How to confront bias about international students

Internationalisation is often treated as a success metric in higher education. More countries represented. More languages spoken. More classroom diversity. But diversity does not automatically mean inclusion. A multicultural environment can still reproduce subtle hierarchies unless we adopt deliberate practices. 

In our Faculty of Communication, we became aware of this uncomfortable truth. While we proudly welcomed international students, subtle biases still surfaced. Sometimes among students. Sometimes among faculty members.

The bias was rarely explicit. It manifested as assumptions. Equating language proficiency with intellectual ability. Lowering expectations for certain students. Being overly protective instead of assigning responsibility. Interpreting silence as incompetence rather than cultural difference. No one was intentionally excluding anyone. But habits can be powerful, especially when they go unquestioned. 

Inclusion begins with intentional distribution of opportunity. Ask yourself: Who speaks most in class? Who leads projects? Who is perceived as “a strong student”? Who is given complex responsibilities? If a truly multicultural environment is the goal, examine the way it operates. Regularly review grading patterns, participation structures and group formation methods. Bias often hides in routine.

Make competence visible

One way to tackle bias is to separate language performance from academic evaluation. For example, for a creative project, assess ideas, structure and creativity independently from fluency. Allow multimodal expression, such as visual storytelling, editing or production leadership. This prevents linguistic bias from shaping perceptions of competence.

Our “media harvest” faculty event sees students from different production-based courses compete to be selected as one of the best projects. We select winners by course rather than as individuals, and each submission is evaluated in line with the respective course learning objectives, syllabus and production requirements to encourage disciplinary and pedagogical diversity.

When international students’ short films, documentaries, or other outputs are recognised as among the best projects, their competence becomes visible to a wider audience. Faculty members watch these without assumptions about the students, and discussions focus on narrative structure, technical quality, editing decisions and originality. This shifts attention from language proficiency to technical and creative competence.

• Spotlight guide: Teaching and researching across international borders
• Six ways UK universities can better support international postgraduate students
• How storytelling can turn international students into the most powerful voices in the room

Encourage mixed responsibility collaboration

We also avoid separating students based on perceived language level by ensuring an even mix in each group. We assign roles based on strengths such as editing, cinematography, research and storytelling. This is particularly relevant to collaborative production-based assignments.

For example, a student with strong visual storytelling skills might direct, another might manage the editing process, and another might manage research or script structure. Language proficiency remains relevant, but it is no longer the organising principle of group formation.

Over time, the way we spoke about students changed. Instead of hearing comments about language challenges, the focus was on creative strengths. A strong editor. A thoughtful director. A precise researcher. Language no longer defined identity.

If you are designing collaborative assignments, clearly define roles. This reduces the risk that fluent speakers dominate leadership positions. Mixed-responsibility collaboration encourages recognition of diverse competencies beyond language.

Normalise discussions around bias

When we took steps to tackle bias, faculty members began discussing expectations openly. Are we lowering standards without realising it? Are we mistaking accent for lack of understanding? Are we interpreting hesitation as inability?

If you want to initiate similar conversations, start with concrete classroom examples rather than abstract debates. Discuss grading dilemmas, participation patterns and group dynamics. Frame the discussion around teaching practice to reduce defensiveness and encourage collective reflection.

Institutions can support this process by having short bias-awareness discussions during faculty meetings and teaching development sessions. Even brief conversations can recalibrate expectations.

In our case, change happened gradually. International students participated more confidently. Faculty expectations became more consistent. Collaboration improved. The atmosphere felt more welcoming.

One student wrote in a course reflection, “At first, I felt I had to prove that I deserved to be here. Now I just feel that I belong.” That sentence captured the shift.

If inclusion strategies are working, the indicators are subtle but observable: more voluntary participation, reduced hierarchies, more balanced peer evaluations and fewer references to language as a marker of competence.

For institutions aiming to move from diversity to inclusion, three practices are particularly effective: make competence visible, remove hierarchies within teams and facilitate reflective discussions among faculty members. 

Sometimes inclusion does not begin with changing others, but with adjusting the lens through which we evaluate competence.

Aybike Serttaş is the director of the Institute of Graduate Studies.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.