LAUSR

“Diversity” has become something of a buzzword in contemporary educational debate. The United Nations, in elaborating its “sustainable development goals” (SDGs), has made “appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development” a key component of its “target” for education (SDG 4.7) (UNESCO-MGIEP, 2017). However, leaving aside the studied vagueness of the term “appreciation,” how is diversity itself to be understood? What do we mean when we talk about diversity, and why precisely should we value it – in our societies, or in our schools? Are there circumstances in which diversity can become divisive, threatening sustainable development rather than promoting it? How should respect for diversity be balanced with the imperatives of sustaining social cohesion or, in a term beloved of many Asian leaders, “harmony”? The salience of such questions in discussion of education across Asia is reflected in the articles in this second Comparative Education Society of Asia (CESA) special issue of the APJE. The theme of CESA’s 2018 biennial conference in Siem Reap, Cambodia – Education and Social Progress: Insights from Comparative Perspectives – did not in fact reference “diversity” at all. However, issues relating to diversity featured prominently both in the plenary sessions and many paper presentations, as the articles here testify. Ruth Hayhoe, in a paper based on her conference keynote, discusses the legacy of ancient Indian traditions of higher learning, their influence on the development of various learning traditions in Asia (from Cambodia to China), and their potential role in reconceptualizing the “research university.” Attacking the instrumentalism and flattening, normative assumptions governing the “rankings” culture in higher education, Hayhoe points out that while modern universities in societies such as China, India or Cambodia may be largely modelled on Western templates, they are often animated by distinct conceptions of the aims of higher learning – conceptions derived in large part from indigenous tradition. She highlights the importance of the spiritual and the active involvement of women as aspects of ancient Indian scholarship from which we can derive inspiration. And one purpose in seeking to raise awareness of such traditions and their relevance for us today is to counter the still pervasive assumption that Europe (or “the West”) is uniquely the fount and origin of our “modern” universities. There is a clear need for greater diversity of philosophical and historical perspective in global educational debate. At the same time, mapping the contours of diversity too neatly along EastWest (or North-South) lines, for example, by contrasting Eastern spiritualism with Western instrumentalism, can lead into different sort of Eurocentric trap. Hayhoe highlights the crucial role of monastic institutions in the ancient Indian – and broader Asian – Buddhist tradition of higher learning. But Europe’s medieval universities also had their origins in monasticism, albeit of a Christian variety. As the historical anthropologist Jack Goody has argued (2006), on closer inspection many arguments concerning European or Asian exceptionalism break down, suggesting the artificiality of many Europe–Asia distinctions in what, in many crucial respects, has long been a common “Eurasian” cultural space. And indeed, Hayhoe’s paper can be seen as reinforcing this point, by encouraging us to see the modern research university less as the unique product of European genius, and more as an artefact of our shared Eurasian inheritance. An important benefit of studying other cultural traditions in the manner she advocates can be to awaken us to forgotten diversity in our own. ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 2019, VOL. 39, NO. 2, 159–164 https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2019.1629754