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

3. Report of the United States Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs¹

Washington, January 21, 1969

[Omitted here are Smiley’s letter of transmittal, a title page, and a listing of Commission members.]

INTRODUCTION

Foreign and domestic policies are inextricably interwoven; indeed, it is difficult to tell in many cases which is the warp and which the woof in the fabric of our society. Of one thing, however, we can be certain. Each influences the other. In short, we have problems at home and overseas. This nation must engage in its problem solving—in part because we still have a “decent respect to the opinions of mankind.”² Our information and educational exchange programs are a manifestation of this continuing respect.

In this, our Sixth Annual Report to Congress, we cannot dwell on the domestic problems of riots and racism, ghettoes and transit systems, education and urbanization. But we must recognize at the outset that the solutions to these problems will make ever-increasing demands on the public purse and hence may have a profound effect on international programs.

There are no quiet places in the world today. The nation must not deceive itself into thinking that even when a peaceful and honorable settlement is achieved in Viet-Nam, we shall be free of foreign entanglements, and our frustrations with foreign affairs at an end. Still we must not let these frustrations turn our attention from our real and permanent responsibilities as we respond with our manifold international programs. In particular, this Commission’s main concern is that there must be no further eroding of programs of international educational and cultural exchange as a result of the general feelings of frustration with things international. We assume that after 30 years of Government-supported educational and cultural relations, this nation is committed to such programs. If it is not, it should be.

In any case, the faith of this Commission remains steadfast in the Government’s educational and cultural exchange programs as one way of letting other nations witness our problem-solving and one significant opportunity for cooperation with other peoples. And so it should. There has recently been called to our attention a series of letters from 105 ambassadors and chargés d’affaires around the world. An analysis of these letters shows that it is the overwhelming consensus of these U.S. mission heads that the educational and cultural programs—

(1) Are an effective and significant element in our long-term foreign relations with virtually every country replying. (The force and conviction of the statements, many of them from veteran ambassadors, are striking.)

(2) Are an effective and essential tool to reach and inform national intellectual and political leaders, and the press and other information media on American character and policies.

(3) Have effectively contributed to removing misconceptions about, and hostility to, the United States and its social, economic, and cultural achievements; and, as a corollary, to offsetting pro-Communist propaganda and predilections.

(4) Have significantly helped to develop education and to introduce new educational approaches in many countries, with particular reference to the developing nations.

(5) Provide an invaluable means for keeping channels of communication open in both directions at times when and places where political tensions or hostility block official diplomatic relationships.

(6) Are a significant method of reaching young people—especially potential leaders in the emerging countries and the “new generation” which has come up in Europe and elsewhere with little recollection of World War II and few post-war associations with the United States.

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

(1) In most countries with long-standing exchange programs, an impressive number of key people today at very high levels—in political and public life, in press and information circles, and in education—are former grantees.

(2) In emerging countries the programs have been markedly successful in selecting leaders and potential leaders.

(3) Strong, fruitful, and continuing relationships have been established, through the exchange programs, with educational institutions, educational policymakers, professors, and teachers

(4) The exchange programs have been a successful means of introducing American studies abroad, especially in Europe, and of acquainting teachers with the United States and its educational system.

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

Since the law which created this Commission³ requires us to report to Congress annually, we have assumed that Congress wishes our views and our recommendations in regard to the program. Further, it should be remembered that in Executive Order 11034 (June 26, 1962)⁴ implementing the Fulbright-Hays Act and delegating authority under it to various Government departments and agencies, the President reserved unto himself the right to receive recommendations from the Commission. We intend, therefore, to transmit to the President a copy of this annual report to the Congress.

We recommend:

(1) That the President personally and vigorously identify to the American people and to Congress the crucial importance of international educational and cultural programs and that he give continuous support to such programs as a vital part of U.S. foreign relations and an indispensable sector of the infrastructure of U.S. foreign policy.

(2) That the President establish an organizational structure within the executive branch which will assure consistent and purposeful national action in international educational and cultural affairs.

Some questions which would be answered in the implementation of these recommendations are listed below:

What administrative pattern, both in Washington and in the field, can best facilitate the Government’s performance of its role? Should all educational and cultural activities supported by Government be directed by one agency, or should they be dispersed among various agencies; and if the latter, how can they be effectively coordinated? And how should the administration of educational and cultural activities be related to that of similar activities such as economic development assistance or trade?

To what extent should the international cultural programs of the United States be deliberately related to those of other countries, and should this be done primarily through multilateral means or through bilateral, reciprocal means? For that matter, to what extent can cultural relations be made genuinely reciprocal?

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

These questions, and many others like them, have been the subjects of discussions in innumerable studies, reports, conference sessions, and congressional hearings, as a conscious search for overall policy has developed and become increasingly insistent.

Underlying all these questions, and in a sense conditioning the answers to all of them, is the fundamental question: How can educational and cultural programs contribute to the advancement of the basic objectives of U.S. foreign policy?

If the recommendations and the questions listed above seem familiar, so they should. The recommendations are taken almost verbatim from a report of 1961 to the new Kennedy administration and to the Congress by our predecessor commission, the U.S. Advisory Commission on Educational Exchange. It was written by Walter H.C. Laves.⁵ These questions, which persist as fundamental and valid, are taken from the book Cultural Relations and U.S. Foreign Policy, by Charles A. Thomson and Walter H.C. Laves (Indiana University Press, 1963).

It seems to us that, as a nation, through our representatives in Congress and through innumerable educational institutions, volunteer groups, cultural societies, world affairs councils, and the like, we must reaffirm our commitment to international educational and cultural exchange. If we choose not to, let us say so. If we are committed, let us begin to move forward.

[Omitted here are the sections: Continuity of Personnel and the Role of the Cultural Affairs Officer; A New Agency for International Education; The CIA and the “Rusk Committee”; Funding; and Evaluation Studies.]

CONCLUSIONS

In short:

1. We reaffirm our belief that the educational and cultural exchange programs of the Government have been and continue to be a success by any measurement.

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

3. It follows, then, that we feel the programs should be properly funded in terms of the foreign policy-oriented purposes which underlie them. By this we mean that the Congress should provide each year sufficient money to maintain and improve such ongoing programs as the teaching of English as a second language and American studies overseas as an integral part of a comprehensive cultural and educational relations program. We would leave to the judgment of the operators the exact amount to be requested each year, but surely the amounts must not fluctuate over the decades as they have in the past. These fluctuations, it seems to us, show the lack of a firm belief in Government-sponsored international educational and cultural programs which is simply unbecoming a great nation.

4. We repeat our recommendation that the International Education Act⁶ be funded as soon as possible and to the extent feasible. Congress has authorized appropriations. It is time they were made. The funding of this act will provide an educated and informed generation which the country cannot afford to be without.

5. We intend to continue the dialog with our sister commission, the U.S. Advisory Commission on Information, so that we may discuss in greater detail the subjects that have already been broached in the meetings that we have had.

6. We call upon the President and Secretary of State to seek the Advisory Commission’s advice to a greater extent than previously. We feel that we are knowledgeable about many of the problems in this field.

7. We feel that there must be a permanent evaluation staff for these programs so that the Department will know of successes achieved or problems encountered year in and year out and can thus constantly improve the programs.

8. We feel especially strongly that after 30 years of Government-sponsored educational and cultural programs overseas it is time that the Government and the nation, too, decide in what agency these programs are to be located, how and to what extent they are to be supported, and how their relationship to domestic international educational and cultural programs, to information and propaganda, and to intelligence gathering are to be ordered in the whole complex of Government agencies.

[Omitted here is the appendix: Government Advisory Committee on International Book and Library Programs.]

1. Source: Sixth Annual Report of the U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs, Letter From the Chairman, the U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs Transmitting The Sixth Annual Report of the Commission, Pursuant to the Provisions of Public Law 87–256, 91st Congress, 1st Session, House Document No. 91–66, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1969. Additional copies are in the National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, Box 405, Subject Files, The United States Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs [Jan.–Mar. ‛69] and ibid., RG 306, Office of Research and Assessment, Library, Archives, Office of the Archivist/Historian, Records Relating to the Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs, 1962–1978, Entry P–138, Box 1. All brackets are in the original. The report is entitled “Is Anyone Listening?” The members of the Commission in 1968 were Smiley, Babbidge, Adams, Moody, Picker, Robinson, Sachar, Scalapino, and Tompkins.
2. Reference is to the Declaration of Independence.
3. Reference is to the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (P.L. 87–256; 75 Stat. 527), which President Kennedy signed into law on September 21, 1961. Introduced by Fulbright and Hays, the Act consolidated earlier legislation on cultural and educational exchanges. The minutes of the first meeting of the U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs are in Foreign Relations, 1917–1972, vol. VI, Public Diplomacy, 1961–1963.
4. Executive Order 11034—Administration of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961—was issued by Kennedy on June 25, 1962.
5. Twenty-sixth Semiannual Report on Educational Exchange Activities. House doc. no. 199, 87th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961). [Footnote is in the original.]
6. Presumable reference to the International Education Act of 1966 (P.L. 89–698; 80 Stat. 1066), which Johnson signed into law during a ceremony at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok on October 29, 1966. Additional documentation regarding the act is scheduled for publication in Foreign Relations, 1917–1972, vol. VII, Public Diplomacy, 1964–1968.