Stanford Report: The First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama, spoke at SCPKU today and said study abroad allows students to realize that countries all have a stake in each other's success.  Following her remarks, she held a conversation with students on the Stanford campu via SCPKU's Highly Immersive Classroom. Read more.

Introduction and Contribution

Since coming to power in 2002, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) have significantly undermined Turkish democracy. This has most visibly involved police repression, systematic prosecutions of the AKP’s critics, and partisan control and censorship of the media. Although opposition persisted in parliament, municipalities, campuses, and professional associations, the playing field is rigged against the AKP’s opponents.

Yet these visible forms of repression are only part of a broader process of Turkey’s autocratization. In “The Capture of Turkey’s Universities Under the AKP,” Ayça Alemdaroğlu shows how the regime has, through a host of less spectacular but durable mechanisms, used its control over higher education to turn universities into channels for distributing opportunity, disciplining dissent, and cultivating loyal staff and students. These mechanisms — including baseless investigations and dismissals of academics, online citizen reporting against faculty, and patronage around university jobs — have weakened academic life and transformed Turkish higher education into a key instrument of the AKP’s governing project.

Importantly, Turkey’s democratic erosion has accelerated in tandem with the massive, rapid growth in colleges and student enrollment. For Alemdaroğlu, this should temper any assumption that higher education is automatically a space of democratic resistance. Universities can produce critique, organization, and dissent, but the higher education system can also facilitate authoritarian consolidation through appointments, disciplinary procedures, funding, surveillance, and patronage. Comparable processes to subordinate universities have unfolded in India, China, and Russia. Instructors may publish or teach critical material while students may organize against the state, but autocrats can hedge against these risks by capturing the university system writ large. In the United States, where universities have become central to “culture wars,” Alemdaroğlu’s article serves as a cautionary tale about how quickly institutional autonomy can erode, especially in the absence of protections against executive encroachment.

The Growth of Turkish Higher Education

The AKP did not eviscerate higher education in one fell swoop but did so incrementally, building on the efforts of its predecessors. For example, after the 1980 coup d'état, Turkey’s military government centralized key aspects of university appointments, which the Erdoğan regime has expanded. In addition, the country’s 1980s neoliberal turn refashioned universities as instruments of profit and efficiency rather than spaces of academic freedom. Since the AKP attained power, higher education has grown at an unprecedented scale: there were 76 universities with 1.7 million enrolled students in 2002, compared to 206 universities and 8 million students in 2020. This has afforded the regime vast new terrain on which to exercise control.

Unsurprisingly, such rapid growth has increased quantity at the expense of quality. From a political standpoint, however, this is not especially costly for the AKP. For example, meager investments in research capacity have served to weaken the independence of academics and their ability to criticize the regime. Meanwhile, university hiring processes reflect the preferences of AKP loyalists, thus expanding the scope of co-optation. These are not unintended consequences but core features of a system geared toward patronage.

University expansion has helped the AKP widen its reach across social groups and economic sectors. Lucrative construction projects, public-sector jobs, faculty appointments and access to scarce resources have become channels through which the party awards supporters and cultivates loyalty.  In other words, higher education has served as a means of patronage, ideological inculcation and political control. The government framed expansion as a democratizing challenge to secular urban privilege and as part of a project to cultivate a more conservative, religiously grounded youth.

Waves of Capture

Alemdaroğlu periodizes the AKP’s higher education agenda into three waves that illustrate the shift from episodic intervention to routinized control. The first wave, which began soon after the AKP came to power, was not immediately visible to international observers as part of a broader authoritarian turn. Though it was clear to those targeted. For example, a 2005 penal code criminalized the “denigration of Turkishness,” which state prosecutors used to target faculty in literature and journalism, particularly those who had published on the Armenian genocide and the systematic mistreatment of Kurds.

By contrast, the second wave, beginning after the failed 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt, was much more dramatic. The AKP government presented the coup attempt, which it attributed to the Gülen movement, as a national emergency requiring sweeping state action. Faculty and employees were dismissed and suspended en masse, while Gülen-affiliated universities were shuttered and had their assets frozen. In addition, investigations were conducted against those who signed a 2016 “Academics for Peace” document, which called for an end to state violence against Kurds. Turkey’s Constitutional Court found the investigations illegal in 2019, but by which time many academics had already lost their positions, passports, income, and professional standing.

The final, ongoing wave has “shifted toward a permanent institutional model, moving control and coercion into the everyday governance of the university.” Faculty are routinely disciplined for “verbally disrespectful speech” or conduct incompatible with “public morality and decency,” while AKP loyalists are appointed to senior academic posts by direct presidential decree. In addition, online citizen reporting through the state’s communication system has created another channel for targeting faculty. Although the rise from 130,000 applications in 2006 to 6 million in 2020 reflects the system as a whole, it shows how citizen complaints became part of everyday state monitoring, including at universities.

Ultimately, the Turkey case shows how democracy erodes through both dramatic ruptures and quiet, cumulative transformations. Alemdaroğlu emphasizes that the degraded condition of Turkish higher education does not merely reflect AKP’s autocratization but has actively enabled it.

*Brief prepared by Adam Fefer.

This article was written by Dr. Thomas Fingar, who played an early role in the establishment of SPICE before helping to establish and then leading Stanford’s U.S.–China Relations Program before moving to the U.S. State Department where he served twice as Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Research. He later served as Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis and Chairman of the National Intelligence Council before returning to Stanford in 2009. This is the sixth of several articles—focusing on the 50-year history of SPICE—that will be posted this year.

The celebration of SPICE’s 50th anniversary attests to the continuing vitality, impact, and success of ideas and constructive activism engendered by unique circumstances at Stanford in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The Bay Area China Education Project (BAYCEP) and its successor organization, the Stanford Program on International and Cross-Cultural Education (SPICE), did not just happen and its success was not assured. Many innovative projects were launched during that turbulent and transformative period but few survived or had a lasting impact. It is worth reflecting on what made this Stanford initiative different and more successful.

Context matters and it is useful to recall the political and academic environment at the time. It was the golden age of area studies when universities and the national affairs enterprise struggled to understand the societies, cultures, politics, and policies of the more than 100 ‘new’ nations that regained independence or emerged from revolution after World War II. New social science methodologies were developed to support this undertaking, and new ways to teach foreign languages and foreign cultures broadened horizons and facilitated people-to-people interactions that transformed exotic ‘others’ into fellow travelers on planet earth. Stanford was at the forefront of both the area studies and methodological revolutions.

The Vietnam War was a second critical shaper of information and ideas. This was the first ‘television war’ and it gave an immediacy to what was happening in Washington and on the other side of the world. The ‘enemy’ was humanized and the draft forced ordinary Americans to think about people, places, and government policies that were opaque and increasingly personal. Antiwar activism included demonstrations and ‘teach ins’ to educate the public about what was happening and why. These activities occurred in the context of growing dissatisfaction with many gaps between American values and everyday injustice affecting racial minorities, women, the elderly, and the poor. Determination to do something about increasingly unacceptable conditions was rampant.

These factors, and others such as the large size of the area studies community at Stanford and the leadership of key faculty, coalesced in ways that galvanized determination and efforts to link area studies-focused academic research to political action, classroom instruction, and public education. The logic was straightforward. Those at the leading edge of area studies had both an opportunity and an obligation to use what they learned about other countries and cultures to inform and influence politicians and policymakers so that they would see the error of their ways in Vietnam and Asia more broadly and adopt policies more conducive to mutual understanding, peace, and shared prosperity.

The logic of the situation and our understanding of the importance of public opinion in a democracy also drove us to seek ways to use our understanding of Asia to bring Asia and Asians into American classrooms. That meant, among other things, expanding coverage of Asian culture and history in American secondary school textbooks and developing teaching materials and training programs for high school teachers. Fifty years later, it is difficult to imagine how little information and teaching material was available. One reason that is the case is that the founders of SPICE used their knowledge of American education, textbook publishing, and teacher training to move beyond the Europe-centric content of what was and is taught in the United States.

The energy and activism during the formative period did not dissipate when graduate students earned their degrees and embarked upon the next stage of their careers. Some continued to work in and through the SPICE structures. Others accepted positions in the U.S. Government and other nonacademic institutions so that they could play direct and indirect roles in shaping official understanding and public policies. Their activities both contributed to public understanding and utilized increased public awareness and understanding to influence public policy. 

There is a bigger story to be told than the narrow component that was and is the SPICE program, but to say that is not to diminish the importance and impact of the classroom and public education achievements of the people and projects undertaken in the decades since SPICE was originally conceived. I am proud to have been a part of those early efforts and even prouder of the fact that SPICE remains as vital and vibrant as it is today and that I still have opportunities to lecture in its programs. 

To stay informed of SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

SPICE offers several local programs for students in Japan, including regional programs at the city and prefectural levels. Developed through collaborations between SPICE and local governments across Japan, these online programs encourage students to engage with complex global issues while deepening their understanding of U.S. society, culture, and U.S.–Japan relations through critical thinking and research.

With the 2025–2026 session now finished, each participating program has recognized two outstanding students for their exceptional achievements throughout the course, including the quality of their final research projects. These student honorees will travel to Stanford University in August 2026, where they will present their research during a series of recognition ceremonies. The events will welcome distinguished guests from the Stanford community, the Consulate General of Japan in San Francisco, and members of the Japanese community throughout the Bay Area.

SPICE proudly congratulates the following students for their outstanding academic accomplishments.

Stanford e-Fukuoka (Instructor: Kasumi Yamashita)

Student Honoree: Konoha Inoyusu
School: Fukuoka Daichi High School

Student Honoree: Haruki Kenyon
School: Kurume High School

Stanford e-Hiroshima (Instructor: Rylan Sekiguchi)

Student Honoree: Konatsu Haga
School: Fukuyama Akenohoshi Girls’ High School

Student Honoree: Momoka Nagayama
School: Hiroshima Inokuchi High School

Stanford e-Kagoshima City (Instructor: Amy Cheng)

Student Honoree: Nayuta Nei
School: Kagoshima Gyokuryu High School

Student Honoree: Shiori Nishizono
School: Kagoshima Girls’ High School

Stanford e-Kawasaki (Instructor: Maiko Tamagawa Bacha)

Student Honoree: Mio Suzuki
School: Kawasaki High School

Student Honoree: Rio Hojo
School: Tachibana High School

Stanford e-Kobe (Instructor: Alison Harsch)

Student Honoree: Sakura Oe
School: Kobe Municipal Fukiai High School

Student Honoree: Shotaro Take
School: Kobe Municipal Fukiai High School

Stanford e-Oita (Instructor: Kasumi Yamashita)

Student Honoree: Mao Hieida
School: Nakatsu Minami High School

Student Honoree: Taichi Morikawa
School: Takada High School

Stanford e-Tottori (Instructor: Jonas Edman)

Student Honoree: Una Ishikawa
School: National Institute of Technology, Yonago College

Student Honoree: Asumi Nishimura
School: Tottori Nishi High School

Stanford e-Yamaguchi (Instructor: Jonas Edman)

Student Honoree: Misaki Kobayashi
School: Keishin Senior High School

Student Honoree: Hiroi Tomokawa
School: Iwakuni Senior High School

SPICE commends these students for their intellectual curiosity, academic excellence, and commitment to developing a global perspective. We look forward to recognizing their accomplishments at Stanford University next month.

SPICE also offers online courses to U.S. high school students on Japan (Reischauer Scholars Program), China (China Scholars Program), Korea (Sejong Korea Scholars Program), and entrepreneurship (Stanford e-Entrepreneurship U.S.), and online courses to Chinese high school students on the United States (Stanford e-China) and to Japanese high school students on the United States and U.S.–Japan relations (Stanford e-Japan) and on entrepreneurship (Stanford e-Entrepreneurship Japan).

To stay informed of news about Stanford e-Japan and SPICE’s other programs, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

The Stanford e-Yamaguchi Program recently concluded its second year, continuing a successful partnership between SPICE and the Yamaguchi Prefectural Board of Education. Designed to provide high school students in Yamaguchi Prefecture with opportunities to strengthen their English communication skills, explore global issues, and engage with Stanford educators and guest speakers, the program offers participants a unique opportunity to develop their global perspectives while interacting with experts from a variety of fields.

This year marked my first year teaching the Stanford e-Yamaguchi course, and it has been a truly rewarding experience. Throughout the program, I was consistently impressed by the students’ intellectual curiosity, thoughtful participation, and willingness to engage with complex global topics in English. Their enthusiasm for learning and openness to new perspectives made every virtual classroom session meaningful and enjoyable.

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Mia Kimura, who taught the inaugural year of the program and helped establish a strong foundation for its continued success. Her efforts during the program’s first year played an important role in creating a welcoming and engaging learning environment, one that I have sought to emulate in my own teaching.

The course featured a series of outstanding guest speakers who shared their expertise and experiences with students. I would like to thank Dr. Stephen Murphy-Shigematsu, Dr. Elizabeth Baham, Dr. Gary Mukai, and Dr. Mariko Yoshihara Yang for their generous contributions to the program. Through their presentations and discussions, students explored a wide range of topics, including mindfulness in leadership, diversity in leadership, global citizenship, and design thinking. These sessions provided students with opportunities to connect classroom learning to real-world challenges and encouraged them to think critically about the qualities needed to lead in an increasingly interconnected world.

The success of the Stanford e-Yamaguchi course is the result of the efforts of many individuals and organizations. I am especially grateful to Professor Yuko Hayashi, Yamaguchi University, for introducing SPICE to Tsugumasa Muraoka, Governor of Yamaguchi Prefecture. That introduction helped establish the connections and support necessary to make this partnership possible.

I would also like to extend my deepest thanks to Akinobu Tomonari of the Yamaguchi Prefectural Board of Education. Tomonari-sensei has been instrumental in planning, coordinating, and facilitating the program. His dedication and commitment have been essential to the program’s success.

As we conclude another successful year, we celebrate not only the accomplishments of the students but also the strong partnership between SPICE and Yamaguchi Prefecture. We look forward to continuing this collaboration and providing future cohorts of students with opportunities to develop the knowledge, skills, and global perspectives needed to become thoughtful leaders in their communities and beyond.

Stanford e-Yamaguchi is one of SPICE’s local student programs in Japan.

To stay informed of SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

On March 27, 2026, 16 undergraduate students in Japan joined 50 graduate students in Norway for a virtual exchange focused on local sustainability challenges. The session was part of the SPICE Social Entrepreneurship course offered at Eikei University of Hiroshima (Eikei) and co-organized with the Faculty of Technology, Art and Design at the Oslo Metropolitan University (OsloMet). 

The exchange served as the culminating activity of a course that SPICE has offered at Eikei since 2022, made possible in large part by the vision of Hiroshima’s former Governor Hidehiko Yuzaki. The course guides students through community engagement, local sustainability challenges, and problem-solving using design thinking methods. This year, students tackled topics including rural transportation, migrant worker conditions, seniors' access to AI, and cybersecurity. What distinguished this iteration was the opportunity for students to test their ideas with an international audience whose academic background differed significantly from their own. 

To create that opportunity, SPICE partnered with OsloMet’s master’s program in Applied Computer and Information Technology. Though the two programs differ in size, location, and disciplinary focus – one rooted in liberal arts, the other in STEM – they share a common goal: helping students explore complex social problems through interdisciplinary and cross-cultural collaboration. To prepare for the virtual session, Eikei students created short video presentations introducing the sustainability challenges they had identified in Hiroshima. OsloMet students then reframed those challenges in their own local content and developed technical solutions in response. During the live session, students from both sides met in breakout discussions facilitated by Eikei student assistants, where Oslo teams proposed solutions and Hiroshima teams asked questions and explored implementation. 

For Eikei students, the most significant learning emerged from the reflective activities that followed. Students’ responses centered on two pillars the SPICE course had set from the beginning: intercultural competence and interdisciplinary thinking.

Eikei students reflecting on Japan-Norway student exchange | Photo Credit: SPICE

On the intercultural side, the exchange made clear how deeply local context shapes the way problems are understood and solved. A group working on AI and senior citizens, for instance, found that differing attitudes toward aging in Japan and Norway influenced both how the problem was defined and which solutions seemed viable. One student wrote: 

"The most memorable moment was when the very first prototype shown — from Group 9 — was an AI-generated image of a pizza with wheels, with an elderly person smiling next to it. I felt that our perspectives on social welfare and the public good were fundamentally different. Our conception of government's mission is something close to protecting the vulnerable. Their view, by contrast, were rooted in a focus on individual flourishing and self-actualization. It really took me by surprise."

Another student recalled a similarly unexpected moment:

“I received a lot of basic questions about everyday life in Japan — things like 'Isn't it normal for people in Japanese suburbs to ride electric scooters?' or 'How much do elderly people in Japan actually use smartphones?' I had expected questions about complex solutions, but I realized that even things I take for granted carry invisible assumptions and biases. In a cross-cultural setting, you have to align on the basics before you can go deeper."

These moments pushed students to examine their own assumptions and recognize how context shapes both problems and solutions. 

The interdisciplinary dimension was equally revealing. Eikei students admired how their Norwegian peers translated broad social concerns into concrete, technically grounded proposals. At the same time, the exchange helped them see the value of their own liberal arts education. One student reflected:

“Since the Oslo students each specialize in one field, it seemed like every group felt compelled to apply that expertise — which meant their solutions often ended up looking similar. We, on the other hand, are trained to approach problems from multiple disciplines and to include not just what’s immediately feasible but also future possibilities. Seeing that difference made so concrete was what left the strongest impression.”

Rather than viewing technical expertise as inherently superior, Eikei students came to see stakeholder engagement and contextual sensitivity as equally essential for addressing complex challenges, and concluded that effective solutions require both. This shift in perspective reflects a central aim of STEAM education: integrating a human-centered perspective into the traditional STEM framework (link to a related article). 

This experience reinforced the value of designing courses that connect students across institutions, disciplines, and cultures. The impact, it turns out, extended beyond the participants themselves. One of the Eikei student assistants who helped facilitate the session also reflected on what the experience meant to her (link). Many Eikei students expressed a desire for more sustained collaboration with their Norwegian peers, suggesting that future iterations of such a course could benefit from extending the exchange beyond a single session. More time and more exchanges would create greater space for mutual understanding and deeper engagement with complex "wicked" social problems.

Eikei students in SPICE Social Entrepreneurship course | Photo Credit: SPICE

Acknowledgement: I am deeply grateful to Professor Tulpesh Patel at OsloMet for making this partnership both possible and genuinely rewarding. Since we began working together in August 2025, it has been a true collaboration, the one built on regular conversation, mutual trust, and a shared belief in the value of human-centered, context-sensitive learning, an approach that lies at the heart of STEAM education. Working with Professor Patel has been a personal reminder of why cross-cultural and interdisciplinary collaboration matters. 

SPICE's course on Social Entrepreneurship with Eikei University of Hiroshima is one of SPICE’s local student programs in Japan.

To stay informed of SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

What does it take to get ahead when college admission rules change? Who has the resources to anticipate risks and adapt, and who is left responding after opportunities have already slipped away?

These questions lie at the heart of Ruo-Fan Liu’s research. As APARC's Taiwan Program postdoctoral fellow 2024-2026 – the first scholar to serve in this role since the program’s launch two years ago – Liu examines how young people navigate educational transitions in Taiwan's college admissions landscape, which has shifted from an exam-centered system to holistic screening in recruiting elites. Her work shows that inequality is not simply a matter of who succeeds or fails, but of who can mobilize support early enough to stay ahead of unexpected challenges.

We spoke with Liu about her work and fellowship experience at APARC. The following interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Get APARC fellowship announcements and scholars' insights delivered to your inbox >

Could you describe your research briefly?

My dissertation examines how young people navigate contingency in college admissions: what kinds of support they seek, how they mobilize resources, and how these processes shape postsecondary transitions. I situate this puzzle in Taiwan, where the state has implemented admissions reforms intended to level the playing field, including holistic admissions, school-based nominations, and test-optional and dossier-based application routes. Although these reforms open new opportunities, they also introduce different forms of uncertainty into students' college pathways.

As a sociologist, I care deeply about how people exercise agency under different forms of constraint and opportunity. In asking why class reproduction persists amid contingency and uncertainty, I find that middle-class students preserve class privilege not because they avoid setbacks or always get what they want, but because they anticipate risks early and coordinate familial and school support before risks become failures. I call this process “anticipatory coordination.” By contrast, working-class students are more often reactive mobilizers, seeking help after problems have already crystallized into adverse outcomes. This temporal dimension – who can act early enough to get ahead – shapes who can get around unexpected hurdles.

I use a wide range of methods, but ethnography remains my favorite method. Talking with people, reading social cues, and capturing unspoken assumptions are the moments I have found most meaningful in the research process.

What challenges have you encountered in researching this topic?

One of the major challenges I have encountered is the scarcity of Taiwan-based cases published in general sociology journals. Sociology remains highly U.S.-centered and theoretically demanding, which makes publication difficult, especially during peer review.

As a Taiwan-focused researcher, I am still learning how to make the case for the broader significance of this work in different publication outlets: how to frame Taiwan’s relevance, address concerns about generalizability, and explain empirical evidence in depth without creating unnecessary confusion.

That is why I cherish APARC and FSI as my institutional home at Stanford, where faculty members and mentors value international work and underrepresented cases and support researchers throughout the process.

Tell us about your work at the Stanford Next Asia Policy Lab (SNAPL).
 
At SNAPL, I co-led a project with Professor Gi-Wook Shin that examines how migrant scholars and transnational elites institutionalize cross-border exchange, negotiate with state officials and other key brokers, and produce knowledge across multiple languages.

Since 2024, our team has collected network, interview, archival, and organizational data, working with two postdoctoral fellows and two research assistants. The project has generated several papers in progress. In the first paper, we find that migrant scholars play crucial intermediary roles in facilitating cross-border exchange, a mechanism we call the “transnational pipeline,” which extends beyond individuals’ sporadic efforts. In the second paper, we turn our teamwork into a methodological technique for studying transnational elites.

We are currently comparing Taiwan’s and Korea’s funding infrastructures and developing a comparative model that contrasts “state sponsorship” and “state capitalism” to explain how states extend their power beyond national borders.

How has your time at APARC supported your research and professional development?

Stanford has helped me become a more collaborative scholar.

My first cultural shock was Stanford’s lab culture, where scholars often do not work alone but make decisions together as a team. I also learned how closely people back each other up. In many moments when I needed help or had to step away from a project briefly, someone was there to take over and support the work.

I learned from this culture and have applied it to my own team-leading skills in other collaborative projects. I learned how to divide labor across different team compositions, recognize collaborators’ strengths and weaknesses as scholars, support a team, secure funding for future research, and resolve tensions across different writing styles.

What advice would you give to prospective APARC postdoctoral scholars?
 
Many young scholars spend a lot of time chasing trends. The current job market exacerbates this dynamic, because there are fewer available positions. Trendy research can be valuable, but it may become outdated by the time scholars enter the job market.

I am not saying we should ignore research trends. Rather, I believe an academic journey should be your own path: developing the skills you want to invest in, cultivating the networks you are part of, and taking time to work through the puzzle you cannot let go of. In short, take your time to develop your expertise, fields, and intellectual craft.

At the same time, be strategic about your time as you approach graduation. Manage reviewing commitments, submission timelines, writing schedules, and publication timing carefully so that you have more tools when you begin a faculty position. And enjoy this transition, because once you are on the tenure track, the clock starts ticking again, and you may no longer have the same freedom you had as a doctoral candidate.

To put it simply: take your time during graduate training, be a strategic planner about timing when you are on the market, and protect your time once you become a junior faculty member.

What’s next for you?
 
I will join National Chengchi University, a leading research-intensive university in Taipei, Taiwan, as an assistant professor of sociology.

I will continue collaborating with APARC and SNAPL at Stanford while also bringing my three international research collaborations to NCCU: First-Generation Students in the United States, Organizational Change and College Admissions Under Changing Ranking Systems, and Stanford’s Transnational Project. I hope to involve my future students in these projects so that they can gain valuable experience in collaborative research.

I am excited to apply for my own grants, teach courses in the sociology of education, and cultivate a new generation of Taiwanese scholars. Please stay tuned to my personal website, and feel free to reach out if you are interested in any of these research themes.