Foreign Relations of the United States, 1917–1972, Volume VIII, Public Diplomacy, 1969-1972

141. Options Paper Prepared by the Inter-Agency Youth Committee Subcommittee on Foreign Students in the United States¹

Washington, July 12, 1971

[Omitted here is the title page.]

SUBJECT

• Options Regarding U.S. Government Concern with Foreign Students

INTRODUCTION

A memorandum to the NSC Under Secretaries Committee from Henry Kissinger dated November 13, 1970,² directed a review of current U.S. exchange programs to be combined with an analysis of possible steps to maximize (1) the effectiveness of programs of interchange with points of leadership in other countries, (2) the building of a broad continuing relationship, both public and private, with these leadership structures, and (3) contributions toward leadership development in other countries. The memorandum called for particular emphasis to developing countries. One section of the memorandum particularly addressed itself to U.S. Government concern with foreign students in the U.S.

The overall review has been completed, but the report³ has left to the Inter-Agency Youth Committee a further analysis of the foreign student situation, with a request for recommendations to the Under Secretaries’ Committee.

PROBLEM

What policy and objectives should govern U.S. Government involvement with foreign students in the United States? To what extent should there be—or appear to be—“manipulation”, or “exploitation”, or “use” of the visiting students? To what extent should the U.S. Government altruistically assist or arrange services for foreign students? Where do the “mutual interests” of students and government coincide? What options are open to Government action or restraint?

DISCUSSION

The number of foreign students studying in the U.S., now estimated at 144,000, has increased 75% in the last five years. Foreign students sponsored by the U.S. Government account for less than 10% of the total. There is no indication that these sharply rising numbers will decrease or even level off in the future.

This has taken place at a time of increased militancy on U.S. campuses and when pressures on already crowded facilities are making it increasingly difficult for universities to give special attention to foreign student problems and needs. In California, where the concentration of foreign students is great, financial pressures have resulted in the elimination of budget items for foreign student advisers in the state colleges.

Although there has been no comprehensive study of the impact that studying in the U.S. has on this generation of foreign students, preliminary research indicates that those from less developed parts of the world, i.e., Asia, Latin America and Africa, generally tend to be isolated or alienated from campus life and activities. There are fewer persons to turn to for assistance or advice on academic or personal problems, and only limited efforts being made by universities or surrounding communities to broaden their experiences and integrate them more fully into American life. It is questioned whether under these circumstances foreign students can return home with an adequate understanding of the dynamics of the American political and social system. Specifically, are they able to comprehend that the turmoil and dissent they have witnessed here can be accommodated within the U.S. system without fear of revolution or disintegration; or are they likely to return home to encourage such activity in their own less-accommodating nations; or are they likely to go home with primarily negative opinions about the course of events in the United States?

Although the U.S. Government has long realized the educational and personal benefits, for both Americans and foreigners, of having foreign students on American campuses, both for them and their American counterparts, little has been done to come to grips with what policy and objectives should govern U.S. Government concern with the mass of non-sponsored as well as sponsored foreign students, or with the complexity of the problems confronting them.

It is a fair assumption that a significant number of future foreign leaders in many fields will have studied in the United States, particularly those from less developed areas of the world. This was pointed out at a recent meeting of members of U.S. Mission Youth Committee members from Mexico and Central America. In discussing problems in identifying and establishing relationships with potential leaders from those countries, the group consensus was that much of the future leadership either is now or will be studying in the United States and that the period of their stay here is the time to have maximum impact on them.

Government responsibility for foreign students now rests primarily with the Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (CU). The present administration of CU has placed a high priority on assistance to non-sponsored students, in addition to selecting and directly sponsoring a number of foreign students. Funds are used to promote better orientation programs for foreign students after arrival in the U.S., better university understanding of the problems and potential of foreign students, better advisory services, and improved overseas counseling on both academic and non-academic matters. Fiscal Year 1971 funding on these programs was $717,940, more than a 50 per cent increase over the prior year, and a further increase is expected in FY 1972. Although other government agencies are interested in foreign students, and a few (primarily the Agency for International Development) directly sponsor foreign students, CU makes the only known federal government financial contribution to programs for non-sponsored students.

[Omitted here are the Summary of Options; the Summary of Recommendations; and the Options portion of the paper, separated into three sections: A. Target Groups, B. Project Possibilities, and C. Organizational Changes.]

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Target Group

The question of target group is a complex one. The subcommittee feels that the level of general services and concern for the large mass of foreign students is badly deficient, and further that there is really no way that the U.S. Government can or should avoid some degree of responsibility for all foreign students in the country, as set forth in Option 1.

On the other hand, it is clear that primary emphasis will have to be placed, as set forth in Option 2, on those foreign students the government itself sponsors, for whom it has already made a substantial financial investment. The Government uses elaborate selection techniques to obtain these students and usually has specific purposes in mind when the grants are made—whether related to possible future support of U.S. foreign policy or simply ensuring that coming leaders in key sectors of their societies have realistic views of the United States, good educational backgrounds, and the beginnings of strong international ties in their substantive fields. Since they have been chosen as the best people available, these students should be receiving prime attention. This proposition may also be stated in the converse. If an analysis of Government-sponsored students shows that they are not potential leaders in their sectors of society, that they are not the “cream of the crop”, then the U.S. Government is wasting a substantial sum of money.

Granted the desirability of the improvement of services to all foreign students, the real question that is forced into the open is the extent to which active government involvement and concern should exist beyond the 10 per cent who are government-sponsored. Specifically, should the U.S. Government seek to identify—by group or individually—a set of non-sponsored foreign students whom it will seek to assist, promote, and/or influence? Or is the “government manipulation” that is implied in this sufficient reason in itself to leave them alone?

The subcommittee realizes that overt U.S. Government interest in foreign students who are “tagged” as potential leaders is politically very sensitive, as outlined in the discussion of Project No. 5,⁴ and that methods for such determinations are neither very sophisticated nor reliable at this stage. Nevertheless, it believes that efforts must be made in this direction, using any resulting “list” in a manner that is determined to be appropriate under the cautionary procedures that are suggested under that project. Of the project possibilities set forth in the paper, such usage might include No. 4 on pre-departure English-language and tutoring assistance, No. 7 on post-arrival language-training and orientation and No. 11 on invitations to conferences.

The subcommittee specifically rejects Target Group Option 4 on the limiting of the number of foreign students in the U.S. While the U.S. Government might concern itself, as in Project No. 2, with improving the ability of U.S. universities to select top-quality foreign students, the subcommittee believes that any other overt action relating to limiting numbers would have negative repercussions. In fact, it believes that more thought should be given to attracting students from countries not now well represented in the U.S.

B. Project Possibilities

The project possibilities listed in this paper fall into three broad categories: (1) those that promote the support of U.S. foreign policy by foreign students, (2) those that seek to ensure a quality educational experience for visiting students, and (3) those that seek to broaden and make more realistic the foreign students’ view of the United States.

Only one of the possible projects relates directly to support of U.S. foreign policy—No. 13 on Government Liaison with Foreign Student Organizations. However, furtherance of support for foreign policy can be expected to come about indirectly through projects aimed basically at improved education and a realistic overall U.S. experience. For if the foreign student’s experience within the U.S. is constructive and useful, there may be expected in turn a favorable disposition towards the United States. The recent USIA–CU Country Program Memorandum for France makes this point well: “It is particularly necessary to emphasize the paradox that the political benefits of such exchanges are increased by a thoroughly non-political administration of the program. While generally true of cultural programming, this principle is especially important in the student area, and explains the extraordinary prestige and success of the Fulbright program.”

This raises the basic question of whether the direct quest for foreign policy support may not be too risky and whether equal results might not be obtained in a more subtle manner while other specific benefits are being achieved. In terms of this paper, the subcommittee believes that Project No. 13 can be undertaken without harm to overall purposes, but that it be begun with the utmost care and sensitivity to potential problems.

The subcommittee recommends that all of the other proposed projects be undertaken as resources permit, in the following priority order:

Project No.	1. Surveys Related to Foreign Students
	3. Pre-Departure Counseling
	11. Involvement of Students in University and Community
	7. Post-Arrival Assistance
	9. Foreign Student Advisors
	16. Follow-up With Returned Students
	2. Overseas Selection Procedures
	4. Pre-Departure English-Language Teaching
	14. Terminal “De-Orientation”
	8. Concentration of Grantees
	10. Loan Fund for Needy Students
	6. Information and Record-Keeping on Current Students
	12. Promotion of Annual Conference of Foreign Student Organizations
	13. Government Liaison with Foreign Student Organizations
	5. Systematic Identification of Potential Leaders

The emphasis in all projects should be on (1) providing a full understanding of the United States, through maximum exposure to a variety of American institutions and ideals and through other techniques that will help remove stereotypes and misconceptions about the U.S., and (2) helping students minimize their personal difficulties while achieving their own educational goals. While the Government should concern itself as well with the quality of education that foreign students are receiving—for low-quality training of future leaders will only work to the detriment of the United States—the action on these matters must be left to individual universities and private agencies while the Government role remains one of encouragement and facilitation.

Above all, the subcommittee recommends that the Government capitalize on its experience thus far. Without being blatantly political and without intruding into the lives of students or the operations of universities and private agencies, the Government has had an effective program. Before departing from this low-key method of operation, it should give serious and measured thought.

Finally, on funding: It is clear that little can be done with any of these projects unless more funds are available. There is the feeling that Congress would probably not be receptive to requests for more funds to be used in this indirect manner. However, the statistics raise some interesting questions. CU now spends in the neighborhood of $6,000,000 annually for the support of about 3,500 directly-sponsored foreign students. It spends slightly over $700,000 for programs related to the estimated 144,000 non-sponsored students. In terms of relations with potential leadership, what is the impact of direct sponsorship of this tiny fraction of the foreign students in this country? Might not the “cost/benefit” be improved by cutting off or greatly reducing direct sponsorship and putting the $6 million to work on the non-sponsored potential leadership that is already here? What would be the effect on our policy goals? What would be the reactions of Congress, the binational commissions, foreign governments? Would the dangers of government manipulation and exploitation of private students, discussed elsewhere in this paper, be enhanced? These are important questions, too complex for full analysis here. But we think they should be raised and faced, and explored further. The number of foreign students is up, and the overall available funding is down. Perhaps it is time to change a traditional method of operation.

C. Organizational Changes

The subcommittee recommends adoption of all four organizational changes. Those regarding NAFSA, other private agencies, and a new association of foreign students, must of necessity be undertaken with due care and sensitivity to the relationship of Government to the private sector, and especially with regard to the need for a continuation of a long-standing and constructive partnership with NAFSA. However, the encouragement of substantially more private involvement in this field is essential to overcome and avoid the extensive fears of many foreign students of behind-the-scenes manipulation by the U.S. Government.

The subcommittee believes that the expanded office in State CU can be achieved with a minimum of disruption and a maximum of benefit. The structure should be designed so that, as expertise and experience improve, graduated increases in level and complexity of programs can be accommodated readily into the system. However, CU must be left to work out this shift within its own priorities and its own staff and financial capabilities.

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Subject Files of Assistant Secretary John Richardson, 1968–1976, Lots 76D186 and 78D184, Entry P–242, Box 1, Reorganization 1971. Confidential. Sent to the members of the Inter-Agency Youth Committee.
2. See the first attachment to Document 120.
3. Reference is to “International Exchanges Report to the Under Secretaries Committee,” May 10, 1971. Copies of the report are ibid., RG 59, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Subject Files and Assistant Secretary John Richardson, 1968–1976, Lots 76D186 and 78D184, Entry P–242, Box 1, Reorganization 1971 and ibid., Central Files, 1970–73, EDX 1.
4. According to the Summary of Options section on Project Possibilities, Project No. 5 is the “Systematic Identification of Potential Leaders.”