DEC 9 1966

Cable: Ewaffairs

Education and World Affairs 522 Fifth Avenue, New York, N. Y. 10036 TN 7-9450

William W. Marvel, President

December 6, 1968

Professor Henry Kissinger
Department of Government
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Henry:

Warm congratulations on your appointment! This move by the President-elect has rightfully been greeted with enthusiasm in all quarters I know about.

I would welcome the opportunity to talk with you sometime in the next couple of weeks before you go to Washington if you could find the time. I would be glad to come up to Cambridge or to see you in New York -- whichever was more convenient.

Our paths not having crossed since EWA was started up six years ago, there are several matters I would like to talk to you about in view of your important new responsibilities in Washington. We have been involved in a variety of ways during the years of the Johnson administration with the field of international education and academic community relations. I am particularly concerned about the situation in this area because of considerations and fixed states of mind such as those reflected in Joe Kraft's piece in the *Washington Post* yesterday. This problem of the "impatience," as Kraft calls it, of the intellectual community with the new administration is perhaps not unexpected but terribly troublesome. It is something on which many individuals and groups will have to work in the next few years, but it is also an area on which you can have an enormous positive influence. That is why I would appreciate an opportunity to talk to you about it soon.

Trustees

Vincent M. Barnett Jr.
Harrison Brown
Ellsworth Bunker
John W. Gardner
T. Keith Glennon
Robert F. Gohéen
John A. Hannah
Grayson L. Kirk
Douglas M. Knight
David E. Lilienthal
Sol M. Linowitz
William W. Marvel
Edward S. Mason
Frank McCulloch
Robert S. McNamara
Herman B Wells
Logan Wilson

Cable: Ewa Affairs

12/33

Jan. 8 - Wed
10:30

Education and World Affairs

TN 7-9450

William W. Marvel, President

December 20, 1968

Mr. Henry Kissinger
Office of the President-elect
Hotel Pierre
Fifth Avenue at 61st Street
New York, New York 10021

Dear Henry:

The letter I sent you shortly after you were appointed
to your new position raised in general the question of future
government-academic community relationships. I expressed an
interest in talking to you about these matters before you went
down to Washington if you could find the time.

In the meanwhile, a more specific question has arisen,
falling squarely within this same general area of concern.
Apparently Professor Strausz-Hupe of the University of Pennsyl-
vania visited Mr. Nixon and after that he and Bill Kintner of
his Center at Penn talked with Mac Bundy. The general idea
was some kind of a gathering -- for purposes not very explicitly
identified -- among directors of foreign affairs and interna-
tional studies research centers in U.S. universities. After
this conversation, at which Howie Swearer was present, he
telephoned me to ask whether EWA might take an interest in
converting this general idea into a real opportunity for lead-
ers from the private sector concerned with research in inter-
national affairs to talk together about the future relation-
ships of this part of the academic community with the new ad-
ministration. It would be perfectly appropriate for EWA to
take the lead in drawing such a group together at an appro-
priate time in the future, presumably January or February,
and we would be prepared to move in this direction. But Howie
and I agreed that it was extremely important to talk with you
first about this, both from the standpoint of the background
of the talk Mr. Nixon had with Professor Strausz-Hupe and also
to get your views as to how such an effort, if it were to be
made, could be turned into the most productive exercise possible.

Trustees

Vincent M. Barnett Jr.

Harrison Brown

Ellsworth Bunker

John W. Gardner

T. Keith Glennon

Robert F. Goheen

John A. Hannah

Grayson L. Kirk

Douglas M. Knight

David E. Lilienthal

Sol M. Linowitz

William W. Marvel

Edward S. Mason

Frank McCulloch

Robert S. McNamara

Herman B Wells

Logan Wilson

'DEC 23 1968

Mr. Henry Kissinger

December 20, 1968

Page Two

So it was on this particular matter that I attempted to telephone you yesterday. Your secretary and I agreed that, in view of the terrific pressures on your time from now on, the most efficient manner of proceeding would be for me to send you this note of explanation. I wonder if you would be good enough to ask your secretary to let me know whether there might be a chance in the next couple of weeks for me to come by and talk with you on this matter. We are giving some thought internally to the kind of meeting that has been suggested, but will not make any moves outside of EWA until there is a chance to learn your views about the question.

With all best wishes,

WWM:ew

Cable: Ewaffairs

William W. Marvel, President

January 9, 1969

CONFIDENTIAL

Mr. Henry Kissinger
Office of the President-elect
Hotel Pierre
Room 1232
Fifth Avenue at 61st Street
New York, New York 10021

Dear Henry:

I was very pleased with the opportunity to talk with you today on several matters of mutual interest. I want to get this word to you quickly in connection with the position of Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs in the State Department.

Being acutely aware of your situation, as described during our conversation, of receiving many more articles and reports than you can read, I am still sending you the enclosed monster. It is the report to the Secretary of HEW which Education and World Affairs undertook during the latter half of 1968. Obviously you will not have a chance to read this, but I thought I would put a copy in your hands just in case it became relevant and you wanted to have one of your assistants look it over. The reason, of course, is that it bears upon the question of an appointment to this particular Assistant Secretaryship in State.

To put the case in a few words, it is this. Some observers of the whole international education panorama of the Federal Government have come to the conclusion in recent years that the presence of a large operating bureau, money-granting and foundation-like in its nature, is disfunctional in the State Department. CU is the only thing of its kind in that Department and the fact that the Assistant Secretary has responsibility for this large operation severely limits, and I think handicaps, his performance in other aspects of his role.

Trustees

Vincent M. Barnett Jr.

Harrison Brown

Ellsworth Bunker

John W. Gardner

T. Keith Glennon

Robert F. Goheen

John A. Hannah

Grayson L. Kirk

Douglas M. Knight

David E. Lilienthal

Sol M. Linowitz

William W. Marvel

Edward S. Mason

Frank McCulloch

Robert S. McNamara

Herman B Wells

Logan Wilson

Mr. Henry Kissinger

January 9, 1969

Page Two

There are other arguments for taking the operational aspects of CU out of the State Department, having to do with the symbolism of the situation and the presumed advantages of having such inherently educational matters handled at some remove from the foreign policy center of the government.

The burden of the enclosed report (the call for which was really designed by Melvin Laird in the Appropriations Act of 1968) is for the transfer of some of these CU operating functions, and a few other strictly educational activities of the State Department such as the East-West Center, to a new location in or near HEW. (Needless to say, the review of this report by agencies other than HEW in Washington has produced a few loud squawks, but that was inevitable.) If this were to happen, then in my opinion the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs could turn his full attention to advising the Secretary on matters within his purview, taking care of the many ceremonial duties with respect to visiting foreign ministers and the like which normally fall to that office, and in general exercising on behalf of the Secretary overall policy guidance for those aspects of international educational affairs that have an impact on our foreign policy and on the U.S. world position. For a variety of reasons, the Assistant Secretaries who have held the office since 1961, when it was created in this form, have been unable to attend to that important policy side of their duties, partly at least because of their simultaneous responsibility as head of a large (I believe it is the largest) operating bureau in the Department.

Depending on which definition of the function of the Assistant Secretary one is to take (and I do not mean to underestimate how radical my recommendation of removing the operating functions would be), one might want to seek a person for this post of different qualifications. If it were to be the policy guidance, advisor to the Secretary and ceremonial definition, then it would be desirable, I think, to go for a man of real stature and seniority, a man who would not have to make his reputation according to the normal measures of bureaucratic success (in this case, preserving and enlarging the operational activities

Mr. Henry Kissinger

January 9, 1969

Page Three

of CU), and therefore one who might not need to possess the
youthful vigor and driving energy of the person who was called
upon to operate such a sizeable machine.

If one were to opt for this arrangement of detaching the
operating activity from the State Department, then it might be
advisable to postpone the appointment of this Assistant Secretary
until the functional transfer had been made, rather than ask a
new man to preside over what would appear to many as the dissolu-
tion of his empire. The kind of person I think Mr. Nixon and
Mr. Rogers might wish to think about in that case, at the appro-
priate time, would be a very senior distinguished figure from
the American educational world who would command a lot of res-
pect in other countries and would be known for his devotion to
the best in international educational and cultural affairs.
Here are four names that I believe might be near the top of such
a list:

(1) Herman B Wells, Chancellor of Indiana University and EWA Board Chairman

(2) Clark Kerr

(3) Fred Harrington, President of the University of Wisconsin

(4) Landrum Bolling, President of Earlham College, a prominent Quaker and someone who is reported perhaps to be within sight of the end of a long and distinguished tenure at Earlham.

If the decision were to retain the status quo with respect
to the Bureau in the State Department, then a different kind of
man should presumably be sought. He should have as many as
possible of the qualities and characteristics of the senior states-
man type, but should preferably be a younger and more vigorous
man who would be expected to make his name because of achieving
success within the established unchanged framework. Here are
several names that might be considered under this second defini-
tion of the job:

Mr. Henry Kissinger

January 9, 1969

Page Four

(1) Field Haviland, until recently Director of Foreign Policy Studies at Brookings and now teaching at the Fletcher School

(2) Stephen Bailey, until recently Dean of the Maxwell School at Syracuse University and as of February 1, 1969 Chairman of The Policy Institute, Syracuse University Research Corporation

(3) Richard Nolte, Executive Director, the Institute of Current World Affairs, confirmed as Ambassador to the United Arab Republic, a post he was prevented from taking up by the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.

(4) Steven Muller, Vice President for Public Affairs of Cornell University

I will be happy to provide additional information or comments on any of these individuals, if that would be helpful. It should, of course, be understood that I have not spoken about this to any of the individuals suggested and am therefore not making any assumptions about their interest or availability.

I should have mentioned earlier, with respect to the attached report, that Glenn Olds asked for and received copies of it and has apparently had a precis made of it and has sent this along for Mr. Finch. Other than that, there has been no distribution (except to our trustees) pending the final decisions of the Johnson administration as to when and in what form they will submit it to the Congress.

One final thought concerning the CU Assistant Secretaryship is that this post may be difficult to fill under whatever definition of the role emerges because of the history of educational and cultural affairs in the State Department since 1961. For a variety of reasons, most episodes have been *un* happy, especially the longer tenures of Phil Coombs and Charles Frankel. This will presumably be an important consideration for Mr. Rogers and those concerned with the appointment as they approach this problem. I would, of course, be happy to expand on the overall situation affecting CU if at any time this would be helpful.

WWM:ew/Attachment

-ii-

## Contents

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Page</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>I. Introduction</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>II. International Education in the National Interest: Meaning and Objectives</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>III. Past Accomplishments, Present Realities, and Future Needs</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>IV. Federal Programs in International Education</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>A. Current Patterns: "Primary" and "Secondary" Agencies</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>B. Major Issues</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>V. Options for the Short-Run</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>VI. Directions for the Longer-Run</td><td>61</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Appendices

A. Conduct of the Study and Acknowledgements

B. Synopsis of Federal Agency Programs

C. Major Relevant Reports, 1949 - 1968: Approaches and Recommendations

-ii-

Contents

Page

I. Introduction 1

III. Past Accomplishments, Present Realities, 13

and Future Needs

IV. Federal Programs in International Education 30

V. Current Patterns: "Primary" and

"Secondary" Agencies

VI. Major Issues 32

V. Options for the Short-Run 40

VI. Directions for the Longer-Run 61

Appendices

B. Synthesis of Federal Agency Programs

C. Major Relevant Reports, 1949 - 1958

# I. INTRODUCTION

This report has been prepared by Education and World Affairs (EWA), under contract, for submission to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW). The background is a provision of the Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1968, directing the Secretary of HEW to conduct:

> "--a comprehensive study of all authorized Federal programs that have to do with educational activities aimed at improved international understanding and cooperation, with the objective of determining the extent of adjustment and consolidation of these programs that is desirable in order that their objectives may be more efficiently and expeditiously accomplished--"

In accordance with the terms of the contract between the Department of HEW and EWA, the latter organization assumes responsibility for the analysis, interpretations, and recommendations in this document. In submitting it to the Secretary, EWA hopes to make a useful contribution to the report which he will render to Congress in satisfaction of the above requirement of the 1968 Appropriations Act.

*

*

*

*

*

One year ago, College and University Business published a series of articles in a special section of its November issue, entitled "International Education: America's Hottest Cargo."

It is the thesis of the present report that (a) international education has indeed been a "hot cargo" for the United States over the last several decades; but that (b) the nation is not more than halfway toward meeting the needs which international education can potentially fulfill; and that (c) certain reordering of the programs and responsibilities of federal agencies in this field is necessary if we are to go the rest of the way.

Much has been accomplished in the past twenty years in the major areas of international education: strengthening of international studies, including area and language offerings, in American colleges and universities; research in international affairs; educational assistance to the less developed countries; and international student, teacher, and professor exchanges generally.

-2-

But the mood of the country and the emergence of staggering problems in urban America and in connection with the Vietnam war portend a loss of momentum in this field, as money and resources are transferred to other high priority needs. These circumstances call for a careful review of our traditional activities on the international front of education in order to assure their continuing relevance and vitality.

With respect to the role of the federal government -- the main focus of this study -- over 30 departments and agencies now report activities falling under this heading. Only six or seven agencies, however, have distinctive primary responsibilities in this area. As presented in Appendix B, the programs of all federal agencies involved present a picture of considerable dispersion and complexity. The reason for such scattering of international education activities through the government does not become immediately apparent, so there might appear to be a prima facie case for considerable "adjustment and consolidation." As the analysis in the latter sections of this report suggests, however, there are limits both in logic and in practice on the extent to which full unity and coherence of effort can be achieved.

It is in the nature of these activities that they do not fall into a pattern of neat symmetry or perfect clarity. Integration and order are important considerations, here as elsewhere. But to insist too rigidly on the ideal of coordination would be to lose other important values now being served. Perhaps the chief of these is that the involvement of many federal departments and agencies accurately mirrors the fact of outreach to the world of international affairs on the part of many major segments of American government and society, including those which are usually considered to be "domestically" oriented.

The answer to the present pattern of diffusion clearly does not lie at the one extreme of reorganizing all international education activities into a single monolithic structure. Neither does it consist in simply rationalizing as the best we can do the present pattern of dubiously-located functions, overlapping responsibilities, and major gaps of coverage. The aim must be to define an acceptable middle ground, one that will give greater coherence and efficiency to our efforts but will still permit involvement in international education by those agencies for whom such participation is relevant and important. The need is for a series of adjustments that could be made in the short run -- centering around the role of the Office of Education in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare as proposed in Section V -- followed by the initiation of more

-3-

comprehensive changes for the longer run, as discussed in Section VI.
Following these approaches in sequence, the United States could
evolve a rational strategy for federal action in this field for
the next decade.

The central focus of this report is, of course, on the changes,
adjustments, and consolidation necessary to achieve our national
goals more "efficiently and expeditiously." As prologue to the
analysis and recommendations which make up the remaining sections
of the report, therefore, it is suggested that the following are
the major reasons for seeking new and improved arrangements in this
field:

1. To define the criteria for establishing priorities and thus provide the basis for evaluating the federal government's efforts in international education across the board. (Currently there is no effective way of accomplishing this objective for the federal government generally. Activities are scattered, diverse purposes are being served, and no highly placed body or individual has been given the authority for evaluation and coordination. If, for example, it were felt that too much money was going into the support of social science field research abroad and too little into cultural presentations overseas or the support of foreign students in the United States, there would be no process to reach a balanced judgment on the issue nor means of reallocating funds between these categories of international education expenditures. The interagency council approach has served reasonably well as a communications device, but not as a technique of coordination.)

2. To achieve greater efficiency in the use of high-level manpower and funds, gaining a higher return in effective performance for every dollar spent.

3. To assure that the roles of the various agencies and the relationships among them are such as to realize the potentialities of close linkage, interpenetration, and mutual reinforcement, between the domestic and overseas aspects of international education.

4. To highlight the relevance of certain activities and processes of international education for the urgent domestic problems of American society, problems which are shared in identical or similar forms by many other countries, both advanced and less developed.

-4-

5. To refine our policies and procedures to the end that they not only serve United States needs, but take account of the sensitivities of people in the less advanced countries, thus helping to assure the acceptability of an "American presence" in educational matters and improving the climate for cooperative efforts.

## II. INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST: MEANING AND OBJECTIVES

### What Is International Education?

"International education" is not a precise term. It is a broad concept embracing various activities that help to strengthen the international dimension of education in the United States and to foster educational progress in other countries.

Although exact definition is difficult, international education conjures up familiar pictures in the minds of most of us: foreign students by the tens of thousands enrolled in American universities and colleges, coming from almost every country of the world; a professor from Ann Arbor teaching at a French university under the Fulbright program; a Stanford biologist spending two years helping to build a scientific research laboratory at the University of East Africa; American undergraduates studying in Spain or Italy under a junior year abroad program; the Peace Corps volunteer teaching English in a remote village of Ecuador; the graduate student in Soviet studies on the Indiana campus, as well as the young man doing advanced work on Chinese linguistics in Taiwan; a Cornell graduate student engaged in field research for his doctoral dissertation in anthropology in a Thai village, as well as a senior professor using survey techniques in sociological field work in Brazil.

The term may lack precision, but at least it communicates these images. International education embraces many disparate activities related to most of the major disciplines and fields of knowledge, and provides a link between the United States and virtually every foreign country -- large and small. It is best pictured as a wide umbrella, covering many processes by which people move between countries and ideas, understanding and skills are transferred across national and cultural boundaries. It involves the familiar three-way thrust of education -- in teaching, research and service.

-5-

The clearest manner of defining international education is
in terms of its major, conventional types of activity. Thus it
includes:

1. **Research** in international affairs and area studies, to provide information and understanding necessary for wise national policies, and for the scientific advancement of the disciplines and fields of knowledge.

2. The development of trained manpower, teachers and research scholars for institutions of higher learning, as well as practitioners to staff America's international enterprises, governmental and private.

3. The achievement of "national literacy" in world affairs -- through schools, colleges, universities, and adult education -- so that as a people we can cope more intelligently with the complexities of international affairs.

4. Educational and cultural exchanges, the most familiar and traditional mainstream of activity, providing opportunities at different levels for experience and enrichment through foreign study, teaching, and travel.

5. Educational cooperation with the less-developed countries, through direct assistance in institution-building, educational planning, and teaching in the other country, and by educating in the United States many foreign students and technical and professional trainees who come to these shores.

## Relation to National Interest

In light of the extensive activity making up international education, it is important to be clear about the "Why?" and the "For what purposes?" of this field. Since much of this international content and contact in education is supported by the families of students, by the philanthropic foundations, by the universities and colleges, and by voluntary organizations and other private groups, what is that rationale of federal government involvement? What, in fact, is the national interest in encouraging, facilitating, and financing international education?

facilitating, and financing international education;
advantages. "Why, in fact, is the national interest in encouraging
private groups, which is that of nationalistic federal government in-
universities and colleges, and by voluntary organizations and other
families of students, by the philanthropic foundations, by the
national content and contact in education is supported by the
correspondence, if at all, of this inter-
ection, if it is important to be clear about the "myths" and
in light of the extensive activity making up international

professional trainees who come to these shores,
states may foreign students and technical and
the other country, and by educating in these United
building, educational planning, and teaching in
countries, through direct association in institution-

2. Educational cooperation with the less-developed

teaching, and travel,
permesance and enrichment through foreign study,
visiting opportunities at different levels for ex-
tent and traditional master's of activity, pro-
-educational and cultural exchanges, the most fam-

international affairs,
above more intelligently with the complexity of
and adult education -- so that as a people we can
sacrifice -- through education, colleges, universities,

3. The achievement of "national literacy" in world
civil enterprises, governmental and private,
such as practitioners to assist America's interna-
tional scholars for institutions of higher learning,

3. The development of trained manpower, teachers and

knowledge,
advancement of the discipline and fields of
for wise national policies, and for the scientific
to provide information and understanding necessary

includes:

in terms of its major, conventional types of activity. True if
The clearest manner of defining international education is

-2-

The most explicit answer to this question is found in the
words of Congress itself, in the "Findings and Declaration" section
of the International Education Act of 1966:

"The Congress hereby finds and declares that a knowledge of other countries is of the utmost importance in promoting mutual understanding and cooperation between nations; that strong American educational resources are a necessary base for strengthening our relations with other countries; that this and future generations of Americans should be assured ample opportunity to develop to the fullest extent possible their intellectual capacities in all areas of knowledge pertaining to other countries, peoples, and cultures; and that it is therefore both necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to assist in the development of resources for international study and research, to assist in the development of resources and trained personnel in academic and professional fields, and to coordinate the existing and future programs of the Federal Government in international education, to meet the requirements of world leadership."

The message of this Congressional declaration is clear: to sustain a position of effective and compassionate world leadership, the United States must have a continuing flow of knowledge, and expanding resources of both specialized manpower and educated citizens; we must meet the responsibility which our wealth and advantages give us to share our experience and skills with less developed peoples; and these basic national interests are well served by the spectrum of activities that we refer to as international education. This Congressional definition of national purposes in this field is further amplified by observing the various rationales that have been advanced over the years.

First, there is the concept of promoting better understanding among the nations of the world in the belief that all peoples thus become more sensitive to the problems of their fellows, thus reducing international antagonisms and tensions. This is a world peace and stability rationale of international education. It has figured prominently in the justification of a number of federal programs, from the Fulbright-Hays Act, to the USIA libraries and bi-national centers overseas, to the Peace Corps.

["Purposes of the United Nations are to secure the general well-being of all nations.", "The United Nations was established in 1946. It is the world's largest intergovernmental organization. It has 193 member states. It has 656 member organizations. It has 1656 technical experts. It has 12,000 technical experts working in 100 countries. It has 1,000 technical experts working in 100 other countries. It has 1,000 technical experts working in 100

-7-

Second, there is a highly pragmatic objective which is often advanced for international education. For practical reasons, it is in America's immediate interests to know a great deal about other countries and their people -- including their language, history, culture and traditions -- people with whom we do business, or whose affairs may have a direct impact on us, or who are now, or may later become, our allies or our adversaries. Programs for training international affairs practitioners, area and language specialists, and experts in related professional fields, are all pointed toward this almost operational objective. (Within the same framework is the explicit intelligence purpose of gaining "knowledge of others." Here the ultimate utilization of information -- producing national estimates on other countries for our military and foreign policy establishments -- seems uncongenial to the accepted norms of international education. But in intellectual concept and to some degree in the techniques employed, it still corresponds to one of the conventional motifs of international education.)

Third, the cold-war or "keeping-up-with-the-Russians" has been the impulse to action in certain cases. Some of our development assistance programs have been justified in pre-emptive terms, the U.S. undertaking certain moves so that the Soviets would not get into the particular country first. And our libraries and information centers in other countries are usually conceived of as means of portraying the "American way" -- they are thus very much part of a worldwide competition with the Russians. The National Defense Education Act, of course -- Title VI of which has been a mainstay of language and area studies in the universities -- was a highly specific reaction to Sputnik as evidence of Russian advances in science, technology and education.

Fourth, there is the objective reflected in the *undergraduate study of international affairs and non-Western cultures*, that of achieving a *truly liberal education* corresponding to contemporary needs. It is often argued that in the mid-twentieth century no person, certainly no college graduate, can consider himself genuinely educated unless he has gained some appreciation of the intricacies of world affairs, the aspirations and accomplishments of other peoples, and the achievements of other civilizations, both contemporary and past. This is only indirectly related to world peace or the training of practitioners. The aim here is rather to make the individual person a more sensitive, more sophisticated human being, a truly modern man. It is assumed that the nation's best interests are served when as many as possible of its citizens meet this criterion.

Fifth, there are explicitly scientific and intellectual objectives advanced for international education: the expansion of knowledge for its own sake, for the scientific growth of various fields and areas of inquiry. The goal of full "internationalization" of the social science and humanistic disciplines has, for many decades, been one of scholarship's leading goals. In order to bring greater rigor and scientific validity to their fields, academicians must look to the verification of basic hypotheses in social settings outside of Western culture, where, in most instances, these disciplines originated and grew. Research in ethnology, linguistics, or economics, carried out on African subject matter, helps to advance fundamental knowledge in those fields as well as contributing to our understanding of Africa as a major region of the world. Obviously no discipline -- especially in the social sciences -- can claim the universality of true science if it can interpret only the phenomena of the developed Western countries.

Finally, a major objective pursued through international education is cooperation with other countries to accelerate their own development. For the most part, the process is to provide technical aid, capital, and equipment to the less-advanced countries -- including the training of their people on the campuses, and in a variety of other special programs, in the United States. Justification for these cooperative efforts usually rests on the proposition that educational development is necessary for economic progress, and that together they tend to foster political maturity and stability. In any event, development cooperation by the United States helps to satisfy human wants and reduce frustrations in the less advanced countries, and thus contributes to the foundations of the orderly and peaceful world which this nation seeks as a prime goal of its foreign policy.

In all of these ways, the United States' efforts in international education have been interpreted as supporting out best interests as a people. Underlying and intertwined with such publicly advanced rationales, however, are various motivations. Business, commercial and profit considerations are sometimes in the background of what we do. National security interests are also frequently involved. Many Americans are surely impelled by a basic humanitarian drive of wanting, out of a sense of dedication and mission, to help the "weary, oppressed and downtrodden" of other lands.

-9-

Further Complexities Facing "Adjustment and Consolidation"

The fact that international education has been justified in
terms of multiple and varied rationales, and that a mixture of
motives is at work -- some nobler than others -- complicates both
analysis and prescription. There is no easy, single thread to
follow in the quest for greater consolidation of effort in federal
agency programs. Any hope of achieving a completely logical, tidy
packaging of activities confronts formidable obstacles. In addi-
tion to the multiple objectives already discussed, there is a fur-
ther series of complexities and apparent dichotomies inherent in
international education.

First, international education takes place both at home
and abroad, and also, as it were, in between: it is found in the
curriculum of the colleges and universities of America, in the
teaching services rendered by visiting American professors in
overseas universities, and also in the short-term exchange visits
between American teachers and those of other lands.

Second, the flow of benefits, ideally at least, is in both
directions, along a two-way street. Although this reciprocity in
the flow of ideas and knowledge may not always be realized in
practice, international education still cannot be explained ex-
clusively in either "foreign aid" or "American advantage" terms.
When U.S. professors spend several years teaching and helping to
build departments in the newer universities of the developing coun-
tries, they of course contribute to educational progress there.
But at the same time they learn about the other society and its
people, and later share that knowledge with their colleagues and
students at home. The situation is similar with the largest single
activity of international education, the more than 100,000 foreign
students on American campuses. They not only gain experience and
acquire skills valuable in the development of their own countries,
but through them, United States students, teachers, colleges,
schools, local organizations, and indeed, whole communities fre-
quently become acquainted with other parts of the world. This
concept of the two-way street is at the very heart of the enterprise.

Third, as has already been suggested, motivations of both
self-interest and altruism are simultaneously at work in the back-
ground of our international education efforts. Americans usually
prefer not to confess to altruism in public, however, so in our
formal justifications of these programs we are likely to submerge
any such instinct. Although Americans have a long and generous

-10-

tradition of giving money, time and effort because this "is the right thing to do for others" -- still with government programs, it is on the self-interest of the nation that the argument is usually made. The confusion arises, however, when it turns out that we expect the kind of responses -- gratitude, affection, allegiance -- that are suitable only if we are moved by altruistic and charitable impulses -- if even then. So we are sometimes caught in a nasty paradox: we proclaim a new program involving cooperation with and assistance to others, but place it specifically in the framework of United States self-interest, and later show astonishment that it has not brought this country sentiments of love and appreciation from the people of other lands!

Fourth, international education has, at one time or another, been justified both in foreign policy terms and in genuine educational terms. By definition it is a meeting ground for the foreign affairs interests of the nation and our goal of enriching and improving the education of Americans. At least until very recently, the foreign policy rationale has tended to predominate. It has become traditional to consider international educational exchanges as primarily "an arm of foreign policy" or "the fourth dimension of foreign affairs: or one of the "instruments" the nation uses on the world scene. Whether cause or effect, the Department of State has always played the lead role, its position having been strengthened by the creation of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs in 1961. Two other agencies with important international education programs -- AID and USIA -- are within the foreign policy complex and are subject to substantial guidance and supervision by the State Department. The United States Information Service (USIS), the overseas arm of USIA, has administered official educational representation in the embassies abroad since the early 1950s. And both at home and abroad, the State Department has been at the center of the stage, holding the chairmanship of the Federal Interagency Council on Educational and Cultural Affairs in Washington, and through its ambassadors, having explicit leadership of U.S. "country teams" in the field.

To focus on educational values and meaning would represent a difference in emphasis and degree. Educational programs in the international sphere would be pursued for their own inherent purposes rather than as an adjunct of foreign policy. So interpreted, international education would enjoy considerable independence from the day-to-day foreign policy concerns of the State Department, and would be subject to minimum supervision and guidance from that quarter. It would not be advertised as an instrument designed to advance the nation's political and diplomatic interests.

-11-

The President's International Education Program, announced in the Message to Congress of February 2, 1966, and especially the International Education Act itself, rested primarily on the "educational" interpretation of efforts in this field. The tendency was to bring the two divergent orientations within international education more into balance. But the failure to implement most of the 1966 proposals, and the non-funding of the IEA mean that we still have the *status quo ante*. The traditional foreign policy connotation of international education still prevails.

Finally, one of the distinctive characteristics of international education is that it is an area of shared public responsibility and private effort. It is by definition one of the most important points of intersection between the interests of the academic community and those of the federal government on the international front. The real actors on this stage are, of course, scholars, universities and colleges, voluntary associations, young people studying in countries other than their own, scientists attending international congresses, and the like. The private sector has played a key role in generating new programs, bringing innovation, and organizing sources of financial support.

The relationship between government and the private sector has been essentially a cooperative one. But there has never been an exact blueprint of what the division of labor should be. Instead, funding, program initiation and operation, efforts to develop appropriate constituencies -- these and others have taken place in both the public and private sectors. Although an exact delineation of roles is probably impossible and perhaps undesirable, it would be helpful to all concerned if a philosophy and rationale of government participation could be evolved. Since we assume that non-governmental organizations and voluntary agencies can serve public purposes, considerable latitude should be left to them. But it is the responsibility of the federal government in the last analysis to define and implement the national interest. It should therefore assume an active role in establishing the general framework for these efforts, providing leadership, facilitating private group participation, and granting financial support.

It is logical that any discussion of the meaning and objectives of international education should return to the question of the national interest and the respective roles and responsibilities of the federal government and the private sector. Because the

-12-

question which this report attempts to answer is what adjustments and consolidations should be made in the international education programs of federal agencies, the focus is strongly on the role of government. The document therefore does not reflect adequately the significance of private efforts. But in the background of the entire study has been a recognition of the prime importance of non-governmental initiative and participation.

The question really being discussed here highlights one crucial aspect of a complex problem facing America for the 1970s -- how this nation can relate effectively and constructively with the other peoples of the world, especially those of the less advanced countries -- how we can respond to their hopes, aspirations and legitimate expectations. Our performance in international education will be one of the determinants of our success in meeting this responsibility of a world power. And under our democratic system the key question is whether we can develop an ever more efficient working partnership between government and the private sector.

### III. PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS, PRESENT REALITIES, AND FUTURE NEEDS

#### Accomplishments

The nation's achievements in international education form the necessary backdrop for any recommendations of future program arrangements and agency responsibilities. It is natural to want to know what has been accomplished by the efforts of several decades. Where have the payoffs been? Have we gained a reasonable return, in terms of the objectives of international education, from the investments made?

It is impossible to offer firm objective evidence on an across-the-board basis. In the first place, statistical totals give a picture only of growth rates in terms of numbers of persons participating and dollars spent. They do not indicate how well we have achieved our goals because sheer size of investment or of individuals involvement is scarcely a measure of performance.

Second, the real meaning of international education is found in the realm of attitudes, ideas, intellectual growth and the spread of understanding. Few objective standards can be applied in assessing impact here. (It is because quantification and

In assessing impact here. (It is because quantification and
agreement of understanding. The objective standard can be applied
in the realm of attributes, ideas, intellectual growth and the
second, the real meaning of international education is found

of individuals involvement is accurately a measure of performance.
We have achieved our goals because sheer size of investment or
participating and dollar amount. They do not indicate how well
dive a picture only of growth rates in terms of numbers of persons
across-the-board sales. In the first place, statistical totals
It is impossible to offer this objective evidence on an

from the investments made?

The return, in terms of the objectives of international educational decades. Where have the payoffs been? Have we gained a reason to know what has been accomplished by the efforts of several transparencies and agencies reasumabilities. It is natural to want the necessarily backdrop for any recommendations of future programs

accomplishments

AND FUTURE NEEDS

III. PAST, ACCOMPLISHMENTS, PRESENT, REALITIES

actor.

 efficient working partnership between government and the private
 states the key question is whether we can develop an ever more
 this responsibility of a world power. And under our democratic
 tion will be one of the determinants of our success in meeting
 the ultimate expectations.
 Our performance in international equa-
 countries -- how we can respond to their hopes, aspirations and
 other peoples of the world, especially those of the least advanced
 how this nation can replace effectively and constructively with the
 essential aspect of a complex problem facing America for the 21st cen-
 The question really being discussed here highlights one

of non-governmental initiatives and participation.

 the entire study has been a recognition of the prime importance
 of the significance of private efforts. But in the background of
 of government.
 The document therefore does not reflect adequately
 programs of federal agencies, the focus is strongly on the role
 and considerations should be made in the international education
 situation which this report attempts to answer if we are to achieve

-15-

reliance on numerical indices in this field tend to be not only
unhelpful but perhaps even misleading, that no attempt has been
made to derive overall totals -- in dollars, in programs or in
people -- from the federal agency programs summarized in Appendix B.)

So it is not in figures and numerical growth rates that the
justification for investment in international education must be
sought. One must look instead to the sensed worth and value of
certain activities, adducing general evidence to support them
and recognizing that the case cannot be proved statistically and
definitively.

It is by no means impossible to identify important areas of
progress and to grasp what they have meant to the nation. On a
number of fronts, the picture of United States' participation
in international educational activity is perceptibly different
from that of 20 or 30 years ago. The author of this report
attempted, in another place, to portray this three-decade con-
trast in the setting of university international studies:

"Most of the current trends and directions on the interna-
tional side of higher education have emerged during the living
memory of those who now labor in this vineyard. But to many of
us, the pace seems painfully slow. The road is winding and full
of ruts. Our patience wears thin. There is no easier exercise
than to describe the shortfall as American education has sought
to come of age in international affairs.

But have we truly moved only at a snail's pace these last
two decades? If our object here is to make some educated guesses
as to how this aspect of higher education will develop by 1980,
we must first be clear as to where we stood 15 or 20 years ago;
1946 is a good bench mark. It was midway in a decade dominated
by depression and war, a period of little ferment in the univer-
sities and colleges of the land. In fact, there was relatively
little development in the world-affairs aspects of higher education
during the entire 30 years down to 1950. So to take a rough measure
of how far we had come by 1966, we could go back to 1946, or 1936,
or indeed to 1926. True, there would be decade variations, but
over all, it was, in the matters that concern us here, a remarkably
"stable" period.

Let us, therefore, fix on a bright young student who, as a
freshman in 1936, was highly motivated for the study of interna-
tional relations. He entered a major Eastern university, one of
the very few institutions in the country with any kind of reputation

-14-

for prestige work in international studies. In the curriculum, he found that most of the work which interested him was confined to a set pattern of courses: European diplomatic history (those tedious meanderings through the chanceries of Vienna, Berlin, Paris, and London); international economics and finance (a highly traditional laissez-faire approach to the theory of international trade and monetary transactions); and international politics, law, and organization (where some time was spent analyzing and much time lamenting the ineffectiveness of the League of Nations and the paralysis that afflicted the Anglo-Franco-American world as the storm clouds of a new war gathered).

Among his teachers, he was unlikely to encounter any sociologist, psychologist, demographer, or perhaps even anthropologist who had intimate firsthand knowledge of any other part of the world than Europe. "Overseas research" was a phrase that had not yet entered the educational lexicon; it was apparently an activity engaged in by archeologists in the Near East, with pick and shovel, or by classical scholars at the American Academy in Rome, or by historians in the Paris archives and the London Museum. Teachers of French language and literature went to Provence during vacations and professors of international organization summered in Geneva. But the foreign experience of faculty people rarely extended beyond these conventionalized patterns.

The young man's career opportunities probably appeared to him as a crossroads at which he stood looking down two straight highways that moved into the future at sharply angled directions. He could take the Foreign Service exams and become, if he passed, a Class 8 vice-consul in the Latin-American tropics, inching his way upward through the diplomatic service over the next 40 years. Or he might go on to graduate school and become a teacher of the subject, or to law school and hope to find his way into the esoteric world of international law. There was neither AID, USIA, or Peace Corps; nor were there opportunities abroad with the Ford or Rockefeller Foundations; and almost none of the present complement of private agencies that send young Americans to study and work in foreign countries had been developed. In fact, during his undergraduate and graduate years the chances of his having an overseas experience were close to zero. There was no Fulbright program, no Social Science Research Council Training Fellowships, no Ford Foundation Foreign Area Fellowships. Rare indeed was the university that had money of its own to permit students at any level to work or study in a foreign country.

The educational possibilities in world affairs open to our student of the 1930s mirrored the actual role of the United States in the world. The content was parochial, underdeveloped and