Let's respect the freedom of choice of universities and international students

The opponents of internationalisation in higher education are completely missing the point, both morally and economically. Their arguments put the problem in the wrong place and ignore the benefits of having international students in our universities.

Politicians such as Pieter Omtzigt focus on the alleged costs of educating international students, who are blamed for the shortage of rooms, lecture halls and teachers. That's nonsense, of course, because the housing shortage stems from a lack of houses, not from an excess of students. In a free market, higher demand leads to more supply. All individuals (including students) have the right to rent or buy a house, as long as they can find someone interested in renting or selling a house to them. However, zoning plans and construction permits set by the government make it impossible to build new homes in the Netherlands. 

The shortage of lecture halls and teachers also originates from an increasing demand and a limited supply. It looks like we need more universities or bigger universities, as well as more teachers. Meanwhile, our universities should be more selective. Both students and universities benefit from freedom of association – if students are allowed to choose the university that suits them best, universities have the right to do the same with students too.

However, why should universities select their students based on arbitrary criteria such as their country of origin? A university's purpose is to produce and transfer knowledge, so it is only logical for them to select students who are sufficiently skilled and motivated to absorb that knowledge and ultimately be equipped to produce that knowledge themselves. That means selecting students based on knowledge, skill and potential, not on origin.

According to opposers, international students don't contribute anything to the Dutch economy and therefore are of no added value to the Dutch because they pay little to no taxes and most of them leave the country after they graduate. This argument is reminiscent of the protectionism of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Protectionism is the act of "protecting" the internal market by restricting free trade. The "reasoning" behind it is that this would be better for those who live in the country whose market is being "protected", but that ignores that free trade is a moral right – everyone should be allowed to trade with someone else, regardless of what others think about it, as long as there is mutual consent. Free trade also has the positive effect of lowering prices: competition drives innovation and encourages efficiency. In the end, everyone benefits from better products for a lower price.

Something similar happens in higher education. Universities and students are free to reach agreements together and they shouldn't take what others think into account. Besides, it only takes one Bill Gates studying at a Dutch university for the Dutch to benefit from internationalisation. The advantages brought about by innovations are not restricted to a country's borders; I'm writing this column on a laptop (invented by a Brit), using a wireless Internet connection (invented by an Australian), and drinking coffee from an espresso machine (brought to perfection by an Italian). Universities are allowed to select smart and motivated students, regardless of where they come from as that ultimately leads to more innovations and solutions from which we will all benefit.