As the world moves toward 2030, the international community is attempting to make education more equitable and globally accessible through Sustainable Development Goal 4.b. This particular target emphasises expanding scholarships for students from developing countries to access higher education in the Global North. However, recent developments, such as the United States imposing visa restrictions on Harvard University, reveal the fragile nature of this progress. These events raise serious questions not only about legal frameworks and academic freedom but also about the ethical standards and global responsibilities of universities in the West.
Sustainable Development Goal 4.b calls for substantially increasing scholarships for students from developing countries, especially for enrolment in higher education programmes focused on vocational training, information and communications technology, engineering, scientific research, and other technical fields. The target particularly emphasises the needs of least developed countries, small island developing states, and African nations.
Official development assistance for scholarships reached nearly $4.6 billion in 2022, showing a 31 percent rise since 2015. However, the COVID-19 pandemic reversed some of this progress, as scholarship spending dropped by 26 percent between 2019 and 2021. Although some recovery has taken place, it has not returned to pre-pandemic levels. These fluctuations reveal two fundamental realities: first, while there has been some progress, it remains fragile and highly dependent on global circumstances; second, SDG 4.b remains a non-binding international commitment, relying primarily on voluntary compliance rather than legal obligations.
This situation places universities in the Global North, particularly elite institutions, at an important crossroads. They can either passively benefit from the limited scholarship programmes that exist, or they can exercise leadership and take proactive responsibility in turning the vision of SDG 4.b into reality.
The visa restrictions imposed by the Trump administration on Harvard University in 2025 serve as a clear example of how global politics can threaten educational access. The administration cited national security concerns and alleged foreign influence as reasons to halt new student visa issuances for Harvard, even threatening to cut federal funding. In response, Harvard filed legal challenges, arguing that these actions violated academic freedom and constitutional protections. A federal judge later blocked the visa freeze, but the episode highlighted the precarious position of international students and the vulnerability of universities to political interference.
The fluctuating levels of scholarship funding, combined with unstable visa policies, continue to jeopardise progress toward educational equality
International students make up between 20 to 27 percent of Harvard’s student population, totalling between 6,000 to 7,000 individuals. These students contribute significantly not only to the intellectual environment of the university but also to critical fields like science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and social sciences—all of which are central to the mission of SDG 4.b. Restricting access to such students undermines both global academic exchange and the broader research leadership that universities in the Global North strive to maintain.
In light of these developments, universities in the Global North must consider several ethical responsibilities.
First, access must become an essential part of the institutional mission. Some elite institutions, such as Harvard, MIT, and Princeton, have already adopted need-blind admissions policies for international students. However, many others have not, leading to continued socio-economic disparities. True commitment requires ensuring that access is based on academic merit rather than a student's country of origin or financial resources.
Second, strong institutional safeguards are necessary to protect academic freedom from political interference. Harvard's legal actions against the visa restrictions demonstrate the need for universities to take a firm stance in defending both their international students and their core values. Policies that shield admissions decisions from government pressure are essential for maintaining academic integrity.
Third, universities must promote transparency in their admissions and diversity practices. While need-blind admissions help reduce financial barriers, they are not enough to address geographic, racial, or economic imbalances. Institutions should regularly publish data detailing the geographic diversity of their student bodies, the allocation of scholarships, and the representation of students from underrepresented Global South countries.
Fourth, universities need to offer comprehensive support services for international students. Financial aid alone is insufficient. Many students from the Global South face not only financial challenges but also cultural, emotional, and legal obstacles when they study abroad. Universities must provide assistance with visas, legal representation, housing, healthcare, mental health services, cultural adaptation, and career counselling. Such holistic support is crucial for ensuring these students can thrive both academically and personally.
Fifth, universities should foster equitable partnerships with institutions in the Global South. Rather than practising intellectual extraction, Global North universities must prioritise mutual cooperation. Joint research initiatives, dual-degree programmes, and faculty exchanges can contribute to sustainable capacity-building. Areas like public health, agriculture, renewable energy, and technology offer excellent opportunities for such collaborations, which can benefit both regions and contribute to solving global challenges.
Sixth, universities should establish contingency plans to protect international students during emergencies. The pandemic and shifting political climates have shown how quickly students can become vulnerable. Institutions must develop legal and logistical frameworks that allow students to continue their education in times of crisis, including remote learning options, visa extensions, and emergency financial aid.
Despite the global consensus behind SDG 4.b, significant gaps remain. The challenges faced by Harvard highlight just how easily political pressures can interfere with educational access. The fluctuating levels of scholarship funding, combined with unstable visa policies, continue to jeopardise progress toward educational equality. Even as some elite universities adopt more inclusive admissions policies, the total number of scholarships available for students from the Global South remains limited and fiercely competitive.
Universities must recognise that true intellectual diversity includes students from regions traditionally underrepresented in global academia
In response to these ongoing challenges, Global North universities should undertake several practical steps. First, they must advocate for stable visa policies that protect scholarship recipients from abrupt political changes. Visa regulations should be applied consistently and without discrimination based on nationality or foreign policy concerns. Second, universities should allocate greater institutional resources to support scholarships for students from developing countries. Private donations, endowments, and government partnerships should be mobilised to create scholarship funds that are sustainable and resilient.
Third, institutions should commit to publishing annual reports that include detailed data on enrolment, scholarship distributions, and post-graduation outcomes for students from the Global South. Public transparency will not only build trust but also allow universities to assess the effectiveness of their efforts.
Fourth, admissions policies must continue evolving to prioritise not just financial need, but also diversity of perspectives, academic potential, and the ability to contribute to global scholarship. Universities must recognise that true intellectual diversity includes students from regions traditionally underrepresented in global academia.
Fifth, collaborative research partnerships with Global South institutions should be structured in ways that help strengthen those institutions. Rather than simply attracting the best minds from developing countries, Global North universities should invest in developing local research capacity in these nations. This includes joint laboratories, co-authored research projects, shared intellectual property rights, and long-term academic exchanges.
Harvard's confrontation with political authorities provides some important lessons for other institutions. First, courage in defending academic freedom remains crucial. Without strong legal and institutional protections, even the most prestigious universities can find themselves vulnerable to political pressures. Second, scholarship programmes that lack comprehensive legal and support frameworks remain fragile. Third, openness and transparency about the inclusion of Global South students can help build public trust and institutional credibility.
Sustainable Development Goal 4.b presents an opportunity for transformative change in global higher education. But this change requires more than symbolic gestures. Global North universities must commit themselves fully—ethically, financially, and politically—to building a truly inclusive educational system. They must embed scholarship expansion into their core missions, defend their international students from political interference, ensure accountability and transparency, and build genuine partnerships with Global South institutions.
The challenges highlighted by the Harvard episode serve as a warning but also as an opportunity for reflection. As 2030 approaches, universities in the Global North have both the resources and the moral responsibility to lead this transformation. The time for passive statements has passed; what is needed now is active, sustained commitment to educational equity on a global scale.