. Michelson. He was awarded the prize in 1907 for his research on the measurement of the speed of light. Michelson’s parents had immigrated to the United States from Strzelno in then Prussia, now Poland, when he was only two years old.

Since its inception in 1901, the Nobel Prizes and the Prize in Economic Sciences have been awarded 579 times to 911 people and organizations. The U.S. alone has had more than 350 Nobel winners. More than 100 of these have been immigrants and individuals born outside of the United States.

No other country comes close. The two countries apart from the U.S. that can claim more than 100 laureates are the United Kingdom and Germany. What is noteworthy is that a number of winners of both these countries were living and working in the U.S. when they were awarded their Nobel.

In fact, if it were to be a category of its own, immigrants to the U.S. who won the Nobel, would would come second only to the U.S.-born laureates group. Their number exceeds that of laureates born in any single country.

The point is the global movement of intellect and ideas is often necessary and perhaps central to the creation of knowledge and production of great research. The United States has both immensely contributed to and benefited from the excellence of such research.

With increasing globalization, this trend will not slow down. If anything, this trend is on the rise and is likely to continue. Consider, for example, the research Nobels awarded to those in the United States in the last two years. Of the ten laureates who live, teach and work in the United States, all but one were born outside the U.S, and six studied in U.S. universities.

Attacks on openness are misguided

Great research is a truly global enterprise. In context of current conversations on immigration – and the notion that somehow immigrants might be thwarting America’s “greatness” – it is instructive to note just how much of America’s great success in Nobel Prizes has come because of immigrants.

Attacks on American openness are not just misguided, they are self-defeating.

Trump supporters in the United States – much like Brexit supporters across the Atlantic – seem worried that this embrace of the outsider is making America less great.

As America’s Nobel success testifies, they could not be more wrong.

The Conversation

Adil Najam, Dean, Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies, Boston University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Which Election Issues Really Matter to Minority College Students?

There’s a lot of rhetoric in election years centering on young voters. What do young people want from politicians, and how can those politicians get those young people registered and to the polls? While voters who are older than college and young-adult age certainly outnumber this group, understanding what college students want from the people they elect matters a lot – both short term and long term.

So what do the college students, particularly minorities, want during the election of 2016?

Affordability.

If we’ve learned anything since Mitt Romney’s race for the Presidency in 2012 it’s this: Telling college students to have their parents “write a check” for their education just isn’t going to fly. Asking college students to take on heavy loads of debt is also a no-go. The students entering college today have the advantage of their not-so-much-older graduated peers who are more vocal than any other group in the past about why college attendance needs to be more affordable.

It makes sense, really. No one feels the squeeze of what college actually costs than the students who are actually living it and the young adults attempting to pay back high amounts of college debt on low salaries. Today’s college students saw their parents struggle through the latest recession. Some may have even lost homes. They are well aware of what the load of college debt actually means, and why it is imperative that affordable options be available to students from all life backgrounds.

President Obama’s proposal to have two free years of community college available for students who qualify academically has been met enthusiastically by young people all over the country, and their parents. Pay it Forward programs, like the one in place at Oregon state colleges, are being welcomed with open arms. The idea that hard work, not economic background, can help reduce the overall cost of obtaining a degree resonates with a lot of young people.

Today’s college students want a candidate who recognizes the significant financial sacrifice of earning a degree but who also believes it should cost less, period. This is an advantage particularly to Bernie Sanders, should he land the Democratic nomination, and even Donald Trump could be viewed favorable by young people for his public denouncement of federal loan programs that profit off of college students and parents. Hillary Clinton has also spoke out about not “saddling” students with decades of debt simply to earn an education.

Social issues.

When President Obama too office in 2008, the idea of legalizing same-sex marriage across the nation was a far-fetched one. It was an issue that had passionate discourse on both sides, but not one that appeared it would really move forward in the course of the President’s two terms. Thanks to very vocal supporters, and also to the rise of social media informing more people of the issue and hand and humanizing it, we all know that progress was made faster than anticipated.

The same is true of other issues now seeing greater awareness, in part again because of social media. Some of those include paid maternity/paternity leave, abortion and reproductive regulations, and the gender- and race-gap when it comes to wages. These are important to college students and boils down to their elected officials doing what is right by them, and their peers. The social issues that matter most to each individual college student will determine the particular candidate of choice, and a range of conservative and liberal stances are represented among front runners Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.

Environment.

College students today are hyper-aware of the issues surrounding sustainability on the planet. From oil fracking to water conservation to global warming – these young voters care what happens to the place they call home. Denial of such issues as problems is futile. Donald Trump’s recent comments that he wants to revive the coal industry are sure to turn off most young voters while Hillary Clinton has vowed to push comprehensive energy changes that support renewable sources and clean energy technology.

 

It’s almost surreal to think that by this time next year, we will have a new Commander in Chief. While college voters may not make the biggest impact at the polls, their voice will make a difference in who is chosen – and how that person is held accountable while maintaining the highest office in the land.