91st Congress, 1st Session - - - - - House Document No. 91-63

SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT OFTHE U.S. ADVISORY COMMISSION ONINTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL AND

CULTURAL AFFAIRS

LETTERFROM

THE CHAIRMAN, THE U.S. ADVISORYCOMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL

EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS

TRANSMITTING

THE SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSION,PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PUBLIC LAW 87-256

JANUARY 27, 1969.-Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairsand ordered to be printed

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

98-011 0 WASHINGTON : 1969

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

THE U.S. ADVISORY COMMISSION ONINTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, D.C., January 21, 1969.Hon. JOHN W. MCCORMACK,Speaker of the House of Representatives,Washington, D.C.DEAR MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with section 107 of Public

Law 87-256, I submit herewith the Sixth Annual Report of theAdvisory Commission.

Sincerely yours,JOSEPH R. SMILEY, Chairman.

3

IS ANYONE LISTENING?

THE

SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT

OF THE

UNITED STATES ADVISORY COMMISSION ON

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS

Washington, D.C.

January 21, 1969

4

THE UNITED STATES ADVISORY COMMISSION ONINTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS

JOSEPH R. SMILEY, ChairmanPresident, University of Colorado

HOMER D. BABBIDGE, JR., Vice ChairmanPresident, University of Connecticut

WALTER ADAMSProfessor of EconomicsMichigan State University

WAYLAND P. MOODYPresident, San Antonio College

ARNOLD M. PICKERChairman, Executive CommitteeUnited Artists Corporation

THOMAS E. ROBINSONChairman, Department of Secondary EducationRider College

ABRAM L. SACHARChancellor, Brandeis University

ROBERT A. SCALAPINOProfessor of Political ScienceUniversity of California, Berkeley

MISS PAULINE TOMPKINSPresident, Cedar Crest College

James A. Donovan, jr., Staff DirectorWashington, D.C. 20520

5

SIXTH ANNUAL REPORTof the U. S. Advisory Commission

on International Educational and Cultural Affairs

INTRODUCTION

Foreign and domestic policies are inextricably inter-woven; indeed, it is difficult to tell in many caseswhich is the warp and which the woof in the fabric ofour society. Of one thing, however, we can be certain.Each influences the other. In short, we have problemsat home and overseas. This nation must engage in itsproblem solving -- in part because we still have a"decent respect to the opinions of mankind." Our in-formation and educational exchange programs are amanifestation of this continuing respect.

In this, our Sixth Annual Report to Congress, we cannotdwell on the domestic problems of riots and racism,ghettoes and transit systems, education and urbanization.But we must recognize'at the outset that the solutionsto these problems will make ever-increasing demands onthe public purse and hence may have a profound effect oninternational programs.

There are no quiet places in the world today. The nationmust not deceive itself into thinking that even when apeaceful and honorable settlement is achieved in Viet-Nam,we shall be free of foreign entanglements, and ourfrustrations with foreign affairs at an end. Still wemust not let these frustrations turn our attention fromour real and permanent responsibilities as we respondwith our manifold international programs. In particular,this Commission's main concern is that there must be nofurther eroding of programs of international educationaland cultural exchange as a result of the general feel-ings of frustration with things international. We assumethat after 30 years of Government-supported educationaland cultural relations, this nation is committed to suchprograms. If it is not, it should be.

6

In any case, the faith of this Commission remains stead-fast in the Government's educational and culturalexchange programs as one way of letting other nationswitness our problem-solving and one significant op-portunity .for cooperation with other peoples. And soit should. There has recently been called to ourattention a series of letters from 105 ambassadorsand charges d'affaires around the world. An analysis .ofthese letters shows that it is the overwhelming consensusof these U.S. mission heads that the educational andcultural programs -

(1) Are an effective and significant element in ourlong-term foreign relations with virtually everycountry replying. (The force and conviction ofthe statements, many of them from veteranambassadors, are striking.)

(2) Are an effective and essential tool to reach andinform national intellectual and politicalleaders, and the press and other informationmedia on American character and policies.

(3) Have effectively contributed to removing mis-conceptions about, and hostility to, the UnitedStates and-its social, economic, and culturalachievements; and, as a corollary, to offsettingpro-Communist propaganda and predilections.

(4) Have significantly helped to develop educationand to introduce new educational approaches inmany countries, with particular reference to thedeveloping nations.

(5) Provide an invaluable means for keeping channelsof communication open in both directions attimes when and places where political tensionsor hostility block official diplomatic relation-ships.

(6) Are a significant method of reaching youngpeople -- especially potential leaders in theemerging countries and the "new generation"which has come up in Europe and elsewhere withlittle recollection of World War II and few post-war associations with the United States.

7

Specific examples of effectiveness cited in the lettersare many and persuasive, namely:

(1) In most countries with long-standing exchangeprograms, an impressive number of key peopletoday at very high levels -- in political andpublic life, in press and information circles.,and in education -- are former grantees.

(2) In emerging countries the programs have beenmarkedly successful in selecting leaders andpotential leaders.

(3) Strong, fruitful, and continuing relationshipshave been established, through the exchangeprograms, with educational institutions,educational policymakers, professors, and teachers

(4) The exchange programs have been a successfulmeans of introducing American studies abroad,especially in Europe, and of acquainting teacherswith the United States and its educationalsystem.

This is not to say that these programs are perfect orthat the ambassadors had no criticism of them. On theother hand, it is difficult indeed to state preciselywhat an ideal educational exchange program would be,just as it is impossible for an educator to state whatthe ideal curriculum in any subject is.

Since the law which created this Commission requires usto report to Congress annually, we have assumed thatCongress wishes our views and our recommendations inregard to the program. Further, it should be rememberedthat in Executive Order 11034 (June 26, 1962) implement-ing the Fulbright-Hays Act and delegating authority underit to various Government departments and agencies, thePresident reserved unto himself the right to receiverecommendations from the Commission. We intend, there-fore, to transmit to the President a copy of this annualreport to the Congress.

We recommend:

8

(1) That the President personally and vigorouslyidentify to the American people and to Congressthe crucial importance of internationaleducational and cultural programs and that hegive continuous support to such programs as a

vital part of U.S. foreign relations and an

indispensable sector of the infrastructure ofU.S. foreign policy.

(2) That the President establish an organizationalstructure within the executive branch whichwill assure consistent and purposeful nationalaction in international educational andcultural affairs.

Some questions which would be answered in the imple-mentation of these recommendations are listed below:

What administrative pattern, both in Washington and inthe field, can best facilitate the Government's per-formance of its role? Should all educational andcultural activities supported by Government be directedby one agency, or should they be dispersed amongvarious agencies; and if the latter, how can they beeffectively coordinated? And how should the adminis-tration of educational and cultural activities berelated to that of similar activities such as economicdevelopment assistance or trade?

To what extent should the international cultural programsof the United States be deliberately related to those ofother countries, and should this be done primarilythrough multilateral means or through bilateral,reciprocal means? For that matter, to what extent cancultural relations be mpde genuinely reciprocal?

What should be the magnitude of an adequate educationaland cultural relations program, and what should be therelative magnitude of each of its component parts?

These questions, and many others like them, have beenthe subjects of discussions in innumerable studies, re-ports, conference sessions, and congressional hearings,as a conscious search for overall policy has developedand become increasingly insistent.

9

Underlying all these questions, and in a sense con-ditioning the answers to all of them, is the fundamentalquestion: How can educational and cultural programscontribute to the advancement of the basic objectivesof U.S. foreign policy?

If the recommendations and the questions listed above.seem familiar, so they should. The recommendations aretaken almost verbatim from a report of 1961 to the newKennedy administration and to the Congress by ourpredecessor commission, the U.S. Advisory Commission onEducational Exchange. It was written by Walter H. C.Laves. .1/ These questions, which persist as fundamentaland valid, are taken from the book Cultural Relationsand U.S. Foreign Policy, by Charles A. Thomson andWalter H. C. Laves (Indiana University Press, 1963).

It seems to us that, as a nation, through our repre-sentatives in Congress and through innumerableeducational institutions, volunteer groups, culturalsocieties, world affairs councils, and the like, wemust reaffirm our commitment to international educationaland cultural exchange. If we choose not to, let us sayso. If we are committed, let us begin to move forward.

CONTINUITY OF PERSONNEL AND THE ROLE OF THECULTURAL AFFAIRS OFFICER

"Continuity of personnel is essential for both theAdvisory Commission and CU /Bureau of Educational andCultural Affairs in the Department of State/ to carryout their responsibilities. Frequent changes in theAssistant Secretary of State's office and in foreignservice personnel assigned to CU for 2 to 3 years, points

1/ Twenty-sixth Semiannual Report on Educational ExchangeActivities. House doc. no. 199, 87th Cong., 1st sess.(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961).

98-011(H. D. 66) 0 - 69 - 2

10

to the importance of a number of permanently basedcivil servants throughout CU. Has a careful study beenmade of the need to include young people as civilservants in CU to have them acquire the knowledge andexperience so essential in planning educational andcultural programs?" 2/

It'seems to us high time that the study called for inthe question above should be made. Indeed, it appearsto us that Congress in passing the Mutual Educationaland Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-256, usuallyknown as the Fulbright-Hays Act) clearly had a careerservice in mind for Civil Service employees in theDepartment when it authorized 10 supergrade positionsfor such persons. We see little evidence, however, thatthe Department of State has done anything to promote acareer service of this sort within the Department.

For the record we would like to quote part of the HerterCommittee report 3 which seems to us to be even moresignificant and important now than it was in 1962 whenit was written:

"For example, in a study conducted this year, only1.2 percent of Foreign Service -Officers indicated primarypreference for four functional specialties involvingwork primarily or exclusively in Washington (publicaffairs, cultural affairs, international organizationaffairs, and intelligence and'research). Most prefer toremain in the mainstream of the Foreign Service, whichthey consider affords better promotion opportunities.

"...It may be noted that the bulk of the positionsin administration are filled by civil servants; theDepartment has not had the same difficulty in staffing

2/ "Research, Appraisals and Reports." Report for theU.S. Advisory Commission on International Educa-tional and Cultural Affairs and the Bureau ofEducational and Cultural Affairs (Department ofState), by Mabel Smythe and Walter Johnson,September 1964 (mimeographed).

3/ Personnel for the New Diplomacy, Report of theCommittee on Foreign Affairs Personnel (Washington,D.C., 1962).

11

administrative posts as it has in the other functionalfields referred to above."

We hasten to add another more recent quotation. Thisone is at the time of writing scarcely a month old. Itcomes from a report prepared for the American ForeignService Association. The report concerns itself withthe personnel of the Foreign Service, of the Departmentof State, and of the U.S. Information Agency (USIA)inter alia. After remarking that they were not entirelysure of what course of action to recommend to the new

incoming President and Secretary of State, the writersthen go on as follows:

"We were certain of several things. The first wasthat there is a need in several areas of the Departmentfor a degree of continuity that would be difficult toobtain by staffing from the Foreign Service withoutseriously distorting the competitive promotion systemon which a healthy Foreign Service must depend. TheBureau of Intelligence and Research seemed a case inpoint. Certainly an infusion of Foreign Service Officerscan provide a balance and additional perspective whichis highly useful; yet the need for the continuous ap-plication of the expertise of our Civil Service colleagueshas been invaluable in providing an institutional memory,as well as intimate and detailed knowledge of the otheragencies in the intelligence community. The same con-clusion would be applicable to the Bureau of EconomicAffairs, to the Bureau of Public Affairs, to the Bureauof Security and Consular Affairs, to the Bureau of/Educational and/ Cultural Affairs, to the Legal Ad-visor's Office and certainly to the range of supportservices which are vital, without which the Departmentsimply could not operate, and which most of us tend totake for granted.

"We were also certain that the Department of State'had attracted over the years an extraordinarily able,talented and dedicated group of civil servants who hadmade an enormous contribution to the conduct of theforeign affairs of this nation. We were equally certainthat any personnel arrangements which did not accordscrupulously fair treatment No this group would not bein the national interest." 4

4/ Toward a Modern Diolomacv, A Report to the AmericanForeign Service Association (Washington, D.C.,1968), p. 43.

12

So, there we have, it seems to us, both seasoned andrecent statements of a problem to which not nearlyenough time and effort has been devoted by the Depart-ment of State or-by USIA. We strongly urge that thisproblem get prompt and serious attention and that somemeans be worked out whereby young persons coming intothe Department or into USIA could be trained forassignments in educational and cultural affairs work inWashington;. Many of the persons now in high positionsin both CU and USIA are persons who came into Government25 or 30 years ago during World War II. Various re-tirement incentive plans are making it more attractivefor these persons to leave, but the loss in continuity,knowledge, and even wisdom, is more than programs ininternational educational and cultural affairs can afford.Needed are officers who are not only experienced in ad-ministering programs but who are also passionateadvocates of the basic idea of educational exchange.One simply cannot get such advocates and specialistswith personnel rotating in and out of Washington, or inand out of USIA foreign service posts. We have reasonto believe, for example, that many cultural affairsofficers (CAO's) are thoroughly frustrated in their de-sire to have a career leading upwards in cultural andeducational affairs overseas. However, the bulk of theInformation Agency work is necessarily and properlyconcerned with information and propaganda, and thepersons at the top, it appears, are always going to bespecialists in these fields.

"No man can serve two masters: for either he willhate the one, and love the other; or else he will holdto the one, and despise the other."

The CAO cannot but feel a:.divided loyalty, since hispromotion and career depend on the USIA, which employshim, whereas in his daily work on educational exchangeshe is responsible to the Department of State.

There are such divided loyalties, and we see no way ofending these except by the creation of a separate agencyto concern itself primarily with educational andcultural programs, as we recommended last year in ourFifth.Annual Report, and herewith recommend again below.

13

A NEW AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION

We were interested to read the 23d Annual Report of oursister commission, the U.S. Advisory Commission onInformation. It was a good report. What impressed usmost was the recommendation that all educational,cultural, and informational programs be thrown together,possibly in a new and independent agency. The amount ofspace devoted in the report to USIA's educational andcultural programs is likewise impressive. Equallysignificant -- and seemingly contradictory -- is therelatively small amount of funds devoted to such purposesby USIA. So we must continue the dialog with that Com-mission regarding our conviction that programs ofinformation and propaganda on the one hand and those ofeducational and cultural affairs on the other must beseparated, to the organizational and budgetary benefitof both.

We repeat our recommendation of last year that somehowall the international educational and cultural programsof this Government be pulled together in one separateagency. This would mean that English language teaching,the binational centers, and the information centers andlibraries of USIA might be combined with the programsof the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of theDepartment of State. All of these would be put into one newAgency for International Education. We see no reasonwhy ultimately the Peace Corps, the educational programsin the Office of International Training of the Agencyfor International Development (AID), and perhaps someof the activities of the new Institute for InternationalStudies (IIS) in HEW could not also be incorporated intothis one agency.

We recognize that some of these "international education"programs face inward (for example, many of those in thenew IIS of HEW) and concern themselves with the inter-nationalizing of domestic education -- elementary,secondary, and higher -- and require the attention ofeducators. Other programs -- those of AID, the PeaceCorps, and the Bureau of Educational and CulturalAffairs -- look outward and vitally affect our relationswith the rest of the world. These must continue to get

14

broad policy guidance from the Department of State.But to have all the domestic-oriented and foreign policy-oriented programs in one agency strikes us as opening apossibility for a coordinated approach to internationaleducation in all its aspects, which simply has notpreviously existed. America's role in the world requiressome such approach if we are to carry out our responsi-bilities to ourselves for the rest of the 20th centuryand even beyond. We remind our readers that studentsgraduating from college in 1968 will be in their fiftiesin 2001; that pupils entering school in 1969 will spendmost of their working lives in the 21st century. Wemust prepare them for a world rapidly becoming so small,so much the "global village," that almost all problemstake on international coloration and require inter-national cooperation for their solution.

To sort out the overseas information and propagandaprograms of USIA from its cultural and educationalprograms is not so difficult, in our view, as it mayappear at first blush. Ever since the passage of theSmith-Mundt Act (P.L. 80-402) in 1948, there has been afutile, unproductive, and endless argument going on asto where education and culture end and information andpropaganda begin. The Forum Series of the Voice ofAmerica, for example, is every bit as cultural, as wellas educational, as one could ask such a program to be.Likewise, much of the programming of the Motion Pictureand Television Service and the Press and PublicationsService of the U.S. Information Agency has a higheducational content and should continue to do so, forthe simple reason that USIA has the facilities for amass media approach. We are not, then, proposing orsuggesting that the Agency do nothing but propagandizefor the U.S. Government's foreign policy.

We do, however, suggest that those parts of the 23dAnnual Report of the Advisory Commission on Informationunder the heading "New Duties" and "New Emphases" pointout quite clearly some of the new directions in whichthe Information Agency should go. The Agency shouldindeed, we agree, develop further its professionalcapacity for publicizing abroad the U.S. Government'sactivities and its policies and statements dealing with

15

foreign affairs, including educational and culturalactivities as well as those of AID and the Peace Corps.(It already publicizes overseas the activities of thelatter two agencies.) It should, further, bring tobear its expertise in public relations on the formula-tion of foreign policy. The public affairs officersshould certainly make greater contact with foreignjournalists and other communicators overseas just asthe Agency should with foreign journalists in theUnited States.

We are pleased to note that the Commission on In-formation considers cultural and educational exchangesto be one of the mainstays of USIA's operations over-seas. But the truth is that these are now Departmentof State programs which, under current administrativearrangements, the Agency runs for the Department withfunds transferred annually to the Agency from appropria-tions made to the Department under a differentiation setup by Reorganization Plan No. 8 of 1953 of PresidentEisenhower.

The other commission recognizes the administrativecomplications inherent in such an arrangement, aseveryone has since the USIA was created in 1953.However, there are many persons in the Department ofState and in the Congress who-believe -- for other thanadministrative reasons -- that educational and culturalexchange programs should be as widely separated as

possible from programs dealing with information andpropaganda. Again, we suggest there are some lessonsto be learned here from the British Council and theCanada Council, from the British Information Service,and the World-wide Broadcasting Service of the B.B.C.

Educational and cultural exchange programs of theDepartment of State should not be confused with thoseprograms of USIS overseas which publicize and explainU.S. policies. So we disagree with those who say thatto create credibility for informational programsshould be a main function of educational and culturalexchanges. Such credibility should be a by-product ofthose exchange programs, which should be planned,funded, and operated for genuinely educational or cul-tural purposes. Only thus can they benefit thiscountry most.

16

What this suggests in turn, it seems to us, is thatthe informational programs of USIA should be transferreddirectly into the Department of State. It appears tous that the Secretary of State would wish to have athis immediate disposal -- and not in a separate agencyin Washington -- those public relations experts whosechief if not sole job is to explain American foreignpolicy abroad. By the same token each ambassador wouldwish, we believe, to have as a part of his regularForeign Service staff, similar public relations experts.The role of the British Information Service comes tomind at once in this regard.

Others are now presenting the view that all of USIAshould be returned to the Department of State, e.g.:

"After the information function was withdrawn fromthe Department in accord with the desire of SecretaryDulles for the Department to concentrate on 'policy'and divest itself of 'operations,' the feasibility ofthis action was kept under continuing review byPresident Eisenhower's Commission on the Reorganizationof the Government, whose membership included NelsonRockefeller, Arthur Flemming, Milton Eisenhower andDon K. Price. They finally concluded that the nation'sinterest would be best served by returning USIA to theframework of the Department of State and so recommendedto the President. However, time was too short for thisto be accomplished in the remaining period of theEisenhower Administration.

"We believe that recommendation to have been awise one. We believe the new President should use hisreorganization powers to place USIA within the Depart-ment as an autonomous unit, as is AID now, and thatthe Director of USIA should rank as an Under Secretaryof State as the Administrator of AID now does. Wenoted that the Arms Control and Disarmanent Agencyand the Peace Corps were already situated within theframework of the Department." 57

5/ Toward a Modern Diplomacy, A Report to the AmericanForeign Service Association (Washington, D.C.,1968), p. 23.

17

Be that as it may, we repeat that educational andcultural exchanges should be separated from informationand propaganda wherever located. It is obvious, in anycase, that the new administration must come to gripswith the problem of the proper location in the Govern-ment of educational and cultural exchanges. Thisproblem has been with us since the creation of USIAas a separate agency in 1953. And, in short, theintermingling of propaganda with educational ex-changes has weakened the effectiveness of both.

Finally, the new Agency for International Education,which we here propose, should include certain segmentsof the Department of State which concern themselveswith the educational and cultural programs of suchmultilateral organizations as UNESCO, OAS, and OECD.The plans and authorization for this new agency shouldalso provide for receipt of private funds such as arenow enjoyed by the Smithsonian Institution and theLibrary of Congress.

One last thought occurs to us in regard to the locale.of educational and cultural exchanges in Government.We wish to state with all possible emphasis that,whatever is done with the educational and culturalprograms now in the Bureau of Educational and CulturalAffairs, they must not be broken up. It has been sug-gested by some, for example, that the AmericanSpecialists Program and the Cultural PresentationsProgram might well be housed in the United StatesInformation Agency. Others have proposed that theacademic exchange programs be placed in the Departmentof Health, Education, and Welfare. So to split upthese programs would, in our view, be disastrous.They now serve and should continue to serve one unifiedpurpose, namely, that of displaying American educa-tional and cultural achievements to the world, whetherthis be done through cultural presentations, throughstudy by a teenager at an American high school, byadvanced research in this country or overseas, or by a

genuinely educational program of one month for a

distinguished visitor from abroad. All these seek toeducate in the best and broadest sense of the word and,incidentally, to leave the recipient of the grant orthe participant in the cultural event with a truerpicture of the United States.

98-011(H. D. 66) 0 - 69 - 3

18THE CIA AND THE "RUSK CObMMITTEE"

Readers will remember that our last annual report con-cerned itself to a considerable extent with what weconsidered to be the almost' irreparable and surelylong-range damage done to educational and culturalprograms overseas by the revelations that the CentralIntelligence Agency had been engaged in covertactivities overseas which could have been carried outovertly under the authority of the Fulbright-Hays Act.Further, we said such revelations made suspectpractically every scholar, student, professor, orteacher going overseas under U.S. Government auspices,and many under private programs.

We were puzzled by the fact that no one thought to seekour advice during that Spring of 1967 when the revela-tions about the CIA were filling the papers daily andat the time when the Katzenbach panel and later theRusk Committee were established. We have the impressionthat there were those who thought we were exaggeratingthe possible effects of these disclosures. Indeed, theinaction and apparent dissension within the RuskCommittee lead us to believe that some high-levelofficers in the Government still do not look upon thisproblem with the proper concern. Our belief is re-inforced by the fact that no report of final decisionsby the Rusk Committee has been forthcoming.

That our fears were well-founded is evidenced by a re-port that appeared in the Washington Post (and in theNew York Times) on August 16, 1968. The Post storywas headlined "India Suspects U.S. Scholars." It was

necessary for a professor from the University ofCalifornia to call the Ministry of External Affairs inNew Delhi to give assurances, the Times said, that hewas not an operative of the Central Intelligence Agency.It turns out, according to the newspaper story, thatmuch of his research being done in the Himalayas was,however, paid for by the Defense Department. Thus, wehave here an example of one of the uses of theuniversities which corresponds very well indeed to thesituation described in our special report of last year

19

by Walter Adams and a colleague, Adrian Jaffe,concerning the universities' crisis in identity.6/The crisis arises from the fact that many universi-ties take on chores for any Government agencyregardless of whether or not the task assumed fitsthe main purpose of the university.

In any case, in India the continuing suspicion ofCIA or Defense Department infiltration into theworld of scholarship resulted in delays for visasfor many Americans simply seeking the truth intheir own fields in a foreign country.

As we go to press, an article in the New York Timesof January 12, 1969, cites the continued concern ofcertain Indian intellectuals with "academiccolonialism," and with the domination of Indianuniversities and intellectual life by Americaninstitutions. (See Seminar, The Monthly Symposium(New Delhi, India), December 1968.) Whether oneagrees with these touchy Indians or not, what theybelieve is important.

Events then, have proved that we were not alarmists-that our educational and cultural programs aresuffering as a result of these disclosures. And yetlittle has been done except to withdraw financialsupport by the CIA and to rescue some of theso-called "CIA orphans," substituting some of theever-decreasing monies appropriated to the Bureauof Educational and Cultural Affairs.

Our greatest regret is that the Government did notsee fit to overhaul the whole structure of educa-tional, cultural, and information programs at thattime when the receptivity of the public to such areorganization was at its peak.

6/ Government, the Universities, and InternationalAffairs: A Crisis in Identity. House Doc.no. 120, 90th Cong., 1st sess. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967).

20

What all this illustrates again, it seems to us, isthat the operation of these educational and culturalprograms belongs in an agency whose first task it is,and not in one for which it is secondary or eventertiary.

We. recognize that the State Department must beconcerned with many matters other than operatinga large educational program. But it is hoped that,if these programs are to remain in the Departmentof State and not be put in a new agency, a newadministration will appoint an Assistant Secretaryfor Educational and Cultural Affairs who will remainon the job for at least 4 years and will be positiveand persuasive with the Congress as regards funds,and will devote his undivided attention to theq)era-tion of the program.

FUNDING

The Fulbright-Hays Act (PL 87-256, sec. 107), asnoted, requires that this Commission make an annualreport to the Congress and "make reports to thepublic in the U.S. and abroad to develop a betterunderstanding of and support for the programsauthorized by this Act." We have assumed that whenthe Congress asks us to write an annual report, italso wants us to make recommendations. Our recom.-mendations to the Congress concerned with fundinghave not been heeded.

For example, we carried'out the mandate of Congressin PL 87-256 to make a special study of the effec-tiveness of the Department of State's educationalexchange programs and published this study as ourFirst Annual Report in 1963. We need not repeathere the overwhelming evidence published in thatreport-L/ that the program has been by and largetremendously successful and is an important and

7/ A Beacon of Hope, A Report of the U.S. AdvisoryCommission on International Educational andCultural Affairs (Washington, D.C.: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1963).

21

significant element of American foreign relations.Throughout the studies on which we based the reportand running through the interviews with knowledgeablepersons, whether written or oral, the theme of"fiscal starvation" recurs.

We spoke in our Fifth Annual Report, 4 years later,of the humorless irony in the fact that, as theprograms improved -- the Department of State havingtaken a good deal of our advice -- and as theireffectiveness increased, as more and more top-levelambassadors and others realized the value of educa-tional and cultural relations, and, finally, as thePresident himself turned his attention to "inter-national education," the level of available funds con-tinued to decrease. The appropriated State Departmentbudget for educational and cultural exchange programsfor the present fiscal year (1968-69) is $31 million'.This represents a decline from $56 million availablefor the programs as of the date of our first report(1963) and from $43.7 million in appropriated fundsfor last year (fiscal year 1968). (We have noted withsatisfaction that the Board of Foreign Scholarshipshas called attention to these severe reductions in its6th annual report to Congress.) Dismay and consterna-tion at this last cut in the budget by nearly28 percent are mild words for the deep emotions andgenuine frustration we feel because of our ineffective-ness in convincing the Congress of the importance ofthese educational and cultural programs.

While we do not believe that it is the function ofthis Commission to get into administrative detailssuch as allocation of funds cut-by-cut or country-by-country, once Congress appropriates the money,nevertheless we share with many membersof theacademic community, and others, grave reservationswhen we note the 67 percent cut in the number ofAmerican grantees going overseas. This cut appearsto have been made on the false premise that somehowthe Fulbright-Hays programs and the sending ofAmerican scholars, professors, teachers, students,and specialists overseas under it contribute to theserious balance-of-payments problem facing theUnited States. We believe that such considerationsshould never have entered into the cuts in the budget

22

or the allocation of funds under it. The Presidentstates specifically in his State of the Union messagethat restriction on overseas travel of students andteachers was not to be "unduly penalizing." 8/ TheSecretary of the Treasury also indicated that suchpersons were to be exempt from these restrictions. 9/Next, the President in a memorandum of January 18,1968, directing cuts in "U.S. employees' and officialtravel overseas" said to the Secretary of State andthe Director of the Bureau of the Budget, "You shouldmake these reductions in a way which maintains theeffectiveness of our international programs." 10/Further, it is interesting to note that ultimatelyno travel restrictions (other than moral suasion)on the U.S. citizen, nor any travel tax eventuatedfrom all the deliberation. Thus, the Department ofState's budget for educational and cultural exchangebecame almost the sole loser in this game.

8/ Congressional Record, January 17, 1968, p. 11101:"We must try to reduce the travel deficit we haveof more than $2 billion and we are hoping thatwe can reduce it by $500 million -- withoutunduly penalizing the travel of students,teachers ...."

9/ Statement by Secretary of the Treasury, Henry H.Fowler, before the House Committee on Ways andMeans on certain legislative aspects of thePresident's balance of payments program,February 5, 1968 (excerpts):

"Exemptions frpm the tax would be limitedto the following:

1. Individuals and their families, trans-ferred or going abroad in connectionwith their trade, business profession,or education, and remaining abroad formore than 120 days.

(see next page)

23

Moreover, the reason cited for cutting the budgetof the Bureau of Educational' and Cultural Affairs --

that hundreds of millions were being spent by otheragencies for "exchanges" -- fails to take cognizanceof the fact that the so-called exchange programs ofother agencies such as the U.S. Public Health Serviceor. the Army do not fulfill the same purposes as dothose of the Department of State under the MutualEducational and Cultural Exchange Act.

One more particular cause for worry in the severecuts into the Fulbright-Hays program budget has todo with the blow to the concept of binationalismwhich has characterized the academic exchangeprograms since 1946. That many governments have sobelieved in the program that they have entered intocost-sharing agreements with this Government in orderto keep the program going as our supply of foreign'currencies decreases is evidence of a faith ineducational exchanges which we must not betray by

"Nevertheless, some of those who commentedon our original proposal indicated that even amodest tax would force cancellation of somedesirable trips, especially those made bystudents and others on very strict budgets. Asrevised, our proposal would avoid this possibil-ity in that a student or other traveler couldcompletely avoid the expenditure tax by keepinghis average daily expenditures below $15.00.This level of daily expenditures would seemcompletely realistic, especially for the typeof trips taken by students and others travelingon modest budgets." Later on he said "Theavailable statistics show that in income groupsbelow $20,000 the total expenditures per tripare relatively the same, but the less affluentspend less per day and stay longer. This lattergroup is heavily weighted with students, teachers,and individuals visiting foreign relatives ...."

10/ Department of State Newsletter, no. 81(January 1968).

24

eliminating even some of them unilaterally. It isimperative that the budget for educational exchangePrograms be increased as rapidly as possible under thenew administration. The sums involved -- $31 millionto $56 million in range over the past several ye-ars --

strike us as being almost paltry considering some ofthe sums expended for some other purposes and consider-ing further the lasting benefits resulting from the"mutual understanding" which the Fulbright-Hays Actcalls for.

Further, this Commission has always been concernedabout any decline in educational exchanges in WesternEurope -- so much so, in fact, that in 1964 we sent tothe Congress a Report on the Strategic Importance of2Wes.tern Europe 11/ prepared by Commission member WalterAdams. We repeated in subsequent annual reports ourconcern about these exchanges. It is particularlydistressing, then, to find that the program in WesternEurope has been cut for the current fiscal year sobadly that only 56 grants for short-term internationalvisitors have been allocated to Western Europe, whereasthere were 234 such grants in fiscal year 1968.

We are likewise concerned that after the drastic cutsmade in the Americap Specialists Program, which aspresently budgeted will receive less than half of themoney spent in fiscal year 1968 and less than one-thirdthat spent in fiscal year 1967, there will not be morethan 75 specialist grants all together. Of these notmov'e than four or five can be sent to Western Europe.The total budget for American Specialists to that partof the world is now estimated at $13,700!

Grants for short-term visitors in the total worldprogram are down from 2,393 to 1,182. In -short, thefurids are down by 39.7 percent, and the number ofgrants down by 44 percent, according to presentallocation of funds. This Commission's interest in

11/ House doc. no. 367, 88th Cong., 2d sess. (Wash-ington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1964).

25

the short-term international visitor program is a last-irng one, as readers of Open Hearts Open Minds 12/ willremember. Readers of our quarterly publication Exchange,which in the Fall 1968 issue carried a history of 20years of the "leader-specialist" program, will alsoremember our interest in this subject as well as ourconcern that such grants, although short--term, be ar-

ranged in such a way that they are genuinelyeducational and have lasting results -- as indeed mostof them do. Again, we express our worry aboutsuggestions that these short-term visitor programs mightbe separated from the academic programs. Both aredependent to a great extent upon the bottomless reservoirof good will on the part of thousands of persons on thecampus and in the community, and we feel strongly thatprograming would suffer if they were separated.

We are informed that the cultural presentations programhas also been cut so drastically that it is becomingincreasingly difficult even to provide a token Americancultural presence in many countries of the world. Tobe sure, the artistic quality of the program hasremained high, but the necessarily smaller groups andindividual artists sometimes lack the impact of largecompanies and well-known institutions. For example,because of the limitation on the Department of State'sfunds, while Britain's Royal Ballet and the SovietUnion's Bolshoi Ballet were touring the United States,no American group of comparable size and reputation wasable to perform abroad.

A sizable and important part of this program, that forsending athletes and athletic coaches abroad for per-formances, consultations, the holding of clinics, andthe like, has also been badly curtailed. The reports

12/ Third Special Report of the U.S. Advisory Commissionon International Educational and Cultural Affairs.House doc. no. 386, 89th Cong., 2d sess. (Washington,D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1966).

26

on the impact of many of these eager young athletestouring various parts of the world are most impressive.These athletes present quite a different picture ofAmerican youth from that which one might gain fromreading the front pages of the daily newspapers. In-terest in sports is worldwide and the success ofAmlerican Olympic teams, which demonstrates our athleticprowess, should not be the only manifestation of our

understanding of the role of international athleticsas one form of cultural exchanges. Sending Americancoaches to train athletes of other countries is, forexample, we believe, one of the most generous forms ofcultural exchanges in which this country engages.

As for the academic programs, it appears that many ofthe worst cues will be made in funds for researchscholars, professors, and lecturers in the fields ofAmerican studies and the teaching of English as a

foreign language. This is particularly anomalous inthe latter case since the President approved 3 yearsago a policy statement directing all Government agencieshaving English language teaching programs to increasethem to the extent possible. English is, after all,the main medium through which we must transmit ourculture and our ideals. The more we can encourage thelearning of English the easier our tasks will become.

Our interest in American studies dates back to theFirst Annual Report of the Commnission at which time weforesaw a special report on American studies abroad, 13/which was written by the then Commission member WalterJohnson. We believe that the recommendations made init were sound and are still valid. We regret especially,therefore, to see that some of the programs forproducing a deep understanding of America may be lostfor want of funds.

13/ A Special Report on American Studies Abroad. Housedoc. no. 138, 88th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington,D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1963).

27

Further, we call to the Congress' attention, as weconsider it as important as the funding of internationaleducational and cultural programs, the current lack offunding of the International Education Act of 1966.It appears to us that the purposes of this act werelittle understood by the Congress, perhaps because itconfused these purposes with those of internationaleducational exchange or with those of the Agency forInternational Development. In truth, the goal of theInternational Education Act was to internationalizeeducation within the United States. It was designed tostrengthen research into international problems, tostrengthen international programs at smaller anddeveloping colleges, and generally to provide a con-tinuing flow into American society of persons well-informed in international affairs and the world aboutthem.

As Professor Karl W. Deutsch of Harvard University hassaid, the continuation of present developments ininternational education "will soon significantly reduceand partly dismantle the knowledge and intellectualcapabilities of the United States and the effectiveintellectual resources available to its people andleaders for coping with the problems of our intel-lectual environment. Within a very few years, thiswill amount to a partial one-sided disarmament of theUnited States in the arena of world problems." 14/

Thus it appears that both the Departments of State andHEW suffer from confusion concerning both programs.So we raise our voice again for an increase in fundsboth for international educational programs at homeand for international exchanges between this and othercountries. The United States has been a leader overthe past year or two in declaring 1970 to be Inter-national Education Year. How odd that that year willbe preceded by one in which our expenditures foreducational exchanges are the lowest of any time inrecent history!

14/ Newsletter, American Council of Learned Societies,April 1968.

28

Lastly, we call to the Congress' attention again, inconnection with the funding of Government programs foreducational and cultural affairs, our report on TheUse of U.S.-Owned Excess Foreign Currencies, L5/-whichhas recently been sent to the Congress. We believethat this report contains a number of proposals andsuggestions which can ultimately provide for con-

siderably larger expenditures of foreign currenciesand also thereby result in larger educational andcultural exchanges.

EVALUATION STUDIES

In 1964 this Commission recommended to the Departmentof State in the strongest terms possible that it givecontinuous attention to "research, appraisals andreports" by the Bureau of Educational and CulturalAffairs. At about that time the Evaluation Staff ofthe Bureau was abolished, and no money has beenforthcoming since for regular evaluation of theprograms by a permanent staff, and little for outsidestudies except for the very few undertaken by theCommission itself. We look on such studies as one ofour main functions, but there can be no substitute fora permanent staff'of trained and schooled evaluators.It seems to us that any budget presentation to theCongress must be backed up by solid and objectivestudies and reports by the staff showing clearly theresults of the programs in detail, as we have citedthese in general at the beginning of this report on

the basis of subjective statements by ambassadors andcharges d'affaires.

CONCLUSIONS

In short:

1. We reaffirm our belief that the educational andcultural exchange programs of the Government have

15/ The Use of U.S.-Owned Excess Foreign Currencies,a special report to the U.S. Advisory Commissionon International Educational and Cultural Affairs,by Byron tW. Brown, January 1969.

29

been and continue to be a success by any measurement.

2. We assert that these programs and their place in theGovernment deserve Presidential attention as one ofthe most important aspects of our foreign relations.

3.. It follows, then, that we feel the programs shouldbe properly funded in terms ofthe foreign policy-oriented purposes which underlie them. By this wemean that the Congress should provide each yearsufficient money to maintain and improve such on-going programs as the teaching of English as a secondlanguage and American studies overseas as an integralpart of a comprehensive cultural and educationalrelations program. We would leave to the judgmentof the operators the exact amount to be requestedeach year, but surely the amounts must not fluctuateover the decades as they have in the past. These-fluctuations, it seems to us, show the lack of afirm belief in Government-sponsored internationaleducational and cultural programs which is simplyunbecoming a great nation.

4. We repeat our recommendation that the InternationalEducation Act be funded as soon as possible and tothe extent feasible. Congress has authorized ap-propriations. It is time they were made. Thefunding of this act will provide an educated andinformed generation which the country cannot affordto be without.

5. We intend to continue the dialog with our sistercommission, the U.S. Advisory Commission on In-formation, so that we may discuss in greater detailthe subjects that have already been broached inthe. meetings that we have had.

6. We call upon the President and Secretary of Stateto seek the Advisory Commission's advice to agreater extent than previously. We feel that weare knowledgeable about many of the problems inthis field.

30

7. We feel that there must be a permanent evaluationstaff for these programs so that the Departmentwill know of successes achieved or problems en-countered year in and year out and can thusconstantly improve the programs.

8. We feel especially strongly that after 30 yearsof Government-sponsored educational and culturalprograms overseas it is time that the Governmentand the nation, too, decide in what agency theseprograms are to be located, how and to what extentthey are to be supported, and how their relation-ship to domestic international educational andcultural programs, to information and propaganda,and to intelligence gathering are to be ordered inthe whole complex of Government agencies.

31APPENDIX

GOVERNMENT ADVISORY CO2M1ITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL BOOKAND LIBRARY PROGRAMS

For the past several years the Commission has included,either in its annual report or as an appendix, state-ments by or about the Government Advisory Committee onInternational Book and Library Programs.

This year we include recommendations prepared by theCommittee for the new Secretary of State, Mr. WilliamP. Rogers, in response to a request made by SecretaryRusk when he met with the Committee on January 8, 1969.

32

RECOMMENDATIONS OF TIHE GOVERNMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEEON INT'ERNATIONAL BOOK AND LIBRARY PROGRAMS

The three'major goals of the National PolicyStatement on International Book and Library Activi-ties* issued in January 1967 are fully as importantand essential today as they were two years ago.These goals are:

1) To give full and vigorous suport to a co-ordinated effort of public and private organizationswhich will make more available to the developingcountries those book and library resources of theUnited States which these countries need and desire;

2) To encourage and support the establishmentof viable book publishing and distributing facili-ties in the developing countries and regions of thewor 1 d;

3) To promote actively the free flow of booksand other forms of recorded knowledge among allpeoples of the world.

The principal recommendation of the GovernmentAdvisory Committee on International Book and LibraryPrograms to the new administration is that these goalsbe reaffirmed as major policy objectives of theUnited States Government.

The Committee realizes that the task of fillingthe world's need for books and of achieving an ade-quate exchange of books among nations is enormousand that no single institution or organization and nosingle government can hope to accomplish it alone.Real progress can be achieved only through a coordi-nated effort of Government agencies, private institu-tions, and international organizations. The Committee,

* Reprinted in Appendix 2 of the Commission's FifthAnnual Report, p.40.

33

therefore, urges that all Government agencies con-cerned in any way with international book and libraryprograms be instructed to assign a higher priority tothese programs and to coordinate their activities inthis area with each other and with the private sec-tor more effectively than they have done in the past

The specific objectives outlined in the imple-menting directive to Government agencies issued si-multaneously with the National Policy Statement onInternational Book and Library Activities are, inthe Committee's view, still valid and should also bereaffirmed. A number of these objectives should begiven special attention at this time and the Commit-tee urges that this be done. A list of these objec-tives, with the Conunittee's-recommendations foraction, follows:

1. From a long-range point of view, the onlyway in which the book needs of the world can besatisfactorily met is through the development ofviable indigenous book publishing and distributingfacilities. The United States can best assist inthis endeavor by providing funds and technicalassistance to qualified nationals. One of thebest vehicles for doing this is Franklin Book Pro-grams, a private, non-profit organization estab-lished in 1952 for the purpose of assisting inter-national book publishing development. Franklinhas the potential to accomplish a great deal inthis area through its unique ability to call uponand apply the skills of- the private sector. Notonly has it been welcomed by developing countriesin South America, Africa, and the Near East andSouth Asia; it has been used as a model by devel-oped countries. In the Committee's opinion, theGovernment -- or more specifically the U. S. Infor-mation Agency and the Agency for InternationalDevelopment -- has never taken full advantage ofFranklin's potential.

2. The importance of exchange and training pro-grams to the development of greater professionalcompetence in all aspects of publishing cannot be

34

overemphasized. More specifically, past ex-

changes of publishers' delegations, particularlywith Eastern European countries, have had valuableand long-lasting effects. The Committee wouldlike to see such exchanges increased, not onlywith Eastern Europe but also with countries in thedeveloping world which already have fairly well-developed publishing industries, for example, inSouth America. Further, the Committee believesthat publisher exchanges with selected developedcountries should be undertaken with a view to co-

ordinating the aid of these countries to developingareas.

3. The Commnittee believes that support for pro-grams of library development in the developingcountries is of the utmost importance and shouldbe given a high priority. These programs shouldbe undertaken in cooperation with American librar-ies and library organizations and the Americanpublishing industry.

4. One of the key means for expediting the freeflow of ideas throughout the world is the library.The American libraries maintained overseas by theU. S. Information Agency have played a vital rolein making available to other peoples informationabout the full spectrum of America's life and cul-ture. When the U.S.I.A. closed many of its librar-ies in Western Europe several years ago, the Com-mittee was greatly disturbed and registered astrong protest. While the Committee firmly be-lieves in the value of having American librariesoverseas, some of the .members doubt the wisdom ofhaving these libraries operated by what they re-gard as essentially a propaganda agency. An ad hocpanel of the Committee is currently examining allaspects of American library policy overseas andexpects to submit to our April 1969 meeting itsrecommendations on the kind of library presencethe United States should have abroad and the properrole of the Government in the operation of over-seas libraries. The Committee urges that the newadministration examine very carefully the panel'srecommendations.

35

5. With the passage of legislation in 1967 en-abling the United States to adhere to the Florenceand Beirut Agreements, the goal of eliminatingtariff barriers to the free flow of books and re-lated educational materials was virtually achieved.However, the free flow of books is still seriouslyrestricted in many countries by other barriers,notably by the lack of internationally acceptablecurrencies. American books are desperately wantedand needed in many countries which simply do not havethe dollar exchange necessary to buy them. The Com-mittee strongly recommends that one of the firstpriorities of the new administration be the passageof legislation to establish a program for guaran-teeing currency convertibility on sales of booksoverseas.

Another serious obstacle to the free flow ofbooks across national boundaries is the delaycaused by outmoded, time-consuming import proce-dures. Publishers today can deliver an order ofbooks from the United States to almost any othercountry in the world within a matter of days, butmore often than not that order must wait weeks andoften months before it can be delivered from theport of entry to the local distributor. The Com-mittee proposes to name an ad hoc panel to recom-mend solutions to this problem.

6. The directive instructs Government agenciesto provide greater support to the efforts of theU. S. book industry toward the attainment of thegoals of the policy statement. Generally speaking,the book industry has found Government agencieshelpful and cooperative. However, there is oneinstance of a recent Government action which hashad the effect of seriously hampering the Ameri-can publishing industry in its efforts to sellAmerican books overseas. This was the promulga-tion in January 1968 of the Foreign Direct Invest-ment regulations which have had the unintendedeffect of actually restricting book exports. TheCommittee urges the new administration to look very

36

closely into this problem with a view to findingsome means for exempting books from these regu-lations.

The most significant action taken by the Govern-ment thus far to implement the National Book and Li-brary Policy Statement was the establishment of spe-'cial inter-agency task forces to develop regionalbook and library policies for the United States ineach of the four major areas of the developing worldLatin America, East Asia and the Pacific, the NearEast and South Asia, and Africa. The task forces forLatin America and for East Asia and the Pacific pre-sented their recommendations -- arrived at in consul-tation with Committee-appointed panels of experts inthe publishing and library fields -- in January -1968.The Committee fully endorsed these recommendationsbut little if any action has thus far been taken.The Committee, therefore, strongly recommends thatthe new administration act upon them immediately.

The Committee would also like to commend to theattention of the new administration the recommenda-tions for an overseas textbook policy prepared by a

Committee-appointed panel of experts and endorsed bythe full Committee in July 1968.

Finally, the Committee would like to record itsunqualified support for the objectives of the Interna-tional Education Act, which was passed by the Congressin October 1966 but has yet to be funded. The Commit-tee realizes that the International Education Act isdirected primarily toward internationalizing educa-tion in the United States. It believes, however, thatthe creation of new generations of Americans educatedto understand international issues and problems isrelated in a very direct way to the problems of inter-national book and library development which are itsspecific concern. The authorization for the Act wasextended by the 90th Congress for three more years --

to 1971. The Committee strongly urges the new admin-istration to give its fullest support to obtainingthe appropriations necessary to implement this Act.

1/16/69 0