565"”; w 1 .> ”1; (":1 H (:4, D / } 5W/ Copyright by Richard Emil Bjork 1961 ABSTRACT THE CHANGING ROLES OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: A STUDY OF CERTAIN PERCEPTIONS OF UNIVERSITIES' INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND THE IMPACTS OF SUCH ACTIVITIES ON UNIVERSITIES' PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS By Richard E. Bjork Body of Abstract American universities have increased markedly all aspects of their participation in international relations. This study focuses primarily on that aspect of universities' participation in international relations for which the university as an institution accepts formal responsibility (referred to in this study as "international programs"), and on the impacts of such international programs on universities' roles in international relations as perceived by a sample of university, government, and foundation personnel. Additionally, the history of American universities' major international activities since 1900 is traced briefly to indicate the significant antecedents of universities' present roles in international relations. Data for the present study were obtained from interviews and the currently limited amount of literature concerned with the inter- national programs of American universities. A total of #23 persons with international program experiences were interviewed. Of the 423 inter- viewees, 303 were university personnel, eighty-seven government person- nel, and twenty-three foundation personnel. The university personnel Richard E. Bjork were selected from thirty universities involved in international programs at the time interviewing was conducted. Fifty of the government inter- viewees were working overseas in activities related to universities' international programs at the time they were interviewed. The remaining thirty-seven government personnel were interviewed in Washington, D. C. The twenty-three foundation personnel interviewed were high-level persons in the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations and the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Unguided interviews were used in all instances. The interview data were organized to explore three groups of hypotheses.dealing with the following: (1) the ways university personnel perceived universities' roles in international relations; (2) the per- ceptions of universities' roles held by foundation and government personnel; (3) with certain aspects of the operational relationships associated with international programs. More specifically, the inter- views attempted to indicate the respondents' perceptions of wha£_inter- national acts universities perform, ESE universities perform such acts, and why_universities perform such acts. The respondents' statements with respect to these hypotheses provided material for an analysis of the impacts of international programs on universities' roles in inter- national relations. Main Findings l) a. University respondents stated most frequently that universities are expected to perform international acts that are primarily educational in nature. Universities are seldom expected to perform political acts. 2) Richard E. Bjork Non-university personnel representing foundations and the government stated, by a small margin of frequency, that universi- ties can be expected to perform political acts. The second most frequently stated expectation of this group was that universi- ties are expected to perform educational, cross-cultural, and economic acts. Those respondents emphasizing that political acts can be expected were almost exclusively government person- nel, and those emphasizing expectations about other kinds of acts were almost exclusively foundation personnel. Such stated expectations by all respondents are not wholly in accord with the reported pattern of international programs presently operative. Currently operative programs appear to be primarily in cross-cultural and humanitarian fields. University and foundation respondents most frequently stated that international programs should be performed primarily through the sending of American faculty and staff abroad, and that such personnel should be abroad within the framework of a university-to-university relationship. Additionally, most uni- versity respondents mentioned that universities should have considerable operating independence when operating internationally. Government respondents most frequently stated that universities' international activities should be more closely related to the government's international activities. Government personnel did not generally appear to support the universities' claim for independence. 3) 4) Richard E. Bjork Statements by university respondents as to why universities perform international acts fell with almost equal frequencies into three categories: a. Development of the cooperating country. b. General advancement of knowledge. c. Strengthening of American university The frequencies with which universities openly supported ”execution of American foreign policy objectives" were very low. This is in contrast to the frequent statements of non-university respondents that universities' international activities are expected to support foreign policy objectives. The over-all impact of international programs has been to expand the numbers, kinds, and sizes of the universities' roles in international relations. The programs' impacts are most evident in the following areas: 3. Characteristics of university personnel, and university policies toward them. b. Subject matters taught and researched by universities. c. Internal organization of universities. d. International roles of universities. e. Some characteristics traditionally associated with the university as an institution. The expansion and changes of universities' roles have produced con- siderable confusion and dissension among university personnel. Uhi- versities are presently reorganizing and developing new forms to meet the increasing demands of international activities on universities' resources . THE CHANGING ROLES OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: A STUDY OF CERTAIN PERCEPTIONS OF UNIVERSITIES' INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND THE IMPACTS OF SUCH ACTIVITIES ON UNIVERSITIES' PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS By I Richard n.“bjork A THESIS Submitted to muchigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHIIOSOHIY Department of Political Science 1961 -"’“ ./ ', fl/ .V/ /£?:3 749 7/22/22/ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Whatever the limitations and deficiencies of the present study, it must be acknowledged that numerous persons deeply interested in the international activities of American universities have cooperated fully and given generously of their time. Without the assistance and under- standing of the academic, foundation, and government communities gener- ally, it would have been impossible for this writer to have assembled the data which form the basis of the study. Their contributions are deeply appreciated. Very special burdens were borne by the members of the committee which guided the writer past many pitfalls. Dr. Edward w. Weidner, Chairman of the writer's Thesis Committee, provided leadership and direction tempered with sympathetic understanding. Drs. Bruce 1” Smith and Howard Scarrow as members of the Thesis Committee spent innumerable hours reading and correcting the drafts of the present study, and counseling the writer in the ways of scholarship. The writer acknowledges a debt of sincere appreciation to Dorothy Ybung for her hours of typing and her attention to thousands of details. Financial support from the Institute of Research on Overseas Programs and the Carnegie Corporation of New YOrk provided the means for gathering the data for the present study. Naturally, none of the groups or persons who have cooperated with the writer bear any responsibility for the views expressed herein or for possible errors committed. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Chapter I. INTRODUCTION AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY . . . . 1 MaJor Social Science Concepts USed . . . . . . . . . . . u Statement of Guiding Hypotheses . . . . . . . . .'. . . 13 Explanation of Guiding Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Policy Significance of Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . 33 II. DEFINITIONS AND METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION . . . . . . . . 39 Selection of Universities Studied . . . . . . . . . . . #1 Data Collection Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . uu Characteristics of the Universities and Programs in the Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . #9 III. BACKGROUND MATERIAIS RELATED TO THE CURRENT PARTICIPATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS . . 55 Religious Predecessors and Influences . . . . . . . . . 60 The Development of Government Interest and Influence in International Programs . . . . . . . . . 70 "ThePrelude" untill936. 71 The Extension and Formalization of Cooperation Between the Government and Universities in International Relations after 1936 . . . . . . . . . . 77 Private Foundations as SpOnsors of International Programs 109 Independent Activities of universities on the International Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 IV. PERCEPTIONS OF KNOWLEDGEABIES ABOUT ACTS PERFORMED BY UNIVERSITIES THROUGH INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS . . . . . . 1H2 Accuracy and Validity of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1AA Previously Collected Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1M6 Findings C O O O O I O O I O O O O O O O O ‘ O O O O O 0 O 1"“? Types of Acts universities are Expected to Perform Through International Programs . . . . . . . . 1&8 How universities are Expected to Perform International Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Resource Utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 111 Chapter Operational Arrangements . Source of Funds . Why Universities are Expected .to Perform International Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and Conclusion ...... . . . . . . . V. EXAMINATION OF THE GUIDING HYPOTHESES (PART I) . VI. .EXAMINATION OF THE GUIDING HYPOTHESES (PART II) . . . . Summary of Findings on Second Group of Hypotheses Impact of University-Sponsor Operating Relationships on Universities . Summary and Problems Raised VII. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . Actors' Perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impacts of International Programs on Participating American Universities . . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B 131.10 GRAm O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 O 0 0 iv Page 168 172 178 191 195 230 255 257 283 286 286 2 93 317 325 Table N C’s-U! -=‘ u 10. 11. 12. 13. 1M. LIST OF TABLES Number of Interviewees and International Programs, Classified by universities Included in Sample . . . . . Distribution of Interviewees by Primary University Roles Distribution of Universities by Size . . . . Distribution of universities by Type of Control . Primary Sources of Funds for International Programs . Frequency of Statements by University Personnel About the Types of Acts Universities Are Expected to Perform in International Relations Through International Programs Frequency of Statements by Non-university Personnel About the Types of Acts Universities Are Expected to Perform in International Relations Through International Programs Number of University International Programs Reported to be Performing Particular Types of Acts . . . . . . . . Frequency of Statements by University Personnel About Primary Ways in which Universities Are Expected to Carry Out International Programs . . ... . . . . . . . . . . Frequency of Statements by university Personnel About What Kinds of Operational Arrangements universities Are Ex- pected to Utilize in Carrying Out International Programs Frequency of Statements by University Personnel About the Sources from which universities Can Expect to Receive Funds for Carrying Out International Programs . . . . . . Frequency of Statements by University Personnel About “The Most Important" Reason Why U.S. Universities are Expected to Carry Out International Programs . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency of Statements by Non-university Personnel About "The Most Important" Reason why U.S. Universities Are Expected to Carry Out International Programs . . . . . Broad Purposes of Uhiversities' International Programs, According to Presidents of Universities with ACE Member- ship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1&5 48 5o 52 53 151 15% 158 165 170 17a 180 181 186 Table Page 15. Ranking of Coordinators' Opinions as to the Reasons Their Universities Have Adopted International Programs . . . . 190 16. Comments by U.S. university Personnel on Aspects of the Impact of International Programs on Cooperating FOreign Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 17. General Summary of Main Comments by "Knowledgeable" U.S. University Personnel Relative to Hypotheses Ia-Ii . . . . 229 18. Extent of Administrative Differences Between universities and Sponsors, as Perceived by various Types of ReSpondents 26o vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY Some American universities have recently altered their roles in a manner which suggests that they have a growing interest in inter- national relations and that they consider themselves capable of exerting an important influence in international relations. This role alteration has been stimulated by the world political environment following Ebrld War II and the Korean War. This new environment has led to increased financial assistance for university participation in activities related to other nations. The wherewithal to implement the growing inter- national interests of the universities has been forthcoming in signi- ficant amounts from such interested parties as private foundations and the United States Government as well as from many less substantially endowed donors. These events have created circumstances in which inter- national communications and contacts have developed rapidly and exten- sively among university personnel. On an unprecedented scale, American university personnel have been brought into direct contact with the aspirations and problems of societies very different from their own. The impact of this contact has never been accurately gauged, but recent events indicate that some of the personnel of American.universities, among others, have been sufficiently impressed by their experiences to influence their universities to increase their commitments in the inter- national sphere. ~These catalytic factors, along with a propitious 2 environment, finances, and individual commitments have thrust American universities onto the international scene with enhanced resources, but with what appear to be poorly defined concepts of their roles. The several hundred interviews conducted on thirty-five American university campuses for this study suggest that while most policy- makers for American universities are only moderately concerned about the roles universities play in international affairs, they seem to be aware of the fact that the magnitude of universities' participation in international relations has increased markedly. At least, the fact that the U.S. Government and foundations have recently increased the financial resources available to universities for activities involving foreign nationals and countries is widely known in American university circles. Further, the interviews indicate that the most interested of university personnel, usually administrators, are known to maintain fairly complete records of the international activities of other uni- versities, especially those that are viewed as competitors or equals. Even those university personnel who profess only a marginal interest in international affairs appear to have generally accurate notions about the major international activities of American universities. Notwith- standing this quite extensive “feel” for the broad dimensions of the universities' international participation, few university persons, even those directly responsible for the operation of particular international programs, have been able to describe concretely what the policy impli- cations of this type of activity are. Ime painstaking process of relating increasing international .opportunities for university action to the roles of universities in societies has made a slow start. Even today it is visible on only a 3 few American campuses. In most cases, no serious attempt has been made by the universities to explore fully the consequences that flow from international involvement. Attitudes of indifference, confusion, and hostility toward involvement are common throughout American universities. It is one purpose of this study to explore the attitudinal environments at American university campuses on which international programs operate. Once this is done, it may be possible to describe the levels of interest university leadership groups have in formulating roles for universities in international relations, and to offer a statement of the possible policy implications of such roles.1 Because the term "international relations" is frequently identi- fied exclusively with political intercourse among nation-states, it is important to this study that some non-political elements of inter- national relations be indicated. In the present case, the most signif- icant non-political elements are travel and the diffusion of culture, information, and education. However, it should be acknowledged that it is quite possible that activities in the foregoing areas might have non-political origins and goals, but might become political in the process of being conducted internationally; This study recognizes this possibility and attempts to discuss its incidence, especially in the area of government-sponsored university programs. anetheless, it is equally important to emphasize the fact that universities differ from political agencies in various ways, such as method of operation, focus 1General supporting evidence for the statements made in this paragraph is also available from.the comments of university leaders made at the Annapolis Conference on International Education, April u-s, 1959, under the auspices of the Bureau of International Cultural Relations, U.S. Department of State. A summary of the discussions of the confer- ence was given limited distribution in lithographed form. u of interest, etc. These differences tend to prevail internationally as well as nationally. ConseQuently, the international relations of a nation-state and of its components (such as universities) are multi- dimensional. This study is primarily focused on one dimension of inter~ national relations, e.g., international educational cooperation as it functions through the international programs of American universities.2 Major Social Science Concepts Used Two theoretical concepts common to the social sciences, elite and role, are emphasized in this study. These two concepts are related, and their relations provide a framework for a description and analysis of the international activities of American universities as well as of the activities of the sponsoring and cooperating institutions involved with American universities. The concept of role has at least two important aspects which are useful for an analysis of the international activities of American universities. The first is the relationship of any actor's role to his status or situation in society. In general social-scientific usage, the concept of role involves the definition of a specific situation by the actor or acceptance of such a definition by the actor. Thus if an actor has no status in society or cannot define his situation, he has no role that can be identified.3 Secondly, formulation, assumption, and exe- cution of a role by an actor are functions of the perception of such a role by the affected actors. 2For a much broader discussion of education and international relations, see Howard E. Wilson, Universities and World Affairs (New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 19517: 3For a summary of some of the major attempts to define the concept of role, see Lionel J. Neiman and James H. Hugues, "The Problem of the Concept of Role-~A Re-Survey of the Literature," Social Forces, October 1951, Vbl. 30, No. 1, pp. 1u1-1u9. 5 In 1936, Ralph ldnton theorized about status and role in a manner which continues to be widely accepted today. He argued that a role represents the dynamic aspect of a status. An actor is socially assigned to a status and occupies it with relation to other statuses. Hhen he puts the rights and duties which constitute the status into effect, he is performing a role. Role and status are inseparable; consequently, there are no roles without statuses or statuses without roles. Every actor has a variety of roles deriving from the various patterns in which he participates, and at the same time, a general role which represents the sum of these roles and determines what he does for society and what he can expect from it. The roles associated with the statuses within a single social system are usually fairly well adjusted to one another and produce no conflicts as long as the actor is operating within this system.” In defining the concept of role, Linton introduces several terms which contribute to the construction of an analytic framework for this study. These terms are actor, patterns, system, and status. For present purposes, an actor can either be an individual or an institution. To have relevance to this study an individual must be directly connected with American universities, sponsoring organizations, and/or foreign institutions cooperating within the compass of an international program related to an American university. Major relevant institutional actors are American universities, their international sponsors, especially the ”The material presented in this paragraph has been extracted from Ralph Linton, The Study of Man (New York: Appleton-Century, 1936), mp. 114, and Ralph Linton, The Cultural Background of Personality_(New York: Appleton-Century, 19u5), p. 18. Comments about Iinton's concept of role are included in Neiman and Hughes, 9p, git,, pp. 145-6. 6 U.S. Government and foundations, and the cooperating foreign insti- tutions such as universities and special government agencies. The interactions among these actors loosely define the system in which they operate, for the relative uniqueness of their activity vis-A-vis general publics or other specialized collective actors precludes significant intrusions from casual sources. Rough limits to the maximum expansion of the system are imposed by the exigencies of the world situation, which in turn is influenced primarily by nation-state actors. The result of this circumstance is that the system operates with only modest precision and predictability. One indication of the tenuousness of the systemls existence is the high and persistent level of anxiety displayed by American university policy-makers about decisions to participate in the system. Despite malfunctions within the system, there exist suf- ficient regularity of behavior and patterns of interaction among the three major sorts of actors for one to conclude that a system does exist within which certain university activities are conducted internationally. The fact that individuals within universities, sponsoring organizations, and foreign cooperating institutions are Quick to identify malfunctions further supports the concept of a system. In.Idnton's definition of the concept of role, the term "patterns" refers to the various substructures, ~statuses, and -situations in society from which roles are derived, the sum of which constitute an actor's general role. Related to the present study, a "pattern" means that portion of the universities' general societal role which manifests itself in international programs. The general role of (universities in society includes more than their participation in inter- national activities. The international pattern is only one of several 7 patterns in which the universities participate; and the roles derived from.this pattern constitute a single component of the general role which American universities perform. In fact, international partici- pation is usually viewed as definitely secondary to the universities' responsibilities to the nation, state, community, and the "peOple". This much all of the actors in the system can agree upon, but when attempts are made by them to describe, evaluate, and relate the inter- national pattern and the role derived from it, the actors diverge. Discussion of the nature and consequences of this divergence will be deferred until the theoretical basis of this study has been established. Status consists of a set of rights and duties. A social system?s acknowledgement of rights, and its expectation of the performance of duties by an actor, are prerequisites for the assumption of a role. Without elaboration, a definition of this type is helpful only to a limited degree, for it tends to describe role and status structurally without indicating the derivation of the set of rights and duties or indicating how actor performance is Judged. It includes no positive indication that role and status are in part a function of perception as well as situation. This study, for example, assumes that university personnel eXhibit a relatively high consensus with regard to the general status and role of the university in American society. University personnel may disagree about this general role, but they are not compa- rable to the disagreements among those actors (0:8. Government and foundations, for example) who are co-actors with American universities in international society. The status of the American university inter- -nationally'has not yet been completely defined in terms of rights and duties the performance of which describes its general roles. The 8 discovery and assignment to universities of status-describing factors is in a confused state. Thus, not only must there be an international situation in which rights and duties of a university status can be formulated, but there must also be a high degree of perceptual con- sensus among the affected parties if American universities are to have identifiable roles, ' To illustrate the significance of role perception to this study, one might speculate about some possible perceptions of American uni- versities in international affairs which could exist among the three actors in our system. The American university, confident of its status and roles at home, might consider its international roles as essentially an extension and expansion of its national roles. Thus the American university would function as a training center for the develOpment of a wide range of skills and knowledge, most of which could be placed in the service of society quite directly. Foreign students studying at Ameri- can campuses would tread a path of course work designed to equip them to march in the cause of progress. In this manner, a portion of the American success story could be exported with the expectation that it would serve as a useful guide to countries less developed than the United States. From another point of view, the sponsors of American universities' international activities might perceive those universities as instruments to be used to advance certain types of political policies not usually considered part of the universities' general role in the United States. The result could easily be conflict between the uni- versities and their sponsors on the issue of what constitutes an (appropriate international role for American universities. Finally, the foreign institutions cooperating with American universities in their 9 international endeavors might perceive these institutions as convenient places to send their young for technical training, as agencies of the U.S. Government, as bulwarks to the old order or as devices to build a new order, among other things. These random bits of speculation suggest the possible range of perceptions about the international roles of American universities. Linton's definition of the role concept, as adopted for use in this study, emphasizes the fact that role is the dynamic aspect of status. This suggests that one way to determine various actors' per- ceptions of their own and others' roles is to examine statements they make which are related to the performance of certain acts by a particular actor. In this study this means statements made by university and sponsoring organization personnel about the acts performed by American university personnel in the conduct of international programs for which the university accepts formal responsibility.5 Such statements have been collected from universities and sponsoring agencies. When distributed into the following categories, they indicate the kinds of perceptions the knowledgeable personnel com- posing these two collective actors hold with regard to the roles American universities are currently playing through education in the field of international relations, and the implications of such roles. Distribu- tive categories which are useful for "getting at" role perceptions include: 1) statements about the kinds of acts universities are expected to perform. 5Chapter II contains a description of the institutions and personnel referred to here in general terms. 10 2) statements about "how" universities are expected to perform such acts. 3) statements about "why" universities are expected to perform such acts. It is assumed that the persons making the foregoing types of statements do so with conscious or unconscious regard for certain symbols related to international relations. Harold D. Lasswell in 1932.9. Politics and Personal Insecurityé suggests some symbol types which are relevant to this study. First are the symbols of identification. With what individual and collective actors do universities identify them- selves, and with what actors are they identified by those who sponsor their international programs? Second are the symbols of demand which describe the prerequisites for satisfaction of those participating in an enterprise. Third are the symbols of expectation which purport to describe the ideal and real goals of the actors as well as possible consequences of their acts and of others' acts. Although this study does not attempt to specify the key and/or secondary values of the respondents, it anticipates that the respondents' statements, when distributed in the aforementioned categories and linked to certain symbols, will provide a crude picture of some of the major value structures or referents of the major actors. Such value "pictures“ are suggestive when one attempts to formulate explanatory generali- zations. Moreover, they provide various groups of decision-makers with 6Edition used is contained in Harold D. Lasswell, Charles E. Merriam, and T. V- Smith, A Study of Power (Glencoe: The Free Press, .1950). Additional material on symbols is available in Harold D. Iasswell and Abraham Kaplan, Power and Society (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950). ' 11 some insight into the possible implications of international programs, as related especially to American universities. "Elite" is a second social science concept used in this study. It is considered as a special component of role structure. Emphasizing 7 Harold D. Lasswell's comments on elites , one can say that the term "elite" designates holders of high positions in'a collectivity. These high positions are defined in terms of the various actors' relative levels of receipt of various values in society, such as power, know- ledge, wealth, etc. Every value in society has an elite, which is com- posed of those individuals who receive the most of that value. "Most" is understood to be an amount considered by actors or analysts to be significantly larger than that received by the mass of persons pursuing the value in question. The receipt of a substantially greater portion of this value may afford the receivers, the "elite," an opportunity to exercise control over those who get less of the value. A high degree of possession is characteristic of a relatively small number of indi- viduals; consequently, the elite is commonly thought of as "the few." Such a concentration of value-income is not inevitable, but it is the general case. Lasswell stresses the point that it is not necessary that a power structure be represented schematically as a pyramid with the elite located at the pinnacle. An elite may be so broad--that is, values may be so widely shared in a society--that the power structure can be drawn to look like an inverted pyramid in extreme cases.8 In most instances, a true picture lies somewhere between these two extremes. 7For a brief history of the elite concept and a definition of "elite" see Harold D. Lasswell and others, The Comparative Study of Elites (Stanford: Stanford University Press,’3anuary 19527} 81bid, pp. 12-13. 12 Since an elite is composed of those who get the most of a pare ticular value, it often follows that such individuals, “elite members," have the greatest authority within.a value system, and that they have the greatest potential control. Whether or not they utilize their authority by exercising control is another matter, for we are all familiar with the formal ruler who technically possesses authority, yet does not control. In this study we are primarily interested in those elites who actually exercise control through approved channels (the active elites and active sub-elites). If they exercise control, it is probable that they will possess the power to make decisions which affect their respective collectivities.9 However, this is not intended to exclude the counter-elites, outside the approved channels, who are interested in reapportioning a value system so that they are in a position to exercise control. This study will attempt to demonstrate that American universities may perform a significant role vis-a-vis counter-elite personnel from foreign countries. In summary, the two social scientific concepts which appear most prominently throughout this study are role and elite. Role is a deriva- tive of status in society and of the perceptions held by and about actors affected by that status. With regard to institutions, we are first concerned with the statuses of American universities in inter- national relations and with the elements of these statuses that affect their international roles. Secondly, we note that American universi- ties attempt to perform their international roles in conjunction with their roles in the American national social system and under the 9The relationships of authority, control, decision, and power are discussed in Lasswell, op, cit., pp. 7-8. v 13 stresses and strains imposed by their own perceptions of their roles as well as by the perceptions of the two other actors in the system, i.e., sponsors and foreign cooperating institutions. Finally, we assume that the major targets of the international activities of American universi- ties are the elites of power and knowledge. Statement of Guiding Hypotheses The value of this study to social scientists and policy-makers may lie in the hypotheses to be developed. Three major sets of hypothe- ses relative to the universities' roles in international relations will be explored. The first deals with the universities' perceptions of their roles; the second deals with the ways the major sponsors of the international activities of American universities perceive the universi- ties' roles internationally; and the third deals with actual operational relationShips associated with international programs, as viewed by the writer. Each of the three major sets of hypotheses to be explored leads to several sub-hypotheses which are intended to indicate the multiplicity or singularity of views about the international role of American uni- versities held by persons representing the universities and their sponsors. The first major hypothesis and its sub-hypotheses purport to describe the manner in which university personnel consciously involved in the operations of American universities' international programs view the international roles of these institutions. The hypotheses do not attempt to indicate how university personnel apparently unaffected by or unaware of the international commitment of American universities perceive this facet of the universities' activities. 1n thesis on primary educational role of American universities in international relations as_perceived by university_ personnel I. Since most American university personnel do not differentiate between the sorts of demands various societies place on their elites of knowledge, they tend to believe that the primary educational role of American universities in international relations is to provide more or less uniform academic training for all persons, irrespective of their national backgrounds or social statuses; and that such training will and should equip all those persons with a variety of skills especially valued by literate, industrialized societies. Hypotheses on secondary roles of American universities in international relations as perceived by university personnel American university personnel tend to believe that: (Ia) Through participation in international programs American universi- ties are contributing significantly to the training/education of foreign elites/leaders. (lb) Through participation in international programs American universi- ties make significant contributions to the international policies of the United States and its government. (Ic) Through participation in international programs American uni- versities make significant contributions to the general welfare of mankind, e.g., to humanitarian activities, expansion of edu- cational facilities, diffusion and growth of knowledge, mutual A understanding, etc. l5 Hypotheses on impact of international programs on participating American universities as perceived by American university personnel American university personnel tend to believe that: (Id) (1e) (If) (18) (1h) (Ii) International programs provide an impressive demonstration of the nature and importance of foreign persons and events, which makes a positive contribution to the education and development of most university personnel, both students and staff. International programs are important sources of stimulation, through the presence of non-nationals on American university campuses and because of the foreign experiences of university personnel, for changes in curricula, for expansion of all activi- ties related to international events, and for the growth of cosmopolitan attitudes among university-educated personnel. Participation in international programs tends to enhance the prestige of the universities involved. In many cases, participation in international programs results in additions to university faculties and the development of new areas of interest and competence. Notwithstanding the foregoing (Id - Ig), the impact of inter- national programs on American university campuses has created mixed attitudes of disappointment, confusion, indifference, and hostility among university personnel. Notwithstanding Id - Ig, the fact that American universities, through international programs, make unique contributions to international relations, to other societies, and to American edu- cation is hardly evident among those university personnel who have had any contact with their institutions' international programs. 16 We now can state a second set of hypotheses, one which reflects the way in which the sponsors of the international programs of American universities perceive the international roles of those universities. There are many different types of sponsors. An attempt has been made in this study to concentrate on the most active and significant sponsors of American universities, internationally, namely the U;S. Government and a few large private foundations. Not only do these organizations expend the largest sums of money for university work in the international field and send large groups of American educators abroad; they also represent important forces in international relations in their own right. Their influence is so sizeable that it has prompted numerous people interviewed during this study to conclude that the government and large foundations tend to overshadow the universities they sponsor, thereby complicating the activities of American universities in foreign countries. While acknowledging the strengths of the government and large foundations in that area of international relations involving American universities, it is important to remember that others have not abandoned the field completely to them. Scores of organizations promote and sponsor university programs abroad. Many, such as religious groups, have a long history of operating on the international scene in cooper- ation with or through American institutions of higher education. More recent sorts of sponsors include universities themselves and their sub- divisions, and local or national clubs and other organizations who have done much to develop the study-abroad programs and student exchanges. NOne of these programs singly can match the scope and organization of government-sponsored and foundation-sponsored programs, but in the aggregate they are influential in determining the universities' roles 17 in international relations. The U.S. Government, large private foun- dations, and a variety of small, internationally oriented groups, then, constitute the three types of sponsors discussed in this study. The small scale sponsors, as a group, are the most difficult to characterize and analyze. Regardless of the difficulties involved in treating their contributions systematically, an initial attempt will be made in this study to grasp the extent and complexity of their relationships with American universities in international relations. gypotheses on_primary role of American universities in international relations as perceivgd by personnel of’sponsoring orgggizations II(a) Since government responsibilities in international relations are urgent and tend to be viewed by U.S. Government personnel in a short-term or medium-term perspective, there exists among govern- ment personnel acquainted with government-sponsored international programs involving American universities a tendency to consider such institutions and their staffs primarily as instruments to be used by the government in support of relatively urgent and relatively specific foreign policy objectives. (IIai) The methods to be utilized and the goals to be pursued in international programs tend to be formulated by U.S. Government elites with a primary emphasis on short-term or mediumeterm political objectives and only a moderate interest in the educational practices and aspirations of the American or foreign universities. II(b) Large foundations, the major private sponsors of the international programs of American universities, display a high degree of 18 ambivalence with regard to their role expectations for American universities. (IIbi) The larger the program in terms of money and persons involved, the more closely the expectations of the foun- dations and relations between the foundations and the universities approximate those in the government- university situation. (IIbii) The smaller the program, the greater the freedom the foundations accord the universities to formulate their ' own roles. II(c) The minor private sponsors, small foundations, student organi- zations, individual grantors, religious groups, etc., of the international programs of American universities tend to have a wide variety of perceptions relative to the international roles of American universities. (IIci) Since the number and size of the international programs sponsored by theSe groups is small compared to those sponsored by the government and large foundations, there is a tendency for them to reflect special characteristics derived primarily from the immediate nature of the circumstances in which they were started. In addition to the two sets of hypotheses above, dealing with various actors' perceptions of the universities' primary roles in inter- national relations, which is the primary focus of this study, a third set of different but related hypotheses will be explored. These hypothe- ses deal with the actual administrative or operational relationships between the universities and the sponsors of their international 19 programs, as viewed by the writer. While the question of "how" inter- national programs are administered is not as important as the fundamental questions of "why" and "what" international programs, it represents a major stumbling block to the operation of many university international programs. Universities and their sponsors have often appeared to be able to agree to undertake a particular international venture with a minimum of fuss over how clearly the policy objectives have been formulated or various contingencies provided for. Interviews with university and sponsoring personnel conducted for this study indicate that the ac- ceptance of the "idea" of an international program is likely to be ac- companied by professions of goodwill and good faith. It sometimes happens, however, that implementation of an "idea" raises issues that were not anticipated. Universities and their sponsors, for example, have been plagued by administrative and operational differences that occasionally have overshadowed the programs they have agreed to under- take. All agree that such differences are damaging, but, as this study will indicate, they persist. The nature of the problems raised when a program is put into operation is suggested by the following hypotheses. gypotheses on actual operating relation- ships between American universities participatgpg in internationalgprograms and their sponsors, as viewed by the writer III. Since many general administrative practices and attitudes of uni- versities and their sponsors tend to differ, the actual Operation . of international programs may create significant areas of dis- sension between the two parties. (Illa) 20 Dissension between the universities and their Sponsors on administrative matters tends to affect adversely the operation of international programs. Areas of Dissension (IIIai) (IIIaii) (1113111) (IIIBiv) (IIIav) (IIIavi) Fiscal control practices of many sponsoring organizations foster antagonisms on university campuses, while some sponsors (especially governmental sponsors) view the fiscal practices of some universities with suspicion. Disagreement on the allocation and performance of certain service responsibilities generates tensions which inter- fere with personnel performance. Partial withdrawal of the government from.the process of personnel selection for international programs has tended to reduce conflict between the universities and the government. lost universities tend to favor a minimum of identifi- cation with their sponsors while operating abroad; sponsors' reactions vary. lost universities tend to favor private sponsorship of international programs to government sponsorship. Cognizant of its broad public responsibilities, the U.S. Government as a sponsor tends to try to impose its administrative beliefs and practices on universities; government and university practices differ enough to cause significant friction between the two institutions. 21 (IIIavii) The administrative relationships between universities and non-government sponsors are more acceptable to the affected parties than are government-university relationships. (a) Non-government sponsors tend to operate under administrative patterns visit-v13 universities which reduce but do not eliminate sources of dis- agreement between the two institutions. The preceding hypotheses require clarification and expansion to demonstrate their relevance and significance to this study. Explanation of Guiding Hypotheses Hypothesis I suggests that most American university personnel do not differentiate between the universities' responsibilities and roles in American society and their responsibilities and roles in international society. The belief that American universities should provide a pre- scribed amount of course work for all students, regardless of their national allegiance, appears strong among university personnel. Most course work provided is basically the same for UtS. nationals and non- nationals. The subject matter tends to be attuned to the needs and purposes of American society. The appropriateness of this orientation in the minds of most university personnel is generally considered to be self-evident, given the striking progress of American society. Con- sideration for the peculiar needs of other nations and their students studying in the United States is reflected more in special administrative treatment than in special educational procedures. Few American 22 university persons have attempted to relate the education of non- nationals to the problems of international relations and the development of the particular foreign countries involved. It is a widely held con- viction among university personnel that training non-nationals through American methods and in subject matter geared to the American level of development is sufficient, and that such training will benefit other countries and enhance the world position of the United States.10 Uhen American universities permit their own personnel to repre- sent them abroad under international programs, they tend to believe that their representatives are primarily agents for transferring American educational techniques and achievements. The emphasis is strongly on striving to develop methods and instill values abroad which are charac- teristic of American universities and acceptable to the sponsors of international programs. Attempts to assist others to maximize the potentials of their own cultures are relatively weak, as are efforts by American university personnel abroad to comprehend the environment in which they operate and the possible lessons to be learned from foreign experiences. Therconsequences may well be that the impact of American universities on those foreign institutions and countries in which they operate is diminished while the impact on the American.university through its personnel who have had foreign experience may be severely blunted. When American universities undertake to train non-nationals on their own campuses, they tend to disclaim any concern for or knowledge 10For an analysis of how foreign students are handled on Ameri- can university campuses, see Cora DuBois, Foreign Students and Highg§_ Education in the United States (washington: American Council on Edu- cation, 1956), Chapter 12, entitled "Campus Policies and Practices," pp. 165-197. 23 of the students' positions relative to various elites in their own countries. thwithstanding theis area of indifference or lack of know- ledge about foreign students, there exists the notion among university personnel that they are grooming potential leaders of foreign countries. The belief that these foreign charges will find important positions upon their return.home is widespread, although seldom substantiated. One might speculate that American university personnel are blinded somewhat by the relatively open and unreflective atmosphere of American society and that they overvalue an American education for a non-national. The result is that there persists in American universities the belief that these institutions can accept for training a wide variety of foreign students without particular regard to their statuses in their own socie- ties and that as a result of their American university experience they will be accepted as equipped to occupy leadership positions in their home societies.11 The training given them consists mainly of a general introduction.to the cultural and intellectual heritage of the United States, joined to a considerable amount of concentration on the acqui- sition of some skills whith are or will be useful to society, normally to American or western societies. Thus the hypothesis strongly suggests that most American universities have not developed programs designed to 11The strengths and weaknesses of such assumptions are covered in such works as Richard D. Lambert and Marvin Bressler, Indian Students on an American Campus (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956); Herbert Passin and Robert K. McKnight, In Search of Identifig: The Japanese Overseas Scholar in America and Japan IMinneapolis: Uni- versity of Minnesota Press, 1958); Franklin D. Scott, The American Ex- pgrience of Swedish Students: Retrospect and Aftermath (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956); Jeanne Watson and Ronald Lippitt, learning Across Cultures: A Study of Germans Visiting America (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1955). These works are part of a series sponsored by the Committee on Cross-Cultural Education, Social Science Research.Council. 2M join certain aspects of the United States' technical competence to the needs of other societies, many of which are widely classified as "less- developed." As the sub-hypotheses to Hypothesis I indicate, there is a tendency for American university leaderships to consider participation in international programs as an important means to improve the prestige positions of their respective institutions. (See especially Sub- hypothesis I (If).) Some engage their institutions in international activities indiscriminately in the belief or hope that such involvement will bring their institutions into prominence and attract money and personnel. Other university leaders, also highly motivated by thoughts of prestige, carefully select the international programs and cooperating foreign institutions with which to become associated. The former group of universities tend to be relatively new to "academic society" or are trying to establish themselves, while the latter group generally has a distinguished reputation already established. Once the prestige factor is ascertained and thought to be assured, most American university leaders reflect on.how appropriate international programs are for American universities in general and their respective institutions in particular. Their reflections tend to be expressed in very vague generalities mainly concerned with the ad- vancement of knowledge and international humanitarianism. (See Sub- hypothesis I (Ic).) Since universities are assumed to be institutions dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake and for its application to the needs of society, and to be humane institutions, university leaderships can justify international commitments of great magnitude and diversity vhich appear to be designed to promote these 25 goals. Thus they often conclude that their international pursuits are in.harmony with their national responsibilities and goals. (See Sub- hypotheses I (Ia) and (1b).) But when this same university leadership group attempts to analyze the relationship of the universities' general role in society to the attainment of certain political goals promoted by nonduniversity groups who are sponsors of universities abroad, that leadership group pursues a tortuous course to rationalize its own behavior. Regardless of some misgivings, the policy-makers for American universities assert, in a manner that may suggest false bravado, that the reconcilement of the universities' international commitments and their general role in society has been achieved. Implicit in these sub-hypotheses is the suggestion that those persons who have a direct operational responsibility for an international program of an American university are somewhat more specific than their policymaking superiors about the goals and roles of the institutions in international relations. They tend to speak more in terms of what their universities are doing abroad than what benefits accrue to their own institutions from participation in international programs. This is not to say that they are uninterested in improving the status of their own institutions; but they emphasize contributions to others over benefits to themselves. Foreign student advisers are a bit more ambivalent on this point than the program coordinators just mentioned, for they must concern themselves not only with what foreign students learn from their sojourns on American university campuses, but also with the impact they have on these campuses. Despite the demands of handling many of the details of training foreign students in the United States, the foreign student advisers are vigorous in contending that the primary value of'the 26 foreign student's American training for all parties concerned lies in the contributions he can make in his own and international society. « The possibility that the status, character, and role of American uni- versities might be permanently affected by international activities appears to have arisen only recently to the level of awareness among those persons with day-to-day responsibilities for international programs and students. In the aggregate, American university personnel who have any knowledge of their universities' international programs display a sur- prisingly higi degree of disappointment, indifference, and confusion concerning these programs. (See Sub-hypothesis I (Ih).) The inter- viewers had assumed that universities participated with considerable enthusiasm in international programs. While there are “pockets" of highly vocal enthusiasts on most of the thirty-five campuses visited for this study, there are also large numbers~of persons who are very uncertain about the wisdom of participation. The result is that a sig- nificant number of universities are plagued with internal disagreements on.what the international role of the university Should be. The dis- agreements seldom prevent involvement by a university, but they do create unsettled operating circumstances.' Amid the difficulties and uncertainties surrounding many inter- national programs of American universities, few universities reflect on the creative possibilities which might be developed through international activity. Sub-hypothesis I (Ii) suggests that the time has not yet arrived when universities can perceive opportunities to produce for others and harvest for themselves contributions which might alter the character of the major actors in the system under study as well as the 27 nature of their relationships. One thesis of this study is that the universities have indeed altered their roles in international relations through a complex of forces mostly external to the universities, but they have yet to become aware of the significance of their altered roles. On all campuses visited there were voices raised extolling the advantages for'the universities, sponsors, cooperating institutions, and mankind inherent in international programs. 0n only a few campuses could the university personnel point to examples of how the universities' inter- national experiences were making positive, new contributions to the universities, or indicate evidence of intentions to incorporate in their programs any results of their foreign contacts. In the first set of hypotheses the emphasis has been on the self-image American universities and their personnel hold; the second set of hypotheses deals with the views held by the sponsors of uni- versity-related international programs. It has been indicated previ- ously that the most important sponsors, for the purposes of this study, are the U.S. Government and large foundations. Secondary sponsors include small foundations, religious groups, business organizations, etc. Discussion of the second set of hypotheses excludes universities as sponsors since their perception of their international roles is covered by the first set of hypotheses. Most sponsors have goals for their own organizations. These goals may require the utilization of other institutions, universities in this study, for>their achievement. This may mean that the goals of the universities may be subordinated to the goals of the sponsors if they conflict, that the universities may be permitted to pursue their own goals in conjunction with the pursuit of the sponsors' goals if 28 they do not conflict, or that the universities may increase the possi- bility of achieving their goals through the pursuit of the sponsors' goals if the two sets of goals are the same or complementary. universi- ties tend to believe that the last mentioned circumstance prevails, or they ignore the possibility that their sponsors may have goals that conflict with their own. Hypothesis II suggests that the sponsors of American universities' international programs emphasize their own goals, often to the exclusion of the universities' goals. In the broadest terms, there appears to be relatively little comprehension on the part of the sponsors as to what universities might hope to get out of inter- national programs under their sponsorship. This is not true of all sponsors. It tends to be more characteristic of the 0:3. Government than it does of foundations; but the situation is rare in which the universities' and the sponsors' goals are one and both perceive this agreement. Sponsors tend to bury university goals in glittering plati- tudes and then move on to specify clearly university responsibilities to the sponsors' pursuit of the sponsors' goals. The result frequently is an acrimonious quarrel among the major actors involved, or a more or less brilliant lesson in subterfuge. Since the 0.3. Government has international goals which are widely accepted as more important than university goals, and since the government occupies a status superior to that of universities in inter- national relations and one which requires a different role, government foreign policy elites easily rationalize their emphasis on universities as instruments of foreign policy. The press of their day-to-day problems precludes much attention to university goals which do not correspond to immediate and anticipated needs of the government. (See 29 Subehypothesis IIai). Fbr example, the U.S. Government casts its inter- national action largely in terms of amassing the wherewithal to contain and diminish what it perceives to be the "Communist threat to the Free Herld.“ whatever the advisability and feasibility of such a general goal, it is not unreasonable to assume that the pursuit of it requires the application of large quantities and many varieties of resources. One such resource is the educational system of the United States, and in this case, the institutions of higher education. when foreign policy elites begin to introduce such resources as universities directly into international relations through financial and policy relationships formalized in a contract, there is a real likelihood that these elites will tend to subordinate university goals to national goals. Even if university goals in international relations are compatible with those of government sponsors, there is a widespread tendency for them to be lost in the world of governmental administration as the bureaucratic machine attempts to rumble toward the official goals set for it. Many tap administrators of government policy in the area of university contracts for international programs simply state that they consider the universities to be one among many instruments for the achievement of foreign policy goals. They are seldom concerned with analyzing the role of universities in American society, not to mention international society. that they are looking for are means to a par- ticular goal, and some feel that universities can be useful in this or that instance.12 If such attitudes prevail in important elite posts in government, and the data collected for this study indicate how 12Special attention should be given to the activities of the Central Intelligence Agency in this regard. 30 widespread they are, it is highly probable that little attention has been given or is being given by the U.S. Government to the effects of international programs on the development of American universities. Large foundations also sponsor a significant number of the international programs of American universities. As Sub-hypotheses IIbi and IIbii suggest, these sponsors tend to relate the explicitness of their role expectations of universities to the size of the inter- national program. The larger the foundation-sponsored university program, the more elaborate is the control structure imposed by the foundation on the university likely to be, and the more explicit the program goals. Many foundations have general country or area policies abroad which reflect their interests and goals. To some extent they pursue these goals through their own organizations, utilizing university personnel as staffs to a large degree, but as staffs acting inde- pendently of universities. But they frequently find it necessary, convenient, advisable, practical, etc. to call upon universities as such to perform.certain program functions. On some occasions, the foundations solicit university participation in a manner suggesting that the universities originated the idea of a program.13 Or they may openly shop for an institution interested in a particular program financed by the foundation. In a few cases, the foundations move in to underwrite a program.which a university may have started on its own or through the assistance of another sponsor such as the 0.3. Government. Regardless of how the university and the foundations come together, there are strong indications that the universities involved in large 13For a foundation's description of this practice see "What Carnegie Corporation Is,“ Quarterly (New York: Carnegie Corporation of New Ibrk, April 1959), vol. VII, NO. 2, especially page 6. 31 foundation-sponsored programs are likely to defer to the program goals of the foundations. Consequently, it is possible that broad university goals in international relations may be secondary if not incidental to foundation goals. Comparatively small international programs financed by large foundations tend to approximate conditions described by Sub-hypotheses II(c) and IIci. That is, when supporting grants are small and/or the grantor is small, the universities appear to have greater freedom to perform an international role basically of their own design. It is in the arena of small university international programs that "anything goes." There is no pattern which describes the variety of relation- ships and objectives which persist among the universities and their sponsors under these conditions. The most widespread characteristic among them is that they provide the universities with the greatest opportunity to operate independently of, often in ignorance of, the international goals of government elites. However, the possibility that the small size and scope of such programs tends to reduce their importance as compared to government and foundation-sponsored programs in the eyes of foreign policy elites is reflected in a higher level of indifference respondents in this study displayed when queried on the subject. Hypothesis III and the related sub-hypotheses have been formu- lated to indicate the influence of administrative procedures on inter- national programs, and differences in administrative practices of the universities and their sponsors. There is considerable evidence to indicate that universities as whole institutions hardly participate in the negotiations and decision-making processes leading up to their 32 international involvement. These decisions are made at a variety of levels of university administration. It is fairly common to find that top university leadership is unaware of the origins or goals of large- scale programs in which its own institution is involved. This study will describe the numerous ways in which international programs get started at American universities. When a program actually begins to operate, its ramifications are felt throughout a wide circle of university personnel. The adminis- trative ramifications may become a major cause of frustration, joy, and sorrow for the universities involved. Nearly all American university personnel interviewed who have been at all familiar with international programs delighted in relating the administrative problems which have been part of the programs' operations. This they did without prodding. They generally had much less to say about the goals or value of their universities' international activities. The prominence of the adminis- trative factors in universities' international programs will be explored later in this study. For now it appears appropriate to suggest that the universities perceive themselves as special institutions in society which merit special administrative consideration on the part of their sponsors. Their failure to receive this consideration in important instances has provoked an interesting "war" between those who pay and those who perform.1u 1“Fer example see the reports of the American Council on Edu- cation's Committee on Institutional Projects Abroad, issued annually from 1955-1960, under the general editorship of Richard A. Humphrey. The Committee on Institutional Projects Abroad attempts to provide regular opportunities for the discussion of international programs in- volving American universities. Discussants include representatives from universities and sponsoring organizations. Since the Committee's first major meeting in 1955, administrative differences between the universi- ties and their sponsors have been a major area of discussion at every meeting. 33 Pelicy_Significance of Hypotheses If the testing of the preceding hypotheses has significance for social scientists, it is anticipated that the conclusions drawn from such testing and the data used to perform the examination will have relevance for policy-makers. Since the main focus of this study, as indicated by the hypotheses, is on what American universities' roles in international relations are and how universities and their sponsors perceive their performances in these roles, it is possible that uni- versity, foundation, government, and other sponsoring agencies' leader- ships will draw implications from it which influence their decisions. A few of what the author considers, on the basis of extensive interviews with university and sponsoring groups' personnel, to be the most signifi- cant policy implications of this study follow. The hypotheses may suggest additional important issues to others; however, the nature of the data collected for this study imposes limitations on.how many documented policy suggestions can be advanced. The opening remarks of this study stated that some American universities have altered their roles in recent years so as to partici- pate directly in international programs. For some this is a new venture and for others this represents an expansion of activities started years ago. But the vast majority of American universities are only indirectly affected by international educational experiences, or apparently un- affected. Regardless of the degree of American universities' present involvement in international relations, it is probable that a growing number of universities will be required to make important policy decisions in this area as international contacts and contracts grow. Given the prominent position of the united States in international 34 affairs and the growing need for educational services throughout the world, it seems almost certain that American universities will be faced with mounting pressures to participate in many aspects of international relations. Thus the number of non-participants probably will decline in the future, and the indirect influence of the international experiences of other universities on.the remaining non-participants is likely to increase. As the number of participating universities grows and their influence as well as that of other institutions and individuals becomes more pervasive, the pressure may mount for American universities to evolve a new philosophy of education adapted to their new experiences and responsibilities. This, then, could mean that international experiences would suggest to American university personnel a critical re-examination of Hypothesis I. This starting point could lead to still further con- sideration of a new status and role for American universities both in the United States and internationally. The development of a truly international type of university in the united States is a possibility which far-sighted university policy-makers might explore. If academic thinking‘has not yet advanced to this point, there still remain scores *of significant policy matters suggested by the growing international activities of universities which could alter the present national emphasis in.higher education. Host American universities that are likely to undertake interw national programs have at least a vague notion of what such activity is. Therefore, the first policy question they face is why they should engage in such a program. They must balance the contributions they might hope to make to others and to other causes against the benefits they might- 35 derive for themselves from an international program. In this area of decision-making, university leaderships are confronted Mith a multitude of imponderables and a wide expanse of "no knowledge." They have not yet found a way to put international programs into terms which permit them to weigh the ”costs" of involvement against the possible "profits." If this study can contribute a few suggestions in this general area, universities may be able to assume an international role with their goals in sharper focus. Once universities are able to achieve a "feeling" for why they desire to participate in international programs (and to many the answer to "why" is never much clearer than a "feeling"), they then begin to meet a series of operational problems which require policy decisions of the top leadership. The following list of questions represents some of the problems most frequently mentioned by university personnel: 1) How are international programs to be staffed? a. What percentage of overseas personnel should come from the home campus? b. that requirements for employment abroad should be established? c. that requirements for selection of non-nationals to come to a U.S. campus should be established? d. How shall faculty members' and campus administrators' partici- pation in an international program be related to universities' reward structures? 2) How are international programs to be related to the universities' other responsibilities? a. How are they to be programmed and administered on the home campus? 36 b. How can the university utilize the experiences of the persons involved in international programs to the best advantage of all the affected parties? c. that are the universities' abilities to handle international programs without foregoing other important goals? d. that types of international programs are most appropriate for which universities? 3) that relationships between universities and other institutions are developed and fostered as a result of international programs and what are the consequences of these relationships? As the universities' sponsors observe these institutions' attempts to develop some rationale for their international commitments, they too must seek answers to the policy questions raised, for they have been instrumental in creating the environment in which these kinds of questions are significant. Without financing from sources outside of the universities, the universities could not have moved as far from their campuses as they have, nor could they have provided for the thousands of foreign students, professors, and non-academic personnel who have visited their campuses. Without the program stimulus of many of the sponsors, it is doubtful that the universities would, at this time, have generated the complex of activities and relationships which charac- terize their international programs. Inasmuch as the sponsors have contributed much to the policy questions confronting universities, they must join with the universities in comprehending and solving their problems. I In addition to assisting the universities to reach policy de- cisions relative to international programs which maximize the possible 37 benefits to all actors and minimize unwanted consequences, the sponsors must grapple with several major questions which are almost solely within their competence to answer. First, they need guidelines which are helpful in answering the questions of how much money?, for what purpose?, to whom?, in what form?, and for what period of time? These are key variables which must be controlled before any university can function effectively in international relations. This study cannot offer defini- tive answers to the preceding questions, but the data contained herein should be suggestive of ways to approach these problems. Secondly, sponsors will ask, should relationships between the sponsors and the universities be direct or indirect, formal or informal, or should a wide variety of relationships be encouraged? Should sponsors unify their financing efforts and standardize their practices? The data to be used for testing the second and third sets of hypotheses of this study will indicate to a considerable degree how American uni- versity personnel feel on these questions, and to a lesser degree the sponsors' feelings and reactions. Since the issue of who is going to control international programs is at stake, the findings of this study may make a significant contribution to an important policy area. Although this study does not cover the policy implications of American universities' international programs for the foreign cooperating institutions and groups, it does offer some suggestions for over-all policies related to the roles of American universities in international relations. Such policies will have at least indirect effects on foreign institutions; however, this study does not attempt to measure such effects. This very important policy area is discussed in a series of "country" or "region studies" being completed under the auspices of the 38 Institute of Research on Overseas Programs at Michigan State university. If the present study can make a constructive contribution to the formu- lation of a general international role for American universities, it will have strengthened an important dimension of international relations. To this point, an attempt has been made to establish the ana- lytical framework for this study and to describe its scope. tithin the compass of two social scientific concepts, i.e., role and elite, an examination of the general role of American universities in international relations as of 1958-59, as perceived primarily by university and sponsoring organization personnel, will be undertaken. The study will not include perceptions of American universities held by these foreign institutions or groups which cooperate with American universities and their sponsors in this international venture. The role perceptions utilized have been cast in the form of hypotheses which will be tested against a veriety of data to be described. CHAPTER II DEFINITIONS AND METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION his study uses several terms in a manner which may require some clarification. The terms "role" and "elite" have already been described as they apply to this study. Several other terms which indi- cate the focus and method of this study appear frequently, and others are offered which tend to define certain boundaries of the present research. A discussion of how these terms are related to this study may decrease the area of misunderstanding which often exists between author and reader. The key actor in this study is the American university. The term ”university" is used to denote any institution of higher education in the United States which is listed in the Education Directory, Part 3, Mer Education published by the U.S. Office of Education. Thus many Junior colleges and other academic institutions utilizing the term "college" are included in the single designation of "university" for the purposes of this study. Consequently, "university" is used in a Purely descriptive manner without attempting to differentiate insti- tutions of himer education. Such a choice has been made with the full knowledge that terms like "college" and "university" generally are used in a more restrictive manner and frequently connote different status and prestige levels. But for present purposes, such distinctions are of secondary importance and the convenience of a single term describing a multiplicity of institutions with a core of comparable characteristics 39 no argues favorably against the use of several more exact terms and/or the use of more ponderous phrases, e.g., “institutions of higher education." The significant acts which universities perform and in which we , are interested are either classifiable under the term 'international program" or are related to that term in a reasonable manner. -Basically, for any activity to qualify here as an "international program," it must involve the sending or receiving of persons or things between an Ameri- can university and a cooperating institution in a foreign country, as part of a relationship for which the American university, or subdivision of it, accepts institutional responsibility for at least one year. Since the Institute of Research on Overseas Programs' (IROP) The Inter- national Prggrams of American universities1 represents the most recent and complete inventory of this facet of universities' activities, it has been used in this study to identify those universities engaged in inter- national programs, their sponsors, and the character of their involve- nmnts. ”Related acts" of import to this study include acts of adminis- trative and intellectual support for a program which are not specified in any formal way. For example, some universities active in inter- national programs attempt to incorporate some of the experiences gained under an international program into their curricula although they may not be required to do so by any agreement instituting an international Program, According to the IROP study, l8u American universities were involved in 382 international programs during 1958. Thus the data for ‘ 1Institute of Research on Overseas Programs, The International W of American Universities: An Inventory and Elysis (East Iansing, thehigan: Institute of Research on Overseas Programs, 1958). #1 this study have been drawn from a portion of the 18% universities having international programs; and it should be re-emphasized that this study deals principally with those 382 sets of operations which conform to the preceding definition of international programs. Excluded are the com- plex independent activities related to universities which cause persons or things to move internationally. Probably the most prominent of these exclusions are the actions of foreign students studying inde- pendently at American universities and actions of American students studying in foreign universities on their own. Such activities have been and still are under the scrutiny of many researchers in several fields of academic endeavor.2 Selection of Universities Studied Thirty of the lBu American universities with international programs were selected for intensive study through interviewing. Five other universities without international programs were included in the sample for purposes of control and comparison. The total sample, then, consists of thirty-five universities, thirty of which have one or more international programs and five of which have none. The selection of the thirty universities having international programs was made by dis- tributing the total pepulation of 18# such institutions into thirty categories according to the number of programs they hadt The thirty categories were determined by dividing thirty into the 382 international Iuograms, thereby making thirteen programs the characteristic of a cate- Sony. This weighted the sample in favor of those institutions with the ‘— ZSee especially the several books on foreign students in the United States sponsored by the Committee on Cross~Cultural Education, Social Science Research Council, cited in Chapter I, at p. 23. #2 greater number of programs, and virtually assured the inclusion of every university having approximately thirteen programs, e.g., Harvard and Cornell. To select those universities from categories having more than one institution (for example, there were several categories with thirteen universities each having one program), a table of random numbers was used. The result might be described as a weighted, somewhat randomized sample. A similar procedure was followed to select the five institutions without programs. The institutions with programs were first divided into five categories instead of thirty. Then.five institutions with programs were selected from these five categories, by means of a table of random numbers. These five universities in turn were matched against five universities without programs that had the most similar enrollment figures as reported in the 1957 Education Directory, Part 3, Higher Education and were similarly situated geographically. These five insti- tutions without programs are referred to as "controls" in this study. The sample of universities is as follows: 1) Thirty Institutions Having International Programs Augustana College and Theological Seminary, Rock Island, Illinois California, University of, Berkeley, California Chicago, university of, Chicago, Illinois Cornell University, Ithaca, New York Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia Harvard university, Cambridge, Massachusetts Houston, University of, Houston, Texas Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Illinois Illinois State Nermal university, Nermal, Illinois Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana Kentucky, University of, Lexington, Kontucky Maine, University of, Orono, Maine Marymount College, Tarrytown, New York ' Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts Miami, University of, Coral Gables, Florida Minnesota, University of, Minneapolis, Minnesota Hebraska, University of, Lincoln, Nebraska Nerthwestern university, Evanston, Illinois 1+3 Oblate College and Seminary, Bar Harbor, Maine Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma Oregon State College, Corvallis, Oregon Pacific Union College, Angwin, California Prairie View Agricultural and Mechanical College, Prairie View, Texas Rockford College, Rockford, Illinois Stanford University, Stanford, California Stout State College, Menomonie, Wisconsin Tennessee, University of, Knoxville, Tennessee Texas Agricultural and Mechanical College, College Station, Texas tayne State University, Detroit, Michigan testern College for Women, Oxford, Ohio 2) Five Control Institutions Having No International Programs Georgia, University of, Athens Georgia Nerth Texas State College, Denton, Texas Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, New Yerk tashington, University of, Seattle, Washington tittenberg College, Springfield, Ohio Organizations and groups which participate in the support and sponsorship of international programs represent the second major type of actor of importance to this study. Sponsors of international programs were divided into three broad categories. The first category was composed of U.S. Government agencies which are legally charged with the responsibility for sponsoring in a systematic fashion the partici- pation of American universities in international programs. The most conspicuous example of this kind of sponsor was the International Co- operation Administration. Iarge, private foundations, such as Ferd, Carnegie, and Rockefeller, constituted the second major category of sponsors. The third category consisted of a wide variety of organi~ zations and institutions interested in some aspect of international education and capable of implementing this interest over a period of time through financial support of a university program. Many religious groups, small foundations, community groups, and universities fit into this category. The use of public funds is an important characteristic of the institutions in the first category, while the sponsors in the 1.. -.‘:’ 0,! H “I 'o "4 3:.“ ‘I"! (v) an other two categories rely primarily on private funds to support the international programs of American universities. Data Collection Procedures Determination of the perceptions the two foregoing sorts of major, institutional actors held concerning the roles of American uni~ versities in international relations through international programs was attempted by two means. First, all available "knowledgeables," those persons with a reasonably recognizable interest in, or connection with, an international program and an affiliation with either a participating university or sponsoring organization, were interviewed in an effort to collect statements about the "what, why, and how" of international programs from their particular vantage points. Second, a wide variety of formal statements issued in the names of the participating universiu ties and their sponsors were examined for materials which would indicate institutional attitudes of direct consequence to the maintenance, growth, or reduction of international programs. In the first instance 303 persons or groups directly connected with universities engaged in international programs were interviewed. At the time they were interviewed, they either were actively engaged in some aspect of their institutions' international activities, or they had been so engaged, or they were about to become so engaged. Table 1 indicates the numbers of interviewees at each of the thirty universities having international programs, and it also lists the number of programs each institution was engaged in during the period from September 1958 ~ June 1959 when the interviews were conducted. “5 TABLE 1 NUMBER OF INTERVIEHEES AND INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS. CLASSIFIED BY UNIVERSITIES INCLUDED IN SAMPLE N“ no. of z (2) is No. of % (u) is S of Inter- of Total Inter- of Total Total viewees no. of national Nb. of Nb. of at Inter- Programs Programs Programs University Univ. viewees Conducted (120) (382) in (303) at in 1958 - Conducted Conducted Sample all Uhiv. 59 by in 1958 - in 1958 - in Sample Univ. in 59 by all 59 by all Sample Univ. in Uhiv. in Sample U.S. (1) (2) (3) (u) (5) (6) Augustana 5 1.6 3 2.5 .7 U. of Calif., Berkeley 27 8.8 7 5.8 1.8 U. of Chicago 18 5.9 7 5.8 1.8 Cornell 19 6.3 11 9.3 2.8 Emory 1 .3 1 .8 .3 Harvard )1 10.2 19 16.0 ”.9 U. of Houston 2 .6 2 1.7 .5 Ill. Inst. of Tech. 2 .6 1 .8 .3 I11. state Nermal 6 2.0 1 .8 .3 Indiana 13 11.2 7 5.8 1.8 U. of Kentucky 12 3.9 2 1.7 .5 U. of Maine 3 1.0 1 .8 .3 ,Marymount 5 1.6 u 3.“ 1.0 N.I.T. 7 3.2 2 1.7 .5 U. of Miami 9 3.0 7 5.8 1.8 U. of Minnesota 11 3.7 u 3.u 1.0 U. of Hebraska 16 5.2 1 .8 .3 Nerthwestern 8 2.6 7 5.8 1.8 Oblate 1 .3 1 .8 .3 Oklahoma state 16 5.2 3 2.5 .7 Pacific Union 1 .3 l .8 .3 Oregon State 6 2.0 1 .8 .3 Prairie View A & M 12 3.9 l .8 .3 Rockford 8 2.6 2 1.7 .5 Stanford 23 7.7 7 5.8 1.8 Stout state a 1.3 1 .8 .3 U. of Tennessee 13 ",2 ‘5 u.2 1.3 Texas A a u 5 1.6 1 .8 .3 tayne State 12 3.9 7 5.8 1.8 testers College for tomen 7 2.3 3 2.5 .7 Total 303 100.0 120 100.0 31.0 146 Possible interviewees were originalxy identified with the as- sistance of the presidents or comparable university officials of those universities with international programs, through responses of those officials to a questionnaire distributed by the Institute of Research 3 In that questionnaire, on Overseas Programs, Michigan State university. the presidents identified the person or persons on their campuses who had been assigned primary, official responsibility for the conduct of international programs. Fer convenience, such persons are referred to in this study as "coordinators." Contact with the program coordinators resulted in the identification of other possible interviewees. Ar- rangements to meet with such knowledgeables as the coordinators as well as others were, in most cases, made through the presidents' offices of the various universities included in the sample. However, occasionally persons generally known to have a part in a particular international program were approached directly with the knowledge of the affected university president. university administrators, program coordinators, and interested faculty all suggested numerous potential interviewees. while the list of interviewees grew in a random fashion, the focus on those persons who had some overt relationShip to or interest in inter- national programs was maintained. To a very limited extent interviewing was influenced by the circumstances of time and place. Every effort was made to schedule as many interviews as possible in advance of the arrival of the interviewer on a particular campus. But, occasionally, unexpected opportunities or difficulties altered the plan or the interviewers' visits. The very _‘ 3This questionnaire is reproduced in Institute of Research on Overseas Programs, op, cit., pp. 316 and 317. by a: I’ll “7 h1g1 level of interest in this study exhibited by all university person- nel assured the interviewers a congenial welcome. To maximize the con- geniality of the atmosphere in which the interviews took place, the interviewers provided the interviewees with the normal assurances of anomity. Although such assurances are generally considered conducive to candor, in themselves they offer no assurance that candor will actually be forthcoming. The conduct and content of the interviews menselves must convince the skeptical. In the opinions of the author, 111110 conducted approximately seventy-five per cent of the interviews, and of the others who conducted the interviews utilized in this study, “lose persons who gave of their time, which ranged from thirty minutes to several days, did so with the feeling that they wanted to make a constructive contribution to a fledgling effort in a complex field. The interviews were frequently occasions for interviewees to collect many <1l‘l-Vrerse thougxts about their experiences with international programs and to systematize them through the medium of a primarily open-ended 1rl‘herview. Probably, then, the interviews represent more or less candid statements of the levels and types of thinking among university personnel "110 are considered knowledgeable in the field of university programs. Because it is commonly believed that persons with different o(3(2'I1pational and interest orientations to and relationships with uni- versities have different outlooks on such subjects as international I)z':'°graxlas, the interviewees have been classified along three lines. The that category is "administrative," the second "teaching," and the third ug'tudent." The interviewees have been distributed among these cate- 8(51‘1es on the basis of their own descriptions of their primary universi- try I. eStilts of such a distribution. roles at the time they were interviewed. Table 2 illustrates the #8 TABLE 2 DISTRIBUTION OF INTERVIEWEES BY PRIMARY UNIVERSITY ROLES Number of z of Total No. Types of Roles Interviewees of Interviewees (l) (2) (3) Administrative 152 50.2 Teaching ‘ 126 #1.6 Student I 25 8.2 Total 303 100.0 Similar but less extensive interviews were conducted among personnel of two major sponsors of international programs, i.e., large foundations and the U:S. Government. Twenty-three representatives of the Ferd and Rockefeller Foundations and of the Carnegie Corporation in addition to eighty-seven U.S. Government officials contributed their observations to this study. Fifty of the interviews with government personnel took place at overseas posts and the remaining thirty-seven werelconducted in the United States, primarily in waShington, D.C. All interviewees among government and foundation personnel, lufldke university personnel, have been classified as "administrative" fbr’the purposes of this study. The government interviewees ranged in administrative rank from ambassadors and agency heads to program of- ricials in overseas missions. Such officials are generally considered tO'be holders of positions of importance and responsibility. They all have significant contact with international programs. The same holds true for foundation representatives, although contact with foundation #9 presidents was possible and practical while similar access to the Presi- dent of the United States was not. Consequently, it is felt that a reasonable effort was made to collect the comments of those pe0p1e from sponsoring organizations who are the top "knowledgeables" in the field of international programs. Systematic interviewing was not done among the large numbers of other organizations that participate in the sponsorship of the inter- national programs of American universities. While the comments of personnel associated with these organizations would have been helpful, personal contact with them was beyond the resources available for this study. To compensate in part for this shortcoming, serious attention has been given to secondary materials describing the commitments such organizations have made to international education as a facet of inter- national relations. Characteristics of the Universities and Programs in the Sample The names of the universities in the sample used for this study and the way in which the sample was drawn have been indicated. Two characteristics of this group of universities are worth describing in that they provide keys to understanding past trends of international Program.deve10pment and predicting future develOpments. They are size of institution and type of control exercised over the institution. As Table 3 shows, the sample is heavily weighted in favor of larger institutions. This is a natural outcome of the fact that numbers ofprograms were emphasized in drawing the sample originally. The 1arger institutions tend to have greater resources or are able to attract more outside support for international programs than the smaller 50 institutions. Thus the number of programs at large universities has grown, increasing the likelihood that such institutions would appear in the sample. Since this growth pattern.has been characteristic of the u last decade, and since it appears probable that this pattern will con- tinue as long as foundations and the government are interested in the international services of American universities, the sample, although dominated by larger institutions, is well adapted to a study of the roles of American universities in international relations. TABLE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF UNIVERSITIES BY SIZE Universities in Sample All U.S. Universities Having International (30) Programs (184) During 1958-1959 Size of university (1958-1959 Enrollment) ‘_‘ No. of Percent- No. of Percent- Universities age Universities age (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1. very Large (15,000 and over) 5 16.7 20 11.0 2. Large (8,000-1u,999) 9 30.0 19 1 10.5 3. Medium (21°00'73999) 9 30-0 70 37- 6 4. Small (Less than 2,000) 7 23.3 75 no.9 Total 30 100.0 18# 100.0 a 20-21, for supporting data. See Institute of Research on Overseas Programs, op, cit., pp. 51 Since public universities tend to be larger than most private universities, it is not surprising to find that almost half of the sample consists of public universities (See Table u). Moreover, the same factors which increased the probability that large universities would be heavily represented in the sample caused a like inclusion of public universities. As the IROP study shows, the large and, in most cases, public universities have attracted the major share of the new government and foundation funds earmarked for international programs. There is no strong evidence that the distribution of such funds will change in favor of small universities in the future. Quite the contra- ry, for it is the Opinion of responsible commentators that foundations are favoring larger programs by large institutions rather than smaller programs by small universities and independent scholars.5 Thus while the large, public universities may be over-represented numerically in the sample used for this study, their representation has afforded the interviewers an opportunity to collect a significant amount of data from the "front-runners" in international programs. 5A specific example is contained in Joseph C. Kiger, Operating Princi 1es of the Lar er Foundations (New York: Russell Sage Foun- dation, I95E), pp. 38-39. Similar comments are included in Abraham Flexner, Funds and Foundations: Their’Policies Past and Present (New York: Harper, 1952); Dwight Macdonald, The Ford Foundation: The Men and the Millions (New York: Reynal and Co., 1956); and Raymond B. Fosdick, The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation (New York: Harper, 1952). An examination or the Annual Reports of the three largest foun- dations for a five year period indicates that large universities receive an ever-increasing proportion of the money dispensed annually. 52 TABLE 4 DISTRIBUTION OF UNIVERSITIES BY TYPE OF CONTROL Univs. in the Sample All U.S. Univs. Having (30) International Programs (184) during 1958-1959 Type of Control No. of Percentage No. of Percentage Univs. Univs. (l) (2) (3) (1+) (5) Public 1n u7.o 71 38.5 a. Land-Grant (11) (37.0) (39) (21.2) b. NOt Land-Grant ( 3) (10.0) (32) (17.3) Private 16 53.0 113 61.5 a. Religious ( 5) (16.0) (43) (23.3) b. Not Religious (11) (37.0) (70) (38.2) Total 30 100.0 184 100.0 ~0f related interest is the fact that eleven of fourteen public universities used for this study are land-grant universities. While land-grant universities represent less than four per cent of the total number of American universities, they figure prominently in inter- national programs as a result of their active participation in the ICA- financed technical assistance programs. A glance at any ICA financial report or an examination of The International Programs of American Uni- versities will serve to show that more money is spent in international programs by land-grant universities than by any other type of university. Although money is only one factor in international programs, its im- DOrtance is never overlooked by those who are responsible for this aSpect of international education. 53 Table 5 shows the primary sources of funds for the 120 inter- national programs operated by the thirty American universities in the sample. Similar data are also provided for all university-related international programs. Part of the decision to emphasize the role perceptions of large foundations and the U.S. Government in this study was influenced by their prominence as sponsors of the programs included in the sample. Together they provide funds for over fifty-five per cent of the programs under study. The sixty-five programs sponsored by these institutions, according:to The International Programs of American Uni- versities, far overshadow the fifty-five programs sponsored by other institutions (See Table 5), in terms of money, personnel, materials, TABLE 5 PRIMARY SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS International Programs All International in Sample (120) Programs in Operation During 1958-1959 Sources of Funds No. of Percent- No. of Percent- Programs age Programs age (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 038. Government #2 35.0 120 31.u Iflrge Foundations 23 19.2 45 7 11.8 Other 55 #5.8 217 56.8 Total 120 100.0 382 100.0 cOmlplex commitments, and institutional interrelationships. For example, the budgets for most of the large foundation and government programs are rockoned in millions of dollars while not one of the programs financed 5n by other sponsors has a comparable budget. Therefore, this study not only gives primary attention to large institutions, but also stresses the activities of American universities within the context of relatively large international programs. In summary, this study uses as its most important source of information thirty American universities having responsibility for 120 international programs. The bulk of interviewing and other forms of data collection have been done in c00peration with large, public uni- versities. Although such universities frequently are involved in a variety of international programs, their personnel were able to comment most extensively on the larger programs and sponsors. This emphasis on size is primarily an outcome of the way in which the sample was drawn, but it also represents an assumption on the part of the author and other interviewers that such an emphasis represented the best application of available resources and that it would result in more significant con- clusions in terms of future developments involving universities in international relations. The activities of smaller universities and smaller international programs have not been forgotten, nor have they been overlooked because they are meaningless. Since time and money were limited, the work of smaller institutions was not the center of this study, but lay on the margins. CHAPTER III BACKGROUND MATERIALS RELATED TO THE CURRENT PARTICIPATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES IN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS The involvement of American universities as whole institutions in international relations is primarily a phenomenon of this century. Before 1900, universities were rarely responsible for the deve10pment or operation of a program related to a foreign institution. They con- tributed faculty to a wide variety of foreign missions on behalf of governments, foundations, and religious organizations, but as universi- ties they did not make extensive international commitments.1 During the same period, university students engaged in foreign educational travel and foreign students were beginning to arrive in the United States; however, such ideas as the "Junior-year-abroad" were not de- veloped until the 1920's and systematic exchanges of students were still in an embryonic state.2 Thus the contacts of American universities as wholes in the international field were for the most part indirect. Initiative and direct responsibility for international programs by American universities have been stimulated by a complex of national and —_ 1For a detailed survey of these missions see Merle Curti and Kendall Birr, Prelude to Point Four: American Technical Missions Over- seas, 1838-1938 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1951;). 2The history of the exchange of persons idea is traced in Guy 3; MEtraux, Exchange of Persons: The Evolution of Cross-Cultural Edu- cation (New Ybrk: Social Science Research Council, June 1952), especially Chapter 1. 55 56 international developments occurring in the first half of the twentieth century. The developments from 1838 to 1938, which Curti and Birr refer to as the "prelude," were promoted in many ways. Some were the creation of highly motivated religious missionary groups who traversed numerous areas of the world extolling the dual virtues of Christianity and of western civilization as interpreted and practiced in the united States. Some were fostered by the interest of the U.S. Government in exploring, exploiting, pacifying, or assisting certain areas such as the Far East, Liberia, and Latin America. In a few cases, American universities entered into academic relationships with foreign universities as a means of cross-stimulation, utilizing faculty exchanges for the most part, or occasionally to provide assistance to universities in less developed areas, or to advance certain fields of knowledge through cooperative effort. Private, charitable, non-religious organizations added their influence to the pattern of universities' international involvement, through numerous overseas activities, frequently in fields aimed at alleviating human suffering, e.g., medicine and public health, which functioned with the assistance and cooperation of universities and their personnel. From an organized point of view, four types of institutional activity--missionary, government, university, and foun- dation3 --have tended to exert influences which have culminated in the relatively large-scale commitment of American universities to the inter- national field today. - 3A similar breakdown of major institutions appears in the intro- ductory material of Paul S. Bodenman, American Cooperation with Higher Education Abroad (washington: U.S. Department of Health, Education and WeITare, OTTice of Education, Bulletin 1957, No. 8). 57 Certain events and world developments of the past fifty years or so have created significant opportunities and challenges for an expansion of international activities by universities. Among these, technological advance stands as an important stimulus and a broad avenue for international educational intercourse. Complex movements of individuals, materials, and professional groups began to appear in response to new methods of discovering, applying, and disseminating knowledge. New centers of learning appeared throughout the world, affecting both the progress of technology and the roles of American universities in international relations. It is the latter, of course, which are of primary interest in this study. As technical change began to affect the relationships of the United States with other political units, the socio-political elements of the American universities' inter- national involvement have become more prominent. This does not neces- sarily mean that the traditional educational aspect of international contact among universities and other institutions has been forsaken. It does indicate, however, that socio-political considerations have been raised to a higher level of relevance and consciousness than they had enjoyed previously.“ Continued developments in communications and transportation represent a second area of change which has increased the Opportunities for international contact among universities and users of university services. Transportation has become more rapid and inexpensive, there- by increasing its attractiveness and fostering greater contacts among persons related to universities, among many others. A glance at such censuses of international movements of university personnel as Open ”For supporting comments see Métraux, op, cit., pp. #8-53. 58 Doors5 and reports of the U.S. Government's International Cooperation Administration (ICA) and International Educational Exchange Service (IRS) suggests a relationship between improved travel possibilities and growing numbers of educational travelers. While advances in transportation have improved the prospects of face-to-face communications by university personnel, vast improvements in "mass" communications (print, radio, film, television) during the last century have added significantly to the internationalization of knowledge and have brought universities into closer contact with each other and with other institutions. So impressive has this type of contact been that it is now commonplace to hear and read of an "inter— national educational community" and to see education held up as a uni- versal which knows no boundaries, making it a firm base for inter- national understanding. Although widespread international contacts by universities have been greatly dependent on a complex of technical advances, they have been equally dependent on a host of national and international socio- political developments. Socio-political events within the United States have created the financial wherewithal and the governmental approval for increasing university commitments abroad, prerequisites for any important adventure in international education. Had universities sought to maximize the potentials of technical advance for international edu- cation from their own resources, it is doubtful that they would have marched very far beyond their rudimentary activities of 1900. They needed the financial support of both business and government. But more 5Institute of International Education, Open Doors (New York: Institute of International Education, published annually). 59 important, they had to wait for a political atmosphere which would en- courage major elements of American society to look beyond the national boundaries. Such events as major wars, economic and political develop- ments in the Soviet Union, the NUddle East, Africa, Latin America and the Far East, and general world economic and political conditions, all served to stimulate international attitudes in the united States. A few universities as whole institutions took cognizance of these new conditions and later added their weight to the forces and circumstances drawing other universities into international relations. As the foregoing material indicates, the historical review of international events and deve10pments related to the current involvement of American universities is focused on the activities of four groups and certain influential events. The four groups are religious mission- aries, government, universities, and foundations. Their activities Philip Glick has described as "forerunners" of current technical as- sistance programs.6' The major events are broadly related to techno- logical advances and to some major socio-political circumstances, such as those surrounding revolutions and wars. The two world wars, 1914 and 1939, are particularly important reference points in this connection. Material for this portion of the study has been obtained primarily from a moderately extensive literature related to educational aspects of the international experiences of the united States, and secondarily from interviews with persons currently knowledgeable in this field. Literature covering universities and their personnel in international relations before World War II is scanty, corresponding to 6Philip M. Click, The Administration of Technical Assistance: Growth in the Americas (Chicago: university of Chicago Press, 1957). pp. H36. 60 the limited nature of their participation. The main impetus for re» search and writing in this field has occurred jointly with the upsurge of international programs of American universities following World War II. Thus, the present review is more detailed and extensive for the latter period than it is for the former, notwithstanding the greater span of time represented by the period prior to World War II. In any event, this chapter is not a definitive history of the international activities of American universities. Rather, it is intended to identify the important predecessors of the current international programs and to indicate the nature of their influence on these recent developments. Religious Predecessors and Influences In their efforts to spread Christianity, American religious organizations have been active outside of the United States throughout most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. One by-product of their drive has been the development of educational institutions around the world. Protestant faiths with primary headquarters in the United States are responsible in varying degrees for the establishment and maintenance of approximately 360 institutions offering collegiate instruction in areas outside of Europe and N0rth America.7 The development of Roman Catholic institutions of higher education outside of the united States by Americans has not paralleled the Protestant development, since the United States is not the seat of authority for the Catholic church. Americans contribute to the activities of the Society for the Props- gation of the Faith, which is an important missionary instrument for 7For an inventory of these institutions see W. Plumer Mills, Protestant Colleges in Asia, the Near East, Africa, and Latin America (New YorE: Missionary Research library, 1955), mimeographed. 61 the Roman Catholic Church, and some Catholic-controlled universities in the United States maintain relationships with Catholic universities in other countries. But any attempt to single out the American contri- bution to the worldwide educational program of the Catholic church is far beyond the scope of this study. Research in this area has been an interest of the National Catholic Education Association since at least 1952. Suffice it to say that the universalistic attitudes attributed to Catholicism have tended to involve Catholic universities in the United States and also Catholic professors at non-Catholic universities in this country, in international relations, and that this involvement is one of many factors contributing to the development of international programs at American universities. Religious organizations have placed particular emphasis on carrying their messages to the non-Christian world through educational institutions. By 1936, the entire Protestant missionary enterprise supported over several thousand general educational institutions abroad at all levels, including fourteen medical colleges, 41R bible schools, and 129 theological seminaries.8 While the work of the American Catholic organizations is not comparable in scale, similar activities of the Catholic church in general are substantial and the American Catholic 9 contribution.in terms of personnel and finances is important. For example, a preliminary statement by George F. Donovan of the National Catholic Education Association indicates that there are at least 8R. Pierce Beaver, "Educational Work of the Protestant Foreign Missionary Agencies of the U.S.A." (New York: Missionary Research Library, 1958), manuscript. 9Kenneth Scott Latourette, The Christian World Mission in Our Day (New York: Harper & Brothers, 195H), pp. 9l~92. 62 sixty-three Catholic-controlled colleges and universities outside the United States.10 This figure does not include those collegiate insti~ tutions which are Catholic in spirit but were not founded by Catholics or are not completely controlled by the Catholic church. The American Protestants have approximately 100 comparable institutions in terms of level of offering, although only a few are subject to comparable control. The relevant aspects of this phenomenon for this study are the rapidity with which the missionary efforts bore fruit in terms of on-going edu- cational institutions, the reliance the missionary agencies have placed on American universities for staff and support, the high incidence of these institutions in less developed areas and its implications for later activities in these same areas, and the stimulus missionaries have provided for the American community to look outward. It has been common practice for missionaries entering a new area to establish first a church and then a school. In most cases it is assumed that eventually both would become self-supporting and, within the doctrine of the founding group, self-governing. The intention has been to plant a seed that could grow in the native soil yet would retain essential features of the parent body. To encourage this development, missionaries entered the field of education originally at the primary and secondary levels. First things first, and besides, this appeared to be a logical starting point for the building of future Christians. Moreover, most missionaries were ill-equipped intellectually and fi- nancially to undertake an educational venture at the college level, even 10George F. Donovan, Associate Secretary, College and University Department, National Catholic Education Association, "A Preliminary Statement--Numerical Distribution of Catholic Colleges and Universi- ties," 1956 (Manuscript), as reported in Bodenman, 22: 223:» pp. 24-25. 63 if local conditions permitted such enterprises. Most of the areas in which missionaries began their labors had few students prepared for collegiate instruction. In some areas, such as Japan, China, and India, universities were feasible once political sanction was obtained and staff was located to operate such institutions. But as is obvious from Dr. Beaver's figures just cited, collegiate institutions of missionary origin represent a fraction of the fruits of their effort. In those areas where conditions offered some possibilities that institutions of higher education could survive, missionary groups moved to establish them in addition to their work in the primary and secondary fields. The main impetus for Christian colleges in missionary lands came after 1870.11 This was not an especially convenient juncture in terms of developments in American higher education. Instead, it re- flected the level of political acceptance of missionaries in foreign countries at a particular time and the level of zeal prevailing in the American missionary groups. The success of the movement depended on fortuitous circumstances, and American universities were either poorly prepared to make a significant direct contribution or disinclined to do so. Thus the missionaries undertook to build institutions of higher education in foreign lands on little more than their own energies and an unsteady political toleration on the part of foreign governments. They operated on their faith and lived by their wits (frequently 11For the founding dates of many of these colleges see W. Plumer Mills, op. cit. A detailed account of such developments in China is available in Alice H. Gregg, China and Educational Autonomy: The Changing Role of the Protestant Educational _Missionary in China, “1807- 1937 (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1946), especially Chapters II-VI. 6A involving the American government in their cause).12 They faced death and ruin at frequent points. That they founded institutions which probably did not deserve the label of "college" is unimportant beside the fact that they were able to build anything in the face of substantial adversity. It is not the purpose of this study to evaluate the contri- butions of the missionaries to higher education abroad, but the fact that many of the institutions they founded drew American universities into the international field is part of our present history. Few of the early Christian colleges have developed formal insti- tutional relationships with a specific American university or group of universities. Prominent exceptions have been the cooperative efforts of Yale and Oberlin which started near the turn of the century and have persisted to the present, albeit in altered form. The universities' main contacts have been through religious governing and coordinating "boards" for missionary activities, located in the United States.13 These boards have managed to provide a modicum of communication between missionaries and American universities which are subject to control or influence by religious groups. The missionary activities have been dependent, especially in the field of higher education, on personnel recruited from American universities. The main source of such persons 12An interesting account of the political activities of the missionaries in China is available in Paul A. Varg, Missionaries, Chinese and Diplomatg; The American Protestant Missionary Movement in CEina, 1890-1952_(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958). 13The term "boards" does not describe precisely the various concerted efforts of religious groups to manage their missionary enter- prises. It is intended merely to indicate that many of the various religious sects have joined efforts in the interests of economy and efficiency. For example, this development is well demonstrated in James G. Maddox, Technical Assistance by Religious_Agencies in Latin -mu‘. America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956), Chapter 3. ,5 III 65 has tended to be universities which have had a common faith with the missionaries, or at least have encouraged the deve10pment of a missionary spirit among their faculty and students. By and large, such practices have not led to firm ties between American universities and foreign institutions, but they have done a small bit toward fostering an aware- ness in the American academic community of the processes of education in areas of the world outside of the united States and Europe. In some American universities, especially those controlled by evangelical religious organizations, it is fair to say that the possi- bility of overseas service on behalf of the church is at least an implied condition of employment and/or part of the reward structure. This practice has led to a kind of "educational missionary service" which is available for work on both the home and foreign fronts. As a prominent Seventh Day Adventist educator stated in an interview, persons performing such services consider their primary responsibility to be to the governing authority of the church and secondarily to any particular educational institution. Such attitudes, if they are representative, provide some indication as to why religious groups have seemingly not encouraged direct university-to-university relationships, but have strongly interposed the church between American and foreign universi- ties. .As an examination of Part II of Theglnternational Programs of gfl-“ among Protestant institutions than Catholic. A partial explanation of this may be contained in the fact that Catholic universities in the United States have a greater tendency to look up to prominent Catholic universities in other countries, while the highly fragmented Protestant religion and its universities provide fewer such guides. 66 Notwithstanding the relative paucity of close, institutional relationships which have developed as a consequence of faculty members of American universities serving in the cause of missionary education, these same faculty members have had an important propagandizing effect on American education. It is common to find ”missionary zeal," for example, among the inventory of characteristics considered essential for those persons involved in American university international programs in less developed areas. What is really meant, apparently, is that education and politics should be substituted for religion while main- taining the drive and devotion usually attributed to religious mission- aries. The influence of the early educational missionaries on current attitudes toward the use of American university faculty in international programs will, perhaps, be more concretely demonstrated in that portion of this study devoted to an examination of these attitudes. American university students have participated actively and widely in Protestant missionary activities in particular. While com- paratively few faculty members from American universities have left these institutions for educational service as missionaries, large numbers of students have added their energies to this endeavor. Not only have they been drawn from student bodies at universities with a strong religious orientation, they also have included large numbers from the more venerable and secular institutions such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. They have focused their activities at the national level in large organizations such as the American Intercollegiate Young Men's Christian Association and numerous smaller groups. By 1895, the Ameri- can Christian student movement had Joined forces with similar groups from around the world to form the World Student Christian Federation. 67 The Federation.has since evolved into a variety of international Christian student organizations which operate through church mission boards, the Young Men's and Women's Christian Associations, Youth for Christ International, Student Volunteer Movement for Christian Missions, and many other channels.11+ The point being, simply, that student interest continues to be high in the educational missionary field, al- though it is not as unified as it had been, and it tends to be over- shadowed by the growing number of secular international programs directly related to particular American universities. The Federation, stimulated by John R. Mett, the long-time driving force in the Christian student movement, undertook to convert students around the world to Christianity. Its appeal was thought to be especially attractive to student groups since those who carried the appeal abroad were themselves students. (This line of reasoning con- tinues to prevail among many promoters of international educational programs, especially those who argue for the ICA-sponsored university contract.) Thus from about 1900 to 19uo, American university students engaged with vigor in a missionary project designed to promote Christianity through emphasis on a set of common characteristics, 2323' those associated with students. World War I interrupted their activi- ties only briefly, and the 1920's were years of intense work for the 1”The Directory of NOrth American Protestant Foreign Missionary Agencies, Third Edition, 1958, no longer includes the World Student Christian Federation, but does list numerous other student organizations in the missionary field. 68 student groups as they set out to capture the "strategic points in the world's conquest," to use the words of John Mott.15 From the point of view of this study, it does not appear that the Federation and its successors have succeeded in capturing those strategic points they had in mind, i.e., universities. Their influence in establishing enduring direct connections between students in American universities and students in foreign lands seems to have been meager in view of the fact that very few current international programs as defined herein can be traced to the student movements.16 The student groups have, however, encouraged some American students to survey at least one area of intercourse between cultures. This has been cited by many writers in the fields of religion, education, and politics as one of several factors contributing to a growing interest by Americans, and especially those connected with universities and sponsoring agencies, in international relations. It is not possible to specify the nature of the contribution student missionary activities have made to this process, nor is it possible to establish a direct cause and effect relationship between these activities and the role of American universi- ties in international relations. We know that all missionary groups 15An interesting partisan account of the World Student Christian Federation is contained in J0hn.R. Mott, Strategic Points in the World's Conquest: The universities and Colleges as Related to the Progress of Qhristianitygifiew YOrk: Flemin H. Revell Company, 1898, Sixth Edition). It is interesting to note that the book contains an enthusiastic endorsement by former President Benjamin Harrison. 16Additional evidence to support this contention is available in Metraux, 92: 333,, Chapter 1. The influence of student missionary Eroups in the development of student exchanges, for example, is omitted from his catalog of factors related to this phenomenon. Furthermore, neither the study by Bodenman nor the one by the Institute of Research on.0verseas Programs, previously cited, indicates that the Christian 8tudent organizations have involved American universities in inter- national programs that are currently operative. 69 continue to send university faculty and students to educational insti- tutions abroad in the service of the church; and we know that numerous foreign students in the United States are Sponsored by the same groups. From this and previously stated facts, we can reasonably surmise that missionaries and their work are part of the general mosaic of insti- tutions and events which underpins the growing international involve- ment of American universities. Perhaps the key to why the extensive international educational activities of the missionaries during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have not resulted in more university-to-university relation- ships with institutions in the United States may be found in the manner in which religious organizations tend to organize and operate their missionary programs.l7 Religion and its propagation are at the core of all their work. Education is one of several important vehicles for the realization of the religious objectives which flow from the core. This means that religious authorities stand continually in a superior or co- equal relationship to educators working within the framework of a par- ticular faith. Frequently, the president of a sectarian university considers his service as a responsibility to the church and secondarily to a particular university. Or he may blur the picture until the school and religion are one and the same. Whatever the procedure, there has been a tendency for religious organizations to emphasize the missionary responsibilities of American universities to foreign universities as a —_‘__ 17Examples of organizational methods in the missionary field especially related to universities are available in The Student Mission- ary Appeal (New York: Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions), Published annually from 1895. This publication is composed of the pro- ceedings of the International Conventions of the Student VOlunteer Movement for Foreign Missions. 7O process to be carried on through the church under unified leadership. Such practices are less than conducive to the development of close university-to-university relationships. At least when the Institute of Research on Overseas Programs, Bodenman, Metraux, and the U.S. Govern- ment, among others, conducted their respective surveys, few such relationships were reported. Thus, while we can find very few inter- national programs of the type analyzed in this study among sectarian universities, we recognize that cooperation among these institutions is extensive within certain other institutionalized dimensions. The Development of_government Interest and Influence in International Programs In combination with missionary groups, through paths blazed by missionaries, and independently, U.S. Government missions, with responsi- bilities primarily in technical subject-matters, have been operating internationally since at least the middle of the nineteenth century. They have grown from very small beginnings to an important part of the foreign political apparatus of the United States. In their growth, these governmental missions have increased the numbers of university personnel working overseas in the service of the government, they have brought the universities into closer and more direct relationships with the government, and they have drawn the universities into both the edu- cational and the socio-political aspects of international relations while shedding or adding to many of the original technical character- istics. The influence of these early government programs on the de- velopment of the current international programs of American universities is more discernible than is the missionary influence just discussed. Our examination of this facet of the universities' involvement in international relations is divided into two periods--before and after 1936. 71 "The Prelude" until 1936 Fellowing the Civil War, the U.S. Government began to take cogni- zance of international technical missions as an instrument for the exportation and importation of knowledge. According to Curti and Birr, "These efforts possessed the elements of the technical mission of our time, but it was not until late in the first decade of the twentieth century that the technical mission in its full, modern sense emerged."18 Although these early missions were staffed mostly with government person- nel, there were prominent exceptions as well as strong indications that the universities would be heavily tapped for personnel. Thus it is appropriate to this study to examine the development of technical missions and their impact on American universities. The emphasis of the first technical missions was on exploration and acquisition of certain technical knowledge. Business and political interests in the United States stimulated the commissioning of numerous exploration groups which were charged with the responsibility of re- porting on the potentials of hitherto unknown areas, primarily for commercial purposes. Not only did such missions advance general know- ledge in a few areas. They also tended to arouse further government and commercial interest in expanding the work already done and in in- creasing the number of missions. As the number of missions increased, demands for the services of leading university personnel to participate 1n.these undertakings mounted. Curti and Birr indicate the university affiliations of many of the members of early technical missions. ‘i 18Curti and Birr, op, cit., p. 11. . ‘A'F _ I've at i!‘:! Andes n 1 rl‘ ‘4 fl! 1.- 72 Shortly after the initial surge of exploratory missions had become a small but steady stream, advisory missions became part of the international activities of the U.S. Government. Between 1900 and World War I, the successes of American technology and education were being recognized, especially in colonial and other less-developed areas. While the limits of advancement in these fields in the united States had not yet been approached, the government and other agencies, such as universities, had begun to find it advantageous, prestigeful, and challenging to direct to foreign areas some of their energies related to these fields. Their motives included curiosity, commercial and politi- cal interest, and others too vague to be expressed.19 Advice was usually given at the request of a foreign government. Such requests were normally made through the U.S. Government, which then undertook to meet the needs in question. To do so, the government relied heavily on its own agencies, especially the military and agri- culture. But personnel shortages, more pressing demands, and respect for university personnel all combined to cause the government to en- courage faculty members to participate. usually such participants were highly respected members of their professions who were motivated by service ideals, professional interest, travel, curiosity, and higher pay to forego the routines of academic life for varying periods of time. Their service with the government rarely involved the university from which they were recruited in any direct way. The participants were generally not guaranteed any particular professional status protection bT'the universities, except that they would be re-employed upon their 1‘eturn. ¥ lglbid, pp. 204-205. 73 Unlike many of the technical missions designed to explore new regions and gather data, the early advisory missions involving Americans overseas were generally financed by the foreign governments requesting the missions. Some support costs were occasionally borne by the U.S. Government, but the concept of American advisory teams financed prima- rily by their own government had not yet been extensively developed. POIicy control usually was divided between those who paid the bills and those performing the services, depending on the environment and the ingenuity of the advisors. Curti and Birr cite many instances of ad- visory missions operating independently of the U.S. Government as well as frequent cases of the government's declining to be involved after being urged to by the American mission members. The overall picture in regard to American policy control of and interest in early technical advisory missions was replete with contradictions and inequities. There is no direct correlation between those missions regarded as successful by historians and U.S. Government interest in them. Then as now, government association with international programs tended to be bene- ficial insofar as the political aims of the cooperating countries coin- cided or were complementary. While most of the activities of American university personnel participating in the pre-World War I technical missions did not result in direct, cooperative relationships between an American and foreign university, a few exceptions are noteworthy. In Japan, the Nassachusetts State College of Agriculture, upon the invitation of the Japanese minister in Washington and with the enthusiastic support of President Clark of that college, undertook to develop an agricultural college on Hokkaido in 1876. Curti and Birr contend that "the influence of the 7n "20 In support college on the development of Hokkaido was considerable. of this, they cite numerous new techniques which were introduced and retained. The college itself was modeled after the Massachusetts state College of Agriculture. Although formal relationships between Hokkaido and Massachusetts lapsed with changes in personnel and developments in international affairs, enough interest was maintained by both insti- tutions to encourage the reestablishment of formal cooperation under ICA auspices in 1957. The groundwork for Amherst College's sustained interest in Japan and later formal affiliation with Doshisha University was probably first begun in 1872, when President Seelye of Amherst College interested the Japanese Ministry of Education in a physical education program. While Amherst's representative in Japan, Dr. George Ieland, worked for the Japanese government, he did exert an influence on the university system Which encouraged Amherst to establish close contact with Doshisha University in 1922. The Amherst House continues to be an active center for American studies at Doshisha. The work of the government-sponsored technical missions, both of the exploration and advisory types, was altered and interrupted by Werld War I. In one respect, the war accelerated the movement of techni- cal experts to and from the United States. This movement was to meet unusual demands somewhat removed from educational interests, however. Nonetheless, the U.S. Government re-entered the technical mission field iflth vigor following the war. From about 1920 to 1939, the U.S. Govern- ment steadily increased its sponsorship of missions committed to the assistance of foreign countries and to the commercial, social, and ‘ 20Ibid, p. #7. 75 political interests of the United States. It was during this period that the government began to call upon universities as whole institutions to make decisions related to the allocation of their resources for inter- national purposes. The consequences of these developments were just beginning to have an impact on the universities, foreign cooperating institutions, and the United States Government when World War II changed the complexion of overseas missions. But to say that American universities were on the threshold of joining forces with the government in international relations is to go beyond the temper of the times, for, in fact, during the interwar period, military and financial missions far exceeded educational missions in number and scope. These missions, like those before World War I, in- cluded many university persons who had a particular expertise appropriate to a technical mission and who were sufficiently motivated to participate. Few included university personnel who were asked to apply their knowledge and skills in the subject matter field of American education to foreign cultures. While there existed a good deal of curiosity about American education and its contributions to the strengths of the united States, skepticism about American education as compared to European and Asian forms prevailed among most foreign groups.21 By 1940, the rise in the economic and political stature of the United States had dissipated many doubts about the value of the American educational system. This new upsurge of confidence in American education on the parts of foreign countries was manifested in an increased number of requests from foreign governments and institutions for various forms of educational assistance and cooperation. lebid, pp. 198-203. 76 Curti and Birr include the following examples of American edu- cators working in the service of foreign governments in an effort to revamp their national educational systems. During the 1920's, John Dewey provided educational counsel to the governments of China and Turkey. Dewey's efforts in China were complemented by the additional work of Paul Monroe. In 1926, Liberia called upon the prominent Negro educator, James Sibley, to act as an educational advisor to the govern- ment. A full-scale educational mission was dispatched to Peru in the early 1920's at the invitation of the Peruvian government. This venture, whiCh ultimately ended in failure, involved the educators in a complex game of Peruvian and international politics. It stands as one of the early examples of the possible difficulties which may result from the use of education and educators as political instruments. Two important similar educational assistance missions under bilateral government auspices went out in the 1930's. The first was the attempt of Ernest Work of Muskingum College to establish an edu- cational system for Ethiopia. Political factionalism and the Italian invasion of Ethiopia destroyed any opportunities for Work to make a permanent contribution to Ethiopian education. The second was an edu- cational mission to Iraq involving prominent American educators and, indirectly, Columbia University. While this group made a careful study of education in Iraq, their report found its way to a "pigeon-hole," and there it remained.22 Immediately before World War II, a special type of international education involving the U.S. Government and military institutions of 22A brief description of these two missions is contained in Curti and Birr, op, cit., pp. 198-200. 4". in. Apr uy. 77 higher education was developing rapidly. The recognition of the United States as a world military power following World War I tended to attract increasing numbers of foreign military officers to the American military academies. Actually, West Point accepted its first group of foreign trainees in 1816, and Annapolis in 1919.23 Although these institutions differ significantly from other American institutions of higher education. their experiences should not be ignored in an analysis of the trend toward greater use of universities as training agencies for non-nationals under governmental sponsorship. The Extension and Fermalization of Cooperation Between the Government and Universities in International Relations After 1936 Perhaps the most significant preliminary steps on the road to cooperation in the field of international education between the U.S. Government and universities were taken between 1936w1939. During that time, the government entered into close, formal arrangements in the field of education, as part of a broad program of technical cooperation with Iatin American countries. This movement, while part of the previous administration's programs, took discernible form under the guidance of the Roosevelt administration. Walter Sharp states that this program was part of the Roosevelt administration's "good neighbor" policy and that the original impetus came from the Convention for the Promotion of . u Inter-American Relations adopted by the Buenos Aires Conference of 1936.2 23Committee on Government Operations, Forty Second Report, Government Programs in International Education (A Survey and Handbook) United States House of Representatives Report No. 2712,(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1959), p. 3n. 2”Walter R. Sharp, International Technical Assistance (Chicago: Public Administration Service, 1952), p. h. 78 FUrther stimulus was provided by the Eighth International Congress of American States at Iima in 1938. Glick states in.The Administration of TechnicalflAssistance that "two largely independent, somewhat parallel, operations" emerged from these meetings.25 They were the Interdepartmental Committee on Scienw tific and Cultural Cooperation (SCC) and the Institute of Inter-American Affairs (IIAA). The programs of both 800 and IIAA came into being "in response to two stimuli: requests for technical and economic assistance from the Iatin-American countries and a growing recognition within the United States and Latin America of the interdependence of the nations of the Western Hemisphere."26 From 1939-1950 they provided the major avenue of cooperation among the U.S. Government, institutions of higher education in the United States, and their Latin American counterparts.27 World War II precluded the development of any comparable programs in other parts of the world, even if any desire for them existed. Thus the decade of cooperative effort in Latin America involving governments and universities of both the United States and other countries repre» sented an important "get-acquainted" period. The trend was getting clearer. As the international political responsibilities and interests of the United States increased, American educational personnel and institutions were being drawn into cooperative international programs with the government. The initiative for this relationship lay primarily With the government, according to Glick, Sharp, Curti, and Birr. __‘ 25Glick, op, cit., p. 6. 26Ibid, p. 1”. See also Sharp, op: cit., pp. u~5. 27Picture of their scope can be obtained from the tables in G11Ck, gp. cit., p. 11 and p. 21. 79 The 806 was the first organized and systematic attempt to con~ struct a program of technical cooperation with comprehensive goals and indefinite time limits. It derived its authority from two statutes (Public Laws 63 and 355 of the 76th Congress) which authorized the President to detail for temporary service any person in the employ of the United States to give advice and assistance on request to any Latin American government in an effort to render closer and more effective the relationships between the American republics.28 This part of the program was not particularly new, nor did it affect American universi» ties directly, for it emphasized the use of government personnel as advisers to Latin American governments. It did, however, tend to systematize the myriads of requests which resulted in the sorts of American missions described by Curti and Birr. The existence of this kind of machinery also proved to function as a stimulant for the development of increasingly complex programs which in turn increased the demands on the government for technicians and advisors. Although the programs were still small by today's standards, they at times exw ceeded the resources of particular government departments. On such occasions it was customary for the government to turn to such instiw tutions as universities for additional, temporary personnel. There is no evidence available to this writer to indicate that universities were especially antagonistic in regard to government “raiding" at this Juncture in the development of their cooperative relations. Available 28As extracted by Glick, op, cit., pp. 7w8. 80 statistical evidence shows that the number of university personnel involved grew as the SCC programs grew.29 Of particular interest in the SCC program is the exchange of students and professors and the training of Latin Americans in the United States as part of a technical assistance program. These features were later developed into independent programs with their own government agencies, and the training of non-nationals in the united States as part of a technical assistance program.has become an integral part of many university-contract programs. This "strictly academic“ aspect of 306's program, however, was secondary to the sending of technical advisors to Latin America. During the years l9u0~1948, nearly eighteen million dollars were expended on 300 programs, of which less than five million were used for "cooperation in education."30 NOnetheless, this much attention to the exchange of educational personnel on the part of the government, meager as it is by current standards, was novel. From July 1, 19uo to December 31, 1948, 800 programs brought 1,883 foreign trainees to the United States. Nest of these trainees were given in-service training by government agencies; however, many also attended American universities as part of their American sojourn. During the same period, over 1,700 students and 558 faculty members were also exchanged between American universities and Latin American insti» l tutions under SOC auspices.3 Cooperating in this enterprise was the 29U.S. Department of State, "Scientific and Technical Cooperw ation in the American Republics, under the Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific and Cultural Cooperation, 1939~l9#9," July 1, 19H9, 145 pp., mimeographed, as quoted by Glick, op: 223:» p. 10. 30Glick, op, cit., p. 11. 31U.S. Department of State, Point Four (Washington, D. 0.: U S Government Printing Office, 1950), p. 130, as quoted in Glick, op: cit., .D. 11. 81 Cultural Relations Division of the Department of State, which had been establiShed almost concurrently with SCC and IIAA. The Cultural Re- lations Division, in addition to 300, administered a number of grants for faculty and student exchanges with Iatin American countries. It also began a modest program of educational exchange with countries in the Hear and Far East.32 Overlapping of responsibility, duplication, and general con- fusion among the three agencies interested in educational exchange programs led to a redefinition of responsibility in 19M}. SCC agreed to limit its activities to programs of technical assistance, primarily in education. Under these programs, 800 continued to bring trainees from Latin America to the United States, but it relinquished nearly all of its general educational exchange activities to the Department of State.33 Consequently, the Department of State became the center of activity in the field of student and faculty exchanges financed by public funds. while the Department has since been reorganized to handle the growing number of such exchanges, primary responsibility for edu- cational exchange still resides there. Although 800 and the Cultural Relations Division of the Depart- ment of State were expanding the area and number of contacts between the UtS. Government and American universities in the international field, their work in this vein was overshadowed by the activities of the Institute of Inter-American Affairs. It was the work of IIAA in 32A brief history of the Cultural Relations Division's work is contained in a pamphlet printed by the Committee on Educational Inter- change Policy entitled "Twenty Years of United States Government Programs in Cultural Relations," January 1959, pp. 8~10. 33Ibid, pp. 9-11. 82 international technical cooperation that served as an influential model for the programs later to be developed by the International Cooperation Administration. Fed by a sense of urgency derived from the circum- stances of HOrld War II, IIAA deve10ped important programs of cooper- ation with Iatin American governments in the fields of public health, agriculture, and education. For the execution of these programs IIAA created a unique instrument known as the servicio. Sharp describes the servicio as follows: By'agreement with the host government, each servicio is Jointly staffed by personnel of the institute and the government, and its activities are Jointly financed by contributions from the government and the IIAA (on behalf of the United States). The servicio normally functions as a bureau within the ministry concerned (e.g., health). Under this partnership arrangement, the chief of the IIAA's field party acts as director of the servicio, his compensation being provided by IIAA. The servicio, al- though located within the administrative hierarchy of the ministry, enjoys substaQZial autonomy and operates under a special Joint budget. Both the programs and the methods developed by IIAA were im- portant forerunners of many current international programs.35 IIAA programs, unlike many of the earlier technical missions described by Curti and Birr and much of the advisory work of SCC, had planned, long- range effects on the particular segment of a country's problems on which they were focused and they brought organized teams of experts from two countries into working relationships for extended periods of time. Al- though IIAA maintained discrete functional distinctions among its programs and emphasized discrete goals within the fields of public 3“Sharp, 93. 931., p. 5. 35Glick, op, cit., p. 17, says, "The major characteristics of the operations of IIAA during the eight years 19u2-1950, prior to the announcement of the Peint Four program, had an important effect on the character of the later Point Four program." 83 health, agriculture, and education, observers could not avoid the con- clusion that IIAA was actually promoting the general economic develop- ment of under-developed countries without formally acknowledging this as a goal.36 Multiple subject-matter programs aimed at broad social and economic changes affecting the path of deve10pment of a country were not part of its conscious arsenal. Both SCC and IIAA, born in the atmosphere of the "good neighbor" policy, and brought to prominence by the urgencies of World War II, maintained their strength in the immediate postwar years, but soon succumbed to more ambitious national security and technical assistance policies of the government. Although both agencies had ceased to exist by 1953, they left important imprints on their successors. 800 became the first administrative model for the newly created Technical Cooper- ation Administration in 1950, and the discrete functionalism of the IIAA programs was evident in the early foreign aid efforts resulting from POint Feur.37 Thus an improtant legacy in the brief history of American technical cooperation with underdeveloped countries provided the initial base for the rapid expansion of this aspect of international relations. When President Truman submitted the Act for International Development to Congress to implement Point Four, it was met with con- siderable wariness and hostility. Congress was not convinced, even in the light of unsettled world conditions during the late 19M0's, that there was merit enough in "technical cooperation" to warrant the ex- penditure of American dollars. They feared a “sort of Marshall Plan" 36Sharp, oo, cit., p. 5 and Glick oo, cit., p. #8. 37An excellent brief history of the administration of U.S. technical assistance programs is contained in Glick, oo, cit., pp. 30-50. 8A for underdeveloped countries or a "global WPA." To allay these fears certain restrictions were written into the law itself;38 but most influ- ential in reducing opposition to the Act for International Development were 300 and IIAA. Modest as their work had been in Latin America, it had been effective enough to win a considerable amount of grudging Congressional support. Assurances that the experiences of these agen- cies would be incorporated into the new Technical Cooperation Adminis- tration played an influential part in rescuing the Act from an antago- nistic Senate. Cooperation between the U;S. Government and American universi- ties up to 1950 had been extensive but seldom highly formalized. The widespread use of university personnel to staff numerous government- sponsored technical programs has been mentioned in addition to those government programs involving the movement of faculty and students between.American and foreign universities. Such activities grew in scope as the international involvement of the United States deepened between the two World Wars. Probably the first instance of American universities and the government entering into contractual relationships in the field of technical assistance in foreign countries occurred in 1951. At least the relationship established that year is most closely linked to the extensive network of university-government contracts presently operating under the banner of the International Cooperation Administration. In 1951, IIAA signed the University of Arkansas to an agriculture contract in Panama; the Economic Cooperation Administration 38The law prohibited the supplying of capital for economic development and emphasized the sharing of technology only. Also, Congress authorized an appropriation for only one year at a time, not- withstanding the fact that the Act for International Development was permanent legislation. 85 brought Cornell University and the university of the Philippines into a cooperative program; and the newly formed Technical Cooperation Adminis- tration started Oklahoma State University on its famous EthiOpian program. The various government technical assistance programs spawned by Point Four inherited both program and administrative features from SCC and IIAA. First, these agencies helped to make the terms "technical assistance" and "technical cooperation" a part of the official vocabu- lary of the government. Technical missions had been in evidence before the advent of SCC and IIAA, but their small scale, limited aims, and generally short-term nature raised relatively few significant problems or issues in public policy terms. SCC and IIAA served to broaden the scope of international intercourse in technical fields. The result has been increased reliance on educators and educational institutions for operating personnel and backstopping. This is not to say that SCC and IIAA.had extensive institutional relationships with American universi- ties. They did not; but they did encourage university personnel to participate in foreign technical assistance programs and they did write one of the first contracts with a university for an international program. The involvement of American universities in technical assistance programs has not only been related to the government's need to tap the manpower resources of universities. It has evolved also from the decision to train foreign nationals in the United States as part of many technical assistance programs. Combined, these two factors made cooperative relationships in international programs between government and universities a certainty. SCC and IIAA placed considerable reliance 86 on the training in the United States of Latin Americans who would re- place the American technicians at a future date. This aspect of the work of SCC and IIAA highlights another legacy present international programs have accepted from the past. This is the assumption that Americans abroad under international programs Operated by American uni- versities and sponsored by the government are training their own re- placements and that the operation of any of these programs by Americans will cease in the future. The hope is that cooperative relationships will remain, primarily between educational institutions, but Americans will retire from the day-to-day operations of these programs abroad, and host country nationals will follow through.39 The contract device, counterpart funds and personnel, formal requests for assistance from host countries, the servicio, and occasion- al conflict with diplomatic missions, all part of SCC and IIAA oper- ations, persist in current government-sponsored programs operated by American universities. Thus while President Harry S. Truman, TCA Director Henry G. Bennett, and FOA Director Harold Stassen, among others, probably deserve much of the credit they have claimed for a "bold new program" and unique employment of universities, it should be acknowledged that there existed at least a partial foundation in the form of SCC and IIAA experiences for the union of government and uni- versity in technical assistance programs.“0 39This basic assumption is part of all Congressional hearings relative to foreign aid and has been part of all the literature Published by the various government agencies responsible for the adminis- tration of foreign aid since 1940. ”OFOr an enthusiastic description of the uniqueness of Point Four see Johathan B. Bingham, Shirt-Sleeve Diplomacy: Point Four in Action (New York: John Day, 195%), pp. 11-15. 87 From 1950 to the present, responsibility for the administration of government-sponsored technical assistance programs has passed through a variety of agencies. This process has resulted in some policy changes, mostly in terms of the magnitude of the technical assistance venture and the areas of emphasis. The exact administrative history of technical assistance programs is not especially significant for this study. BXcellent short histories are available in Philip Glick's The Adminis- tggtion of Technical Assistance, in staff studies by committees of the Eighty-fourth and Eighty-fifth Congresses, and in JOnathan Bingham's Shirt-Sleeve Diplomacy. It is important, however, to trace the history _ of university involvement in technical assistance under these agencies which symbolized the elevation of technical assistance from a minor aspect of American foreign policy to a prominent "weapon" in the developing "cold war." The Technical Cooperation Administration, established in 1950, shared responsibilities for technical assistance with the Economic Co- operation Administration and IIAA. TCA adOpted some of the management practices of SCC. This meant that other government agencies were called upon for substantive assistance in the operation of many international programs. Where programs had a history of satisfactory operation, as in Latin America under IIAA and in Europe under BCA, TCA made little effort to alter>them. IIAA efforts were bolstered by TCA activity, but not changed basically. In areas that were comparatively unacquainted with American programs of technical assistance, TCA began to formulate new programs. One result was that American technology came to be turned on the problems of the Near and Far East under government auspices to a degree never before attempted. '2‘!“ Haas;- 1? CC ‘15 '3 w auu‘u m1 hi. “A far e u‘ ("a ...-g" Y‘ 4 88 The Act for International Development, which formalized the administration of technical assistance, specified that private agencies be used in international programs "to the greatest extent practicable." This specific mandate, as well as necessity, encouraged TCA to expand the contacts IIAA and ECA.had been developing with private agencies, including universities. In fiscal year 1951, the first year of the Act, TCA let contracts to private agencies for technical assistance projects in the amount of $3,7uo,5u2. In 1952 and 1953 the amount contracted for each year was double the amount in the previous year,and after that it increased even more rapidly.“1 All of these developments were important preliminaries to the now prominent use of American universities as contractor for foreign technical assistance. The political climate provided an extremely favorable environment for the expansion of this device. or this period a high level ICA official has said, ". . . the circumstances in the technical assistance field were Just right for the university contract system. In part these favorable circumstances included a willingness on the part of foreign countries to engage in Just such a program and a willingness on the part of universities here in the Uhited States to engage in it overseas." But the potential of the situation might have been minimized had it not been for the interests and ambitions of a few university presidents and of some university-oriented persons occupying leadership positions in the American government's foreign aid apparatus. To demonstrate the relationship of certain sorts of personali- ties to the rapid expansion of government and university cooperation in ”10.3. Senate, Eighty-fourth Congress, Government Utilization of Private Agencies in Technical Assistance (Washington: U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office, January 9, 1956), pp. 9-10. 89 technical assistance programs, the influence of three persons is mentioned briefly. The first is the late Henry G. Bennett, former president of Oklahoma State University and first administrator of TCA. The second is Harold E. Stassen, former governor of Minnesota, special advisor to President Eisenhower, the first director of the Foreign Operations Administration, successor to TCA. The third is John A. Hannah, president of Enchigan State University, active participant in government affairs during the Eisenhower Administration, and influential representative of the American Association of Land Grant Colleges and Universities. This group of men contributed a unique blend of humani- tarianism, missionary zeal, vision, political ambitions and insight, educational prestige, and administrative ability to technical assistance programs. ICA, and especially the university contract program, still feel the impact of their ideas today. Others have certainly been influ- ential in determining the form and future of ICA-sponsored contracts with American universities, but none are mentioned as consistently by interviewees as are Bennett, Stassen, and Hannah. As the president of a land grant university, Bennett had had numerous contacts with government agencies seeking assistance in carrying out a wide variety of programs. In particular, Bennett and Oklahoma State university had worked frequently and closely with the Department of Agriculture (USDA). Given the orientation of land grant universities in the united States this represented a "normal" relation- ship. Additionally, it provided Bennett with ample opportunities for developing numerous contacts with government personnel. From this base of cooperation, he moved with relative ease into the role of director of TCA in November 1950. In this capacity, he initially attempted to 90 coordinate the technical assistance activities of ECA, IIAA, and TCA while promoting the deve10pment of new programs directly under TCA. To a large extent program development still meant increased utilization of old-line government departments and the borrowing of personnel from non- government sources for relatively short periods of time. But at the same time, Bennett, in cooperation with groups with which he was ex- ceptionally familiar, such as the American Association of Land Grant Colleges and universities, gradually encouraged the growth of university contracts under TCA. In so doing, Bennett relied heavily on the earlier work of ECA and USDA in developing an agreeable contract arrangement with the land grant universities. In 19u9, the American Association of Land Grant Colleges and Universities formally accepted the contract 1dea.”2 There is little doubt that Bennett and Hannah played an active part in this acceptance. Therefore, Bennett arrived on the Washington scene familiar with the past history of American universities in techni- cal assistance and with the future aspirations in this field of an important segment of the university population. Once in Washington, Bennett set about his task of getting the fragmented technical assistance machinery functioning with some degree of coordination. It was a formidable undertaking, for IIAA was ac- customed to doing things in Latin America in special ways, ECA worked in Europe to restore capital investment, and TCA surveyed the rest of the underdevelOped world with a small budget and a sense of bewilderment at the enormousness of the Job ahead. or this situation and Bennett's impact, Glick says, "It seemed for a while during 1951 that the force ”2H3-66 and wn-98. Interviews with prominent representatives of and spokesmen for the land grant universities. See also, Glick, 93. cit., p. 90. 91 of a single personality would be able to blend a good many discordant elements into a harmonious working organism. . . . His wisdom and capacity for leadership, buttressed by the prestige he derived from his position of strength in the White House and on Capitol Hill, were gradu- ally, as 1951 wore on, enabling him to move from coordinator to adminis- trator. All the agencies concerned were beginning to accept him as their leader. It became probable that through sheer strength of person- ality'he would fuse the dissident elements and provide unified direction to the mole program. Before he had accomplished that feat, after thirteen months in office, he made an inspection trip to twelve countries in which Point u operations had been recently initiated; while flying into the airport at Teheran late in December, 1951, he was killed, with several members of his staff."u3 Bingham supports this analysis of Bennett's leadership and adds, ". . . a lovable man with a genius for inspiring people."uu FDllowing Bennett's death, the task of orientation for TCA within the government administrative structure became increasingly difficult. Subsequent TCA leadership lacked the stature and ability and good fortune that had favored Bennett in his brief period of service. His successors possessed the same interest Bennett had in technical assistance (the fact that the operations of TCA expanded after Bennett's death provides some support for this), but they were unable to carve out a clearly defined place for TCA in the government. Their task was complicated by changes in the over-all structure of and policy toward foreign aid. During 1951-53 (from Bennett to Stassen), there was a ”Glick, 32. g_1__t_., p. 1+2. uuBingham, op, cit., p. 13. 92 concerted effort by Congress, such administrative agencies as ECA, and several presidential advisors to integrate military, economic, and technical assistance.”5 The result was the Mutual Security Act of 1951, with its director for mutual security, Averell Harriman, who was techni~ cally the overseer of the entire foreign aid program. The Mutual Security Act of 1951 ostensibly made TCA one of several instruments designed to serve more directly the security ob- Jectives of the United States. Such an interpretation had mixed conse— quences for technical assistance. In the first place, the Mutual Security Act did not affect the daily operations of TCA in Washington directly, since TCA's expenditures were small compared to others in related fields. However, the act did affect overseas operations of TCA and has had side effects related to university attitudes toward technical assistance programs and to government pressure for universities to ‘ participate. FOreign countries cooperating in TCA programs were immedi- ately alarmed by the security overtones of technical assistance under USA coordination, notwithstanding the fact that there is little evidence to indicate that TCA altered the content or operation of its programs while associated with MSA during 1951-53. Mexico and Indonesia termi- nated their programs for fear of developing a quasi-military alliance with the United States.”6 Diplomatic and TCA officials hastened to patch things up over» seas by assuring foreign governments that involvement in TCA programs did not constitute an alliance with the united States. Most were sufu ficiently satisfied with such assurances or unconcerned with the whole "5011“, 33. 333., p. #3. u6Ibid, p. #3. 93 mattergif we may Judge from the fact that the number of programs in- creased steadily from 1951 on. But the impact of combining national security interests with technical assistance through educational insti- tutions is still evident among American universities. As this study will Show, many American universities interpret their participation in government technical assistance programs as primarily a contribution to national security. They pronounce this a good and sufficient reason for university involvement. Others argue that a university is not an appropriate instrument for foreign policy and decline to participate. This debate is an important aspect of this study and will be discussed at length in subsequent chapters. For now, it is important to note that Stassen arrived on the scene in the midst of the integration process. His aims and ambitions at this Juncture had important implications for American universities. Glick describes as follows the establishment of the foreign aid complex which Stassen was named to administer upon the arrival of the Republicans in power: On June 1 (1953) the President submitted to Congress Reor- ganization Plan Number 7 of 1953, which established the FDreign Operations Administration (FDA). Harold E. Stassen, who had succeeded U. Averell Harriman as director for mutual security, was named director of foreign operations. The re- organization plan gave different treatment to the three agencies whose programs FOA was to integrate: (a) the mili- tary-assistance program remained in the Department of De- fense, but the director of FDA was given authority to direct its operations; (b) the functions of MSA were transferred to FDA and MSA was abolished; (c) the functions of TCA were transferred to FOA, but TCA was not abolished. IIAA, as the regional arm of TCA for Latin America, was included in the transfer to FDA. The director of FOA was authorized E3 determine the internal organization structure of FDA. A AA __‘ _- u ..A ”71b1d, p. U6. fiii (n (n I. l n'Vac ‘EUV .. I 'A‘A' oi“: w‘ NM ‘33va vcld 9h The integration of technical assistance with military programs was endorsed by the then Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. It appeared that Stassen would be accorded a relatively free hand in the foreign aid field, and, if possible, get the United States out of the foreign technical assistance business. Commentators on the history of American technical assistance programs, such as Glick, Sharp, Bingham, and numerous interviewees for this study, interpret Dulles' attitude toward TCA and FOA as an indication of the Republicans' desire to liqui- date all technical assistance programs. However, critics of technical assistance failed to reckon with several significant factors. First, the ambitions of Stassen; second, the enthusiasm of influential seg- ments of the public; third, the tenacity of TCA personnel; and fourth, the world political situation. Stanley Andrews, administrator of TCA at the time Stassen became director of FDA, resisted the trend toward integration. Before being relieved of his TCA post, Andrews recommended that FOA should consist of two branches, one for security programs and a second for technical assistance programs. The recommendation was reJected and integration of technical assistance and security programs continued. Andrews has, however, stated in later conversations that he was one of those who suggested to Stassen that the government endeavor to expand its con- tract arrangements with American universities for technical assistance programs.“8 Given Andrews' prior association with university contracts as director of the Office of Foreign Agricultural Relations in the Department of Agriculture, this assertion is highly plausible. Thus ”833-98. See also, Glick, op: cit., p. #7. the m ‘1 IL? iii c "es ”file Vi K..- 95 while Andrews' attempts to halt the integration of technical assistance and security programs were unsuccessful, his attitudes toward the use of universities as instruments possessed of important technical skills and capable of allaying the fears of technical assistance recipients became a part of FDA under Stassen. Andrews, of course, was not alone in recommending expansion of the university contract program. Most persons who had had experience in IIAA or in the Department of Agriculture were generally familiar with contract programs involving American universities overseas and they probably found occasion to transfer their experiences to such agen- cies as TCA and FOA.u9 MOreover, the American Association of Land Grant Colleges and State Universities had as early as 19u9 expressed a formal interest in the contract idea. In the midst of struggling with the problems of integrating and orienting the whole foreign aid program and confronted by the conflicting pressures from Congress for more military assistance on the one hand and from foreign countries for more technical assistance devoid of security strings on the other, Stassen sensed the potential of the university contract idea as a solution to a variety of problems and as a prop to his political situation.50 Under Stassen's leadership the formal integration of all foreign aid activities within the framework of FDA was completed. But beneath the surface calm of a new organizational form, the pattern of technical assistance was being changed. While Andrews' suggestions on the organ- ization of FOA were reJected, other members of TCA who supported the ”9HE-66. Interview with an official of ICA. 5OWE-6O, WE-7l, and WE-66. Interviews with high-level personnel of ICA. “we ”a. .3 ",3 b L}: U "MQ ' “on: . 31:- 96 earlier efforts of Bennett to broaden the technical assistance programs and their obJectives maintained their pressure within FDA. Their pressure, together with influences from host countries favoring techni- cal assistance programs, contributed to the partial acceptance by Stassen of the idea that the essential task of technical assistance or cooperation was the promotion of the balanced economic deve10pment of the cooperating countries.51 This represented a change from the narrower goals of such programs as IIAA and was hailed by supporters of foreign aid as an important forward step. But the impact of such a change in goals was dulled by the increasing mixture of technical assistance with military programs. However, uncomfortable as the blending of technical assistance with military programs was to many persons and institutions operating within the foreign aid organization, the number and scope of technical assistance programs increased during the existence of FOA. The negative feelings toward integration were possibly offset by the increased Congressional support for foreign aid on an integrated basis. In his efforts to make FOA a viable directorate for foreign aid programs and to enhance his political position within the Eisenhower Administration, Stassen was alert to suggestions that might contribute to these objectives. One such was related to the increased use of American universities in technical assistance programs. It should be emphasized that this suggestion affected only a small part of FOA's operations and represented only a portion of the work done under the title of technical assistance. Notwithstanding the small size of the universities' contribution to FDA in 1953. Stassen and his staff saw in universities a way to handle three long-standing problems and to advance slGlick, 99. c_i_t_., p. A8. 97 certain political ambitions.52 The three problems involved the follow- ing: (1) recruitment of qualified personnel, (2) Congressional support for technical assistance, and (3) host country suspicion of technical assistance programs and personnel. Since IIAA days the government has been plagued by a shortage of qualified personnel to staff technical assistance programs abroad. The inducements of government employment have not been sufficient to attract all needed personnel away from private employment.53 This has been particularly true of university personnel, in that such persons frequently consider government service as outside of their career pattern.5u Recognizing this fact, among others, the Act for Inter- national Development emphasized contracting with private agencies for technical assistance service. Combined with IIAA's, 806's, and the old-line departments', such as the Department of Agriculture's, experi- ences with American universities, this Congressional action provided sufficient incentive for FDA under Stassen to pursue a policy designed to expand the contractual relationship between government and universi- ties. Without exception the eighty-seven government persons interviewed for this study stated that the university contract system has been attractive to the government because it has provided access to a 2 5 WE-7fl, WE-69, and WE-60. Interviews with personnel associated with FOA during Stassen's tenure as director. 53The complexity of the recruitment situation is described in United States Senate, Eighty-fifth Congress, Personnel for the Mutual Security Program (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Febru- ary 1957 . See also, Sharp, op: cit., pp. 32-33. 51(The attitudes of university personnel relative to the influ- ence of government service on their career patterns will be discussed in Chapter IV. 98 reservoir of skilled personnel otherwise unavailable. Early public information literature of FOA, such as "American Universities in Techni- cal Cooperation," demonstrates the prominent influence of personnel pressures on the trend toward increasing the amount of participation by American universities in technical assistance. Not only was Stassen faced with the problem of finding personnel to staff technical assistance programs. He was also constrained to counteract the suspicions overseas caused by the integration of techni- cal and military assistance under his leadership. Again the universi- ties seemed to provide a possible, if only partial, answer. There has existed a sort of “mystique“ among leaders in American education that has "rubbed off" on politicians and government personnel, the core of which is, that university personnel can operate in the international milieu of technical assistance without engendering as high a level of suspicion as direct-hire government technicians generate in similar circumstances. Use of university personnel has appeared to be one way of minimizing the political implications of technical assistance.55 The validity of this assumption is in the process of being tested, and the findings are varied and inconclusive. Uhder the aegis of the American Council on Education's Committee on Institutional ProJects Abroad, the universities in cooperation with government personnel under- take reappraisal of the university contract system almost yearly. The 55Among the eighty-seven government persons interviewed for this study, this theme is second only to recruiting in importance. It was also prominent during the 1955-57 hearings on technical assistance conducted by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. See United States Senate, Eighty-fifth Congress, Final Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Tachnical Assistance (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 12, 1957), especially pp. 31-35. 99 most striking aftermath of these meetings, which are usually critical of government policies, is an increase in the number of technical assistance programs involving American universities.56 The Department of State sponsored the Annapolis Conference mentioned in Chapter I to examine the proposition that universities can perform a unique function in technical assistance, and the Ford Foundation is currently pursuing a related inquiry.57 Thirdly, although many Democrats and TCA employees were con- vinced that the Republicans had every intention of destroying technical assistance or reducing it to insignificance, Stassen confounded the opposition and those who interpreted Secretary Dulles' indifference to technical assistance as its "death knell." Glick suggests that Stassen saw in American universities a strong pressure group which could be used to counteract the influence Senator Joseph McCarthy and other "right- wing" Congressional elements had on the future of FOA. This was the era when foreign aid was publicly discussed as a "rat hole" by leading politicians and publicists. Stassen, like most members of elite groups, was reluctant to have his relatively modest government organization destroyed before he had made adequate arrangements for his next upward step in the political hierarchy. In 1953. Stassen was able to mobilize successfully an important element of the American academic community, the land grant universities, in favor of increasing the number of uni- versity contracts. This expansion of university activity and interest —__‘ _‘ 56The growth pattern is clearly shown in the quarterly reports of the International Cooperation Administration. 57United States Department of State, Annapolis Conference on International Education, April H-5, 1959. A brief report of the pro- ceedings was given limited distribution. 100 represented an important development in Stassen's campaign to construct an integrated framework for foreign aid. Moreover, it offset the com- plaints of Congressional critics relative to technical assistance by diverting attention from politics to the less sensitive area of edu- cation.58 Although the university contract system has failed to eradicate all the problems involved in technical assistance programs, it appears to have sufficient support as a complementary or auxiliary instrument of foreign policy to account for its continued existence and growth. Stassen's role in inducing American universities to participate in government-sponsored international programs which overtly Joined technical assistance with education, and his role in widening the realm of international activity for universities, should be acknowledged. He is certainly not the “father" of the university contract system for technical assistance. He does not make this claim.59 But he did utilize his background as a university president and ambitious poli- tician as a support for his administrative position in FOA in such a way that American universities found themselves directly participating in the processes of international relations on a scale never before approached. One device Stassen used in this enterprise was the advisory committee. He created an Education Committee for FOA composed of presi- dents of prominent American universities and representatives of im- portant educational groups. The committee was charged with the re- sponsibility for increasing the "educational aspect of technical 5811.3. Senate, Technical Assistance, pp. 9-15. 59WE-7u. Interview with a very high level government official cilirectly connected with FDA during its lifetime. 101 assistance programs." As the minutes of the committee's organization meeting indicate, this charge meant that FOA needed assistance in finding more universities and university personnel to meet the re- quirements of the agency in the technical assistance field.60 As measured by the increase in the number of university contracts for international programs signed in 1955, the device was successful. The number rose from fifty-nine to eighty. Subsequent minutes of the Education Committee and a memorandum dated October 19, 1955, to the committee members from William F. Russell, Deputy Director for Technical Services, strongly suggest that one of the most influential members of the committee was John A. Hannah, president of MiChigan State university. Further, Russell's memorandum requests specifically that Hannah focus his attention on problems related to the university contract program. Hannah's influence in this area dates back to 19U9, when he was president of the American Association of Land Grant Colleges and State Universities. It was he who took the initiative on behalf of the Association to pledge the support of the member institutions for the implementation of the Point Four program. The Proceedings of the Association from 1998-1958 contain frequent references to Hannah's forceful role in encouraging American universities to participate in government sponsored technical assistance 61 programs. Russell Thackrey, long-time Executive Secretary of the 6OFOreign Operations Administration, Education Committee, nSummary Minutes Meeting of January 29, 1955," mimeographed. 61The impact of Hannah's commitment to international programs on the Association has been significant if one considers the fact that the Association has devoted a steadily increasing amount of time to discussing his proposals on the ramifications of international programs from 1949 to the present. The Proceeding§_of the annual conventions of ‘Uhe Association from 1998-1958 demonstrate the members' growing concern hive “lam +1.; ...a u at: tel tic 102 American Association of Land Grant Colleges and State universities, has credited Hannah and Bennett with providing the initial "push” to the university contract program.62 Hannah's enthusiasm was contagious, both from the point of view of the land grant institutions and from that of FDA. Other references to Hannah's exceptional interest in inter- national programs sponsored by the government occur in meetings organ- ized by the American Council on Education's Committee on Institutional Programs Abroad. Hannah's voice was strongest from 1955-57, during 63 In this role he which time he served as chairman of the Committee. was able to expand his influence beyond the boundaries of the American Association of Land Grant Colleges and State Universities and into the membership of the more broadlyebased American Council on Education. Unsolicited statements to.this effect were made by seven of the thirty presidents of universities with international programs included in this study. Hannah's commitment to international programs has had a notice- able impact on.his own Michigan State university. During the fifties, Michigan State continually increased its international activities, both under government and private sponsorship. The university has also been with or interest in these actiVities, and Hannah's comments and the'. statements of such persons as Dean Rusk and Charles Brennan at the meetings suggest that Hannah was and continues to be active among the leadership group in the Association which has supported the idea that export of the "land grant philosophy of public service" to foreign countries is feasible. 62WE-53. 63For details of the Committee's activities see American Council on Education, University ProJects Abroad and Blueprint and Experience, published in 1956—and 1958 respectively by ACE. 103 one of the leaders among universities attempting to find an internal administrative pattern of organization which would maximize the possible returns from international programs. The result is a complex network of interest and responsibility formally focused in the office of a Dean of International Programs. While this administrative arrangement is even newer than the programs which provided the stimuli for its develop- ment, it has elicited widespread interest among American universities.6u Whether it will suggest solutions to the problems of policy and adminis- tration raised and examined later in this study can only be guessed at. Although the activity of three men has been selected to indicate the variety of sources from which energy was derived to propel the government and universities into a large-scale, cooperative international venture, it should be re-emphasized that this is only one part of the story. One cannot ignore the less dramatic, but equally important, buildup international programs had through the work of FOA's prede- cessors, such as IIAA, SCC, ECA, and MSA. Significant foundations for technical assistance programs were constructed by them from 1939 through 1952. Upon these foundations, FOA and its successor, the International Cooperation Administration (ICA), has been built up much of their work. Important changes have been made in policy orientation, methods of operation, etc., but the core concept of international cooperation in- volving governments and universities, the beginnings of which have been well traced by Curti and Birr, has remained and been expanded. The 6”All of the universities in the "large" and "very large" cate- gories in this study made inquiries relative to the internal arrange- ments Michigan State had developed to handle international programs. Particular interest was expressed by Harvard university, which was in the process of examining administrative problems on an extensive scale, and by the university of California at Berkeley. See especially inter- Views BJ-97. G-l3, BJ-32, BJ-16. BJ-15, and BJ-30. 10H impetus for change and expansion has come from such divergent sources as the squabbling between the government and American universities over the operation of their international programs and the increasing compe- tition of the Soviet bloc in the field of technical assistance. .The Mutual Security Act of 195a brought technical assistance full circle. Once again the Department of State assumed direct re- sponsibility for technical assistance as the newly created International Cooperation Administration (ICA) replaced FOA in mid-1955. The follow- ing policy statement indicates clearly that technical assistance has been elevated to a significant policy position and that education is the key concept in the assistance process: Technical cooperation with the less well-developed nations of the world is a maJor phase of U.S. foreign policy, not only as an expression of the humanitarian interest and good will of the American people, but because the ultimate bene- fits to this country Justify U.S. assistance on the basis of its contribution to our national interest and security. Our fundamental obJective is to develop and maintain the defensive strength, political stability, economic growth, and social deve10pment necessary for the stability and security of the free world. Attainment of this obJective requires American support of the efforts of the peeples of the free world to realize the full potentialities of their material and human resources. Technical cooperation has many facets, such as the improvement of health, agriculture, industry, or education, but all of them to be fully ef- fective necessarily involve educational processes. Only by helping the less-developed nations to increase their own ability to do the Job themselves can any lasting improve- ments be made. Educatioéré has a maJor role to play in every aspect of this program. 65International Cooperation Administration, "Policy Statement: Education Policy," available to this writer in mimeograph form and later incorporated into descriptive literature published by ICA and a study prepared by the Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for the Special Committee to Study the Foreign Aid Program, U.S. Senate, Eighty-fifth Congress, entitled The ObJectives of united States Economic Assistance Programs, January 1957. 105 Overt integration of foreign technical aid programs with mili- tary programs stopped abruptly with the creation of ICA as a semi- autonomous administrative unit within the Department of State. Dulles' earlier desire to divest the Department of State of some of its operating units remained unfulfilled, and under Congressional pressure technical cooperation was placed within the policy framework of the Department of State.66 Military assistance programs were transferred to the Depart- ment of Defense. Thus, while both types of programs still derived their authority and financial support from the Mutual Security Act, responsi- bility for their policy orientations and operations came to be vested in separate departments of government. While exchange of information and coordination of policy exists to varying degrees between the Departments of State and Defense on international programs, the administrative separation prevails to the present. This administrative separation of military and technical as- sistance did seem to allay a few reservations about American foreign aid motives prevalent among foreign recipients and American universi- ties. But a feeling lingered, as it still does, that technical as- sistance had merely changed its guise and that it was becoming a more subtle and ingenious aspect of American foreign policy which found it advantageous to employ universities as instruments for the realization of short-range policy aims under the protective umbrella of education and humanitarianism. The extent of this uneasiness among American uni- versities is explored in Chapter IV of this study. While the last five years of the fifties saw the number of government-sponsored university international programs increase, there 66Glick, op, cit., p. 50. 106 have been no fundamental changes in the rationale which led to their development. The groundwork laid by ICA's predecessors has not been radically altered, although many minor and maJor changes in operating procedures have been made during the ICA period. It is at this Juncture in the history of the government's interest in universities as a part of the machinery necessary to conduct international relations that this study begins to emphasize the attitudes and observations of government and university personnel collected through interviews. Before leaving the background story of the university contract system mention should be made of at least two other significant govern- ment programs which have affected the international perspectives and activities of American universities. The first is the approximately seventy-five university-to-university affiliations which the United States Information Agency has promoted or is in the process of trying to develop. This program emphasizes the exchange of information between American and foreign universities with the ultimate hope that such a process will develop into a variety of cordial and useful methods of international intercourse which will be beneficial to all parties con- cerned, including the U:S. Government. The government puts relatively little money into these prospective affiliations, relying on an initial "push" of a few thousand dollars to get the proJect under way. After that, the burden of maintaining or expanding the program falls mainly on the universities involved. Interestingly enough, USIA is an inde- pendent agency of the government, having been removed from the Depart- ment of State in 1953.67 Consequently, coordination of USIA's programs 67For a short account of USIA's work see Paul S. Bodenman, American Cooperation with Higher Education Abroad (Washington, D.C.: tith of n +' 557a» mm mm a?!“ I...“ lei 107 with other government-university programs involves inter-agency co- operation. Physical and administrative separation of these programs has not developed, and probably could not develop, their complementary, mutually supporting potential. A second type of program sponsored by the government which affects universities directly is the exchange-of-persons program. Known formally as the International Educational Exchange Program, this program is the responsibility of the International Educational Exchange Service (IRS) of the Department of State. Although IES operations include such well known programs as those provided for under the Fulbright and Smith_ Mundt Acts, and although these programs are an important facet of edu- cation in international relations, they are not the direct subJect of this study since they do not meet the definition of an “international program? as used herein. They seldom have the elements of formal re- sponsibility of a contractual nature falling on an American university nor are they organized in a substantive way that relates directly and continuously to an American.university or foreign host institutions. The present study does not discount the importance or influence of the 138 programs, but resources were not available which would permit this writer to accumulate sufficient evidence to evaluate them. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Bulletin 1957, No. 8), Chapter VII. Problems of inter-agency coordination are covered in a report by the Cultural Planning and Coordination Staff, Bureau of Public Affairs, Department of State, entitled "Coordination of the Edu- cational Exchange Program of IRS, Exchange Aspects of the Technical Training Activities of ICA, and Certain Cultural Activities of USIA," July 1956-June 1957. . 68FOr official histories of IRS programs see U.S. Department of State publications entitled "Swords into Plowshares" (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, Ju1y 1956), and "International Edu- cational Exchange Program, 19M8-l958" (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office, November 1958). 108 An interesting phenomenon that is discernible in an examination of international programs and that might be attributed in part to IRS is that literature dealing with the exchange of persons is replete with comments which assume that the language of education is universal and that cooperative educational programs can transcend if not ignore long- established national and cultural boundaries, and even that they tend to promote democracy. In.the fifties these recurrent themes concerning education, universalism, and democracy are being put to the test, for the exchange-of-persons program is advertised and Justified by stressing the proposition that 'people-to-people" contact will lead to greater international understanding, and ultimately to peace.69 The proof of this proposition is impossible at this stage in history, but this study will present some evidence which is suggestive as to the extent to which experience and ideals diverge. This brief history of the growth of government and university cooperation in the international field, with special emphasis on the university contract system for technical assistance, has been designed to indicate some of the government-sponsored activities involving 69Ibid. See especially the introductory material and the frame- work of these publications. There is little doubt that the exchange-of- persons program is conducted with enthusiasm by IE3 and also that some- times there is something akin to religious fervor in the atmosphere of certitude with which the problems of international communications are approached. Moreover, this writer is of the opinion that the government has assumed the earlier role of the religious missionaries, and has attempted to expand on the missionary proselyting process by bringing large numbers of foreign nationals to the United States for educational purposes. A suggestion that there might be important shortcomings and dangers in this approach is contained in a paper by Karl W. Deutsch en- titled ”Nationalistic Responses to Study Abroad" read at the 1952 Annual .Meeting of the Rational Association of Foreign Student Advisors; the report is reprinted in the Association's Report of the Conference on International Educational Exchanges, April 23-26, 1952, pp. 9-20. marsh ‘12 am a review etuzatio to sugge ievelop: them when reading 3918131: 5'. 109 universities which have influenced the current international posture of the latter. To repeat, it is not an eXhaustive history. Rather, it is a review of significant activities of the government in international education which have preceded the current situation. Care has been taken to suggest that there is no single event or reason that explains these developments. The inter-relationships of technological advances, inter— national crises, and operating experiences of government agencies and universities, to mention only a few, have all had their impact on ex- panding the general role of American universities in international relations. Private Foundations as‘Sponsors of International Programs Before proceeding with the background of current university- foundation relationships and their relevance to international programs, it is important to establish some boundaries for this discussion lest it become too extensive. First, although there exist nearly 5,000 non- profit organizations in the united States which have been classified as foundations,7o this study concentrates primarily on certain developments in three foundations. Occasional reference may be made to other foun- dations, but the three maJor foundations examined are Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie (Carnegie Corporation of New York). These three have been selected not only as an economy measure, but also because they are three of the largest foundations in terms of resources and spending. Together they spend over twice as much as all other foundations combined. Ford alone spends four times what the second largest foundation, Rockefeller, 70See the First Annual Report (1956) of the Foundation Library Center, new YOrk, for a listing of foundations by (l) asset categories and (2) methods of reporting their activities. A standard reference work On foundations, American Foundations and Their Fields (New York: Ameri- <=an Foundation Service, Seventh Edition, 1955), describes 3,500 "true" foundations . 110 normally spends in a year and ten times the annual spending of Carnegie.71 They dominate foundation spending in the international field. Of the sixty-two foundation-sponsored international programs reported in The International Programs of_American Universities and utilized in this report, fifty-three have received financial support from the Rockefeller, Ford, or Carnegie foundations. Thus, while the approximately 4,997 other American foundations may be important examples of philanthropy in their own ways, their histories are much less sig- nificant for the purposes of this study. The private foundations are second only to the government as external sponsors of the international programs of American universi- ties. The International Programs of American Universities reports that of the 382 international programs in operation at the end of 1958, ninety-five or 2u.6 per cent received their financial support from the government and sixty-two or 16.3 per cent were supported by foun- dations.72 Although the foundations support nearly two-thirds as many international programs involving American universities as does the government, the financial contribution of the foundations as compared to that of the government is not proportionate to the numbers of programs involved. Dwight Macdonald suggests that signs of the decline of the foundations as the most generous patrons of the universities were becoming evident in the 1920's.73 This does not mean that the dollar amount of foundation support for universities has dropped, but A‘ 71bright: Macdonald, The Ford Foundation: The Men and the Millions (Mew Ybrk: Reynal and Company, 1956): p. #8. 72Ibid, p. 48. 73lhcdonald, op. cit., p. 1&7. 111 that it has, since then, been overshadowed by the rapidly increasing amounts of money the government has allotted to universities. The dollar amount of the foundations' contributions more than doubled in the early 1950's when the giant Ford Foundation began to dispense money in earnest. Even this influx of new foundation money into the stream of funds earmarked for educational proJects failed to match the millions of dollars the government was pouring into international programs, not to mention a variety of other government-sponsored proJects involving universities, at the same point in time. Large though the contributions of foundations to education have been, observers and friends of foun- dations admit that the “golden days“ of the foundations have passed and they are now in their "silver era.'7u Notwithstanding the relative decline of the foundations' mone- tary contribution to American universities, the foundations remain one of the most important sources of funds for the support of universities and the development of scholarship. A review of the annual reports that several of the large foundations issued during the period 1950-58 indi- cates that education.has steadily increased its share of the funds dis- tributed by these foundations.75 while this is not true of foundations which have been established for specific, fixed purposes or to support a single substantive field, it does tend to describe the trend of giving 71‘FOr a sprightly examination of this proposition see Macdonald, op: oit,, especially Chapter III. A more conventional account of the decline" of the foundations is available in Abraham Flexner, Funds and Foundations: Their Policies Past and Present (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1952). Flexner's association with the foundations is usually traced to the beginning days of the first “giants," Rockefeller and -Carnegie. He is probably best known in foundation circles for the impe- tus he has given to the Rockefeller Foundation's interest in medicine. 75Reports used in this survey were those of the following foun- dations: Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Kellogg, and Falk. show t ,“a'ld “wk AH . 31410. an 11 est ! educ stan publ act '11!- ‘d-L (D ,‘4’ Li 0', 1 ’5). H -.-- 4’s) _ A t v' (4') 112 among those foundations which possess the overwhelming share of resources available to philanflmopic organizations. The same foundation reports show that there is an increasing tendency for foundations to equate the field of education with educational institutions, and especially insti- tutions of higher education. As any standard history of foundations, such as Andrews' Philanthropic Foundations, will show, foundations since their period of rapid growth in the twentieth century have always had an interest in education and educational institutions. But their inter- est has increased through time and has become more sharply focused on educational institutions than at any previous time. Earlier, a sub- stantial share of foundation funds had been used in direct programs of public health, medicine, and private charity. Increased government activity in these same fields, especially during the New Deal era, has diminished the over-all impact of the foundations.76 Seeing their leads followed by more comprehensive organizations, e.g., the various governments, foundations have pursued two basic courses as responses to a changing situation. First, they have comple- mented government operations in particular fields. This has meant providing support for a part of a larger problem area which is not fully covered by government operations. Medicine and public health are excellent examples of this development. Given the magnitude of funds involved and the increasingly public nature of many foundation fields, 76This development is outlined in Nacdonald, 22: git,, Chapter III. See also Raymond B. Fosdick, The Story of the Rockefeller Foun- dation (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1952), p. 3‘00: Tin fields like public health and agriculture the Foundation has demonstrated the merit 'of new ideas-~so completely, in fact, that its programs have frequently been taken over by governments, and people have voted to tax themselves to maintain the demonstrations.“ 113 the foundations do not entertain any illusions of competing with govern- ment funds. They are generally ready to shift their fields when their support and impact are welcome but relatively insignificant in terms of total problem solving. One of the maJor themes of Flexner's Funds and Foundations is that foundations have the responsibility to use their "free money" to point the way for later government intervention in a problem area and/or to stimulate public interest in problem areas. Pursuit of the first course tends to lead to the second, for once foundation leaderships see, or think they see, the funds of their organizations decline in "creative value" as a result of the support and/or intervention of powerful parties like governments they begin their search for “more challenging areas." Currently much of their quest for creativity has pointed them toward education as a field.77 There is no assurance that foundations, assuming they persist for an indefinite period, will continue to maintain their present level of interest in and support of educational institutions. Support for ac- tivities that one can generally label as "educative" will probably always be a feature of foundation policy, but changes in public atti- tudes toward educational institutions may result in a sharp decline in foundation support, not merely the relative decline that is presently visible. Most large foundations have, in their short histories, tended to redirect their resources to new fields when they perceived a decline of their impact on a field. This may have important implications for American universities, among others. - 77Both the search for more creative fields and the current interest in education are well documented in the policy statements of the "Big Three" foundation presidents prefacing their annual reports since 1950. gossfl 1 t £35 42 final ’ A. <—r— 11a A relatively new, and as yet only partially explored, third possibility for foundation-university international programs is that instance in which foundations continue support for a program previously financed by the International Cooperation Administration or some other government agency. This is generally not a simple case of a foundation rudhing in to "save” a program that shows signs of impact, but which the government can no longer support for any number of reasons, such as political reallocation of funds, changes in policy emphasis, etc. Most likely any such development has its origin in the fact that a foundation has had an early and continuing interest in the country or area in which a particular program has been operating; This may be reinforced by a coincidence of subJect-matter interest. Thus, the foundation may have done important "advance" work which has coincided with government interest in a particular area. The government responds with an im- portant program, frequently involving an American university. The time comes for'withdrawal of government support for a particular inter- national program, and a foundation which may have strongly influenced the pattern of action steps in to continue support of the program, generally on a reduced scale. Although pursuit of this course of action is comparatively rare, there is feeling in ICA and foundation circles that the possibility of its expansion should be explored. Dean Rusk, President of the Rocke- feller Foundation, combines criticism of the ICA university-contract system with support for expansion of foundation efforts to "supplement things which the government can no longer finance."78 78American Council on Education, Education Without Boundaries (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1959), pp. 26-H0. . 9 mi“ ..1 +‘ In . M 113‘ ”1 V . pm] 115 Serious problems of a political nature are raised when any private organization working in a foreign country associates itself with government programs. Both the foundations and the government are aware of the possible Shortcomings of such an approach, but at the same time both are concerned that the impact of the initial effort by the government and the universities will be lost if no follow-up is pro- vided. As the following chapters indicate, attitudes of those few uni- versity, foundation, and government persons who have been exploring the problem have not crystallized. If government intervention in areas previously serviced by such private organizations as foundations has contributed to the redistri- bution of funds by these organizations, and if this redistribution has had important consequences for the field of education, for educational institutions, and for international programs, then the influx of aca- demic personnel into foundation administration is significant. In- creased academic representation in foundations probably has been both a result of and a contributor to the foregoing developments. Looking at the ”Big Three" foundations during the 1950-58 period, one can detect the increased numbers of academic personnel in these foundations' organizations as well as an increasingly academic emphasis. For example, in 1955 the Rockefeller Foundation began to include the names and highest academic degrees of its administrators in its annual reports. While such changes in themselves prove nothing of great import, they do provide clues to changing attitudes. In a generalization covering foundation personnel who are responsible for screening requests for 'grants ("philanthropoids" is the term used by Frederick P. Keppel, former president of the Carnegie Corporation), Macdonald states that in zest & L; U U. M . full. 39!: l.‘ the tax DI 116 most cases their previous employment has been with an academic insti- tution.79 As such persons as Fosdick in The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation have pointed out, academics have always had an influence in the operation of the maJor foundations, but their presence has never been so apparent as it is today. In a sense, the present trend in foundation administration toward expansion of opportunities for aca- demics is self-reinforcing. Movement into educational fields has pro- vided the logic for this development, and once started the familiar tendency in bureaucracy toward recruitment of like-minded souls has provided the energy for its maintenance and expansion. This is not to suggest that foundations are irrevocably pointed in the direction of supporting institutions of education. Previous comments about the impact on foundation policy of other agencies' spending suggest otherwise. However, interviewees for this study on university campuses displayed somewhat possessive attitudes about foun- dation resources, indicating that they feel that universities' claims are of the first order of priority.80 One clue to the possibility of change in the patterns of foundation giving, and university faculty display a tendency to overlook this, lies in the socio-economic back- grounds of the trustees of the various foundations. USing the 1950-58 annual reports of the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations, and the 1953-58 annual reports of the Ford Foundation, one can see that edu- cation has had a minimum representation at the trustee level. Trustees are generally men of business and finance whose roots are not in 79mcdona1d, 93. 933., pp. 96-99. 80This attitude is explored more fully in Chapter IV. 117 81 It is at this level that final decisions on grants are education. made and basic policies are formulated which affect the course of any foundation. The work of the intermediate level, the administrators who channel information to the trustees from the prospective grantees, is extremely important, especially in the eyes of those requesting funds, but they are not the captors of the trustees. Macdonald, among foun- dation.historians, would accord them the most power, while writers like Flexner, Fosdick, and Andrews emphasize the importance of decisions by trustees relative to the foundations' basic courses. The growing numbers of academic personnel in the administrative ranks of foundations not only have contributed to the foundations' current high level of interest in educational institutions, but have also served to promote a "community of interest" between the foundations and educational institutions. The philanthropoids and the academics "speak the same language." This fact alone makes contact with foun- dations an easier matter for university personnel than it is for many other applicants for foundation assistance. Having made contact and possibly having negotiated a grant, the academic and the foundation feel that they can pursue independent courses with mutual confidence and respect.82 Since accountability is minimal, friction is practically non-existent. In this happy state of camaraderie, foundations and edu- cational institutions and personnel set out to "push back the frontiers of knowledge." To emphasize the fact that foundations and universities 81For pointed commentary on this see Macdonald, op, cit., pp. 95-98. The problem of academic representation among foundation trustees - is covered indirectly in Fosdick, op: cit., Chapter XI. 82The correctness of this statement is debated in Joseph C. Kiger, 92eratigg Principles of the Larger Foundations (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, l95h7: pp. 7h-80. 118 have much in common, interviewees at large universities that have both government and foundation support for different international programs delight in relating how much "easier it is to work with foundations than it is with the government." The reason that such is the case is usually summed up with a phrase like, "We have the same viewpoint as the foun- dations and we use similar administrative practices," or, "We trust each other."83 Another development which has been part of the recent expansion of foundation interest in more narrowly defined educational programs is the foundations' increased emphasis on institutions as opposed to indi- viduals. In the late 20's, 30's, and #0's, foundations laid fairly heavy emphasis on grants to individuals. The emphasis had its ”ups and downs" and was the subJect of heated debate in and around foundation circles.8u But it persisted. As the 50's arrived and problems of amazing size and complexity emerged from the aftermath of World War II, the individual grant tended to be buried in the avalanche of large grants to institutions. Ford led the way in this deve10pment. To ease the problems of administration and to shed its embarrassing wealth quickly, the Ford Foundation entered into a frenzied state of giving. In a fashion that set the press, educational, and medical circles to gasping, Ford announced programs entailing the distribution of over 500 :million dollars beginning in 1955.85 The recipients were numerous, but 83An excellent example of this attitude is available in a series of interviews by the author at a large, western university. See BJ-l5 throng: BJ-33. » ”A severe early critic of "shotgun grants," as he called them, ‘was Abraham Flexner. For his stinging criticisms see Flexner, op, cit., Chapter‘v. BSMacdonald, op. cit., pp. 165-17u. . 119 virtually all of them were well-established institutions. In this atmosphere, the individual grantee was lost from public view and the ideals of "risk" or "venture" capital, so much a part of earlier foun- dation giving, were transformed.into gigantic projects in "relatively safe areas of human behavior." The three large foundations discussed in this study seem to subscribe to the view that it is much better and easier to dispense large sums of money to established institutions than it is to give large numbers of individual grants. It is better because large grants tend to have a greater impact on the problems which are under examination. It is easier because the processing of a $5,000 grant to an individual is much more time-consuming than the process of a $5,000,000 grant to a well-known university, for example.87 Bolstered by these arguments, the foundations have steadily increased their institutional giving without providing comparable increases in the area of individual grants. The impact of such a vigorous institutional emphasis on educational institutions has particular relevance for this study. To summarize very briefly, current foundation attitudes toward education.have been influenced by or have developed from the following factors and events: The consequences of this deve10pment are well covered in Hilliam.H. thte, Jr., "What are the Foundations Up To?" and "Where the Foundations Fall Down" (Fortune, October and November, 1955, respective- 13)- 8 7This development and the arguments which surround it are covered generally by Kiger, Operating Pringiples of the Larger Foun- dations: Macdonald, The Ford Foundation; Fosdick, The Story of the - Rockefeller Foundation; and U.S. House of Representatives, Eighty-second Congress, Hearings before the Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations ("Cox Committee"), Tax-Exempt Foundations (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1953). 1) 2) 3) 1*) 5) 6) 7) 120 The intervention of government in fields formerly financed or aided primarily by private foundations. The alteration in courses of action and methods of giving on the part of foundations as a result of a wider welfare orientation of public agencies. The expansion of international interest on the part of foundations as a reaction to the consequences of maJor wars and depressions. Reorganization of foundations to include increased numbers of academics at the administrative level, but without a similar development at the trustee level. The general "questing" nature of foundations and their interest in dispensing "creative money." Increased institutional orientation of the foundations. Responsive reaction to foundation practices on the part of educational institutions. Developing concurrently with the foundations' interests in institutions of higher education has been their international orien- tation. Both Rockefeller and Carnegie early developed programs in the international area. Rockefeller emphasized medicine and public health, ;primarily in Latin America and the Middle and Far East. Carnegie, re- flecting its founder's ancestral background, focused on the British Commonwealth. These early interests and programs have received a force- ful impetus for expansion as the United States has increased its inter- ruational responsibilities and commitments, giving the problems of the ‘wordd new meanings for Americans. Following World war II, the American government and universities expanded their interests in the educational 121 aspects of international relations in a manner that has been comple- mentary to the activities of foundations. This triad of interest groups possesses an important potential for international impact through propams which are broadly educational. The confluence of interest and activity of the three parties is, of course, part of a larger pattern. Each has had prior experiences in the international area, particularly education, each has been affected by the shifting events and power patterns related to international politics, and each has a stake in the future deve10pment of the world and mankind. In terms of this study, the important result of this confluence has been the selection of the American university in general by the foundations and government as an instrument through which to perform certain types of international activities. Both foundations and government (as has been previously mentioned) have found the uni- versities to be convenient, interested, and unique organizations capable of participating in international programs. Moreover, universities are virtually dependent on external funds for any extensive, large-scale international contacts. Thus, the patterns of cooperation developing between universities and foundations on the national level since the 1920's have become the basis for their mutual interest, while inter- national political developments and improved methods and demands for international communications have contributed the stimuli for extending these relationships to the international arena. In this general environment favoring foundation sponsorship of university participation in international programs, the interactions of hthe government and the foundations are of special interest. Their impact has fostered an important development in the distribution of 122 foundation resources between national and international programs. The government's part in developing international programs utilizing Ameri- can universities has been briefly traced. But to understand the present posture of foundations visJa-vis the international area and American universities, one must add another aspect of the government's influence. Although foundations generally preceded government as sponsors of inter- national programs involving universities, they soon found their activi- ties matched by the government. By the early 1950's foundations became acutely aware of the fact that the government had entered the field of international education, via cultural exchange, fellowships, technical assistance, etc.88 Once again, the government had followed the lead of the foundations in entering a problem area; however, the government also had its IIAA experiences to build on. The foundations have been en- couraged by the government and universities to remain in the inter- national education field notwithstanding government intervention. Since the problems related to the international scene are so gigantic and complex, there is no present evidence to suggest that the foundations might withdraw in search of new fields. The contrary is the case if the increasing allocation of foundation resources to international programs is any guide.89 88 For an example of one foundation's reactions see the Annual Report of the Carnegie Corporation of New York for 1959, p. 11. Gener- ally, Carnegie responded by increasing its commitments to activities it believed would complement the educational exchange activities of the government. 89tlhile the three large foundations used in this study have all steadily increased their contributions to programs with an international . orientation during the 1950's, the case of the Carnegie Corporation is of particular interest. Excluding its somewhat fixed obligation to British Commonwealth programs, Carnegie is restrained by the nature of its original charter from sponsoring programs overseas to any apprecia- ble extent. This, if interviews with foundation personnel and the 123 The impact of the Ford Foundation and its comparatively large resources on foundation policies has been significant in all substantive areas.90 For present purposes, the introduction of Ford money into the international area, especially with reference to its use by American universities, and the significance of this development is of particular interest. Among American foundations, Rockefeller had been, up to the 1950's, the undisputed leader among spenders for programs outside of the United States. Latin America and parts of the Middle East have been aware of Rockefeller‘s programs since the earliest days of the foun- dation. But during the 1950's, Rockefeller relinquished first place among foundations to Ford, and in the international field, Rockefeller has, during the same period, seen its financial contributions over- shadowed by FOrd. By 1959, Ford was spending directly on international programs over three times as much as Carnegie was spending on all. activities, and three-fourths as much as Rockefeller was spending on 91 While foundations do not generally engage in all of its operations. overt competition, Ford's impact on international programs has been one of several influences stimulating other foundations to give increased attention to international problems. No foundation presently in annual reports of Carnegie are significant, has been a bit uncomfortable, especially in the light of the government's international programs and Rockefeller's and Ford's impressive international commitments. To compensate, Carnegie has steadily increased its expenditures for programs based in the United States, but having international ramifications. For example, the continued support of numerous "area studies" programs and of a program at Syracuse University aimed at teaching "overseasman- ship." 90A feeling for this impact is conveyed by Macdonald, pp, cit., . Chapter III. 91These comparisons are based on the financial statements con- tained in the annual reports for the three affected foundations. O 12k existence can hope to overtake Ford, even if it wanted to. One cannot ignore the leadership Ford has provided among foundations during the present decade. That leadership has provided the support for increased numbers of American universities to realize some international ambitions. The high point thus far in the rising tide of foundation expendi- tures for international programs is the year 1959. Available data indicate that 1960 will be an even bigger year. Two examples may serve to demonstrate the strong current of enthusiasm foundations display with reference to the participation of American universities in international relations. First, it is interesting to note that the Carnegie Corporation, which through most of its history has emphasized activities in the united States and a relatively fixed commitment to the British Common- wealth, in 1959 took as its theme "The American University in World Affairs." In its annual report for 1959, the thirteen page report of the president is entirely devoted to the development of this theme, and over half of "The Year in Review'' section of the report recounts the support Carnegie has provided for universities in world affairs. Although Carnegie had shown signs of building up to this position during the 1950's through the pattern of its grants, the report for 1959 constituted a forceful statement that the corporation was committed, for the present at least, to an aggressive program linking American educational institutions to world affairs. The following extracts from the Carnegie annual report for 1959 are indicative of that organization's attitudes: Since werld war II, our national leaders have insistently warned us that we must recognize our responsibilities in the world and learn to meet the challenges they entail. At 125 least one segment of the American public-~the academic world--has taken these warnings seriously. Few people have any idea of the vigor and imagination with which the colleges and universities have responded. They are rapidly emerging as a new source of strength for the nation in our international dealings. . . . . The universities are not new to the international scene. On the contrary, they have a long and dis- tinguished record of international activity. But the scale of this activity has increased immeasurably. This is not traceable solely to an impulse on the part of the universities themselves. There is much in the world situation that makes it inevitable. There is, for ex- ample, an increasing recognition of the fact that ideas are weapons. It is ironic that the United States, whose early dynamism as a nation owed everything to the vi- tality of certain key ideas, had to learn again at the hands of the totalitarian nations that ideas are potent. Another circumstance in modern world affairs that forges a role for the universities is that nations are increasing- ly eager to place before the world the full panoply of their intellectual, educational, and aesthetic achieve- ments. An even more important circumstance is the rise of techni- cal assistance as an activity. Most technical assistance activities are carried on by professional men, and a high percentage of them have university connections. But behind all the specific reasons for the rise of the universities in world affairs is the fact that educated talent, technical competence, and professional skills are indispensable in coping with the complexities of modern civilization. In this sense the emergence of the uni- versity as a factor in international affairs is simply a counterpart of its emergence as a gantral and influential institution on the domestic scene. A second example, very similar to the first, is the present strong support the Ford Foundation is supplying for American universi— ties working abroad. In the same manner as Carnegie, but perhaps slightly ahead of Carnegie chronologically, Ford has, during the 1950's, 92These comments are extracted from President John W. Gardner's message in the Annual Report of the Carnegie Corporation of New York for 1959, pp. 11-2u. 126 steadily turned its attention more intensely to international problems. The theme of the 1958 annual report93 of the Ford Foundation is "The world Imbalance in Education," which turns out to be only a slight variation on the Carnegie theme of "The American University in World Affairs," emphasizing the imbalance in educational opportunities as between the highly developed and the less develOped nations. To correct the imbalance, Ford allocated nearly #0 per cent of its spendable re- sources in 1958 to the international aspects of this problem. This, as has been indicated previously, represents the single most important source of private support for American universities in international programs, and the percentage committed to this area has increased every year since the creation of the Ford Foundation.9u President Henry T. Heald of the Ford Foundation chose the following language to express the foundation's outlook: Education, like peace, has become a world-wide problem, one and indivisible with the well-being and survival of mankind. Today, ignorance is a burden society can no longer afford. . . . . At a time when it can least afford to, American society tends to overlook the world-wide framework in which its educational difficulties are set. The causes, such as the exploding birth rate, the mass of new knowledge, and the deep desire for education, and the consequences--the over- burdened school facilities, the shortage of teachers, the downward trend in the quality of education--are mirrored or dwarfed by like conditions in almost every other country in the world. The gap between the most-advanced and the least-advanced areas is widening, not shrinking. Virtually all American children now attend elementary school, and two out of three complete high school. But only half of the earth's 500 million children between five and fourteen have primary 93 9”See both Macdonald, pp, cit., Chapter 7, and the annual reports of the Ford Foundation. The report for 1959 was not available at the time of writing. 127 school facilities, and only one in ten can look forward to secondary education. The world imbalance in education means that efforts far greater than any of the past must be made to bring merely the rudiments of education to vast areas of the world. Such efforts, of course, are made increasingly imperative by the demands of these peOple for self-government and a better life. Half of the world's pOpulation is trapped in a vicious circle. Shortages of educated manpower, from farmer to scientist, severely restrict development of economic re- sources, while limited economic resources hinder the edue cation of teachers and the building and equipping of schools and colleges. The circle can be broken only by the dedicated, self-sacrificing efforts of the peoples involved and by generous outside assistance in establishing the educational institutions they require. The world imbalance in education also means that for many years to come the relatively small, intensively educated portion of the earth's people must bear most of the responsi- bility for man's intellectual growth. Only the most highly developed and affluent educational systems. from the ele- mentary grades through graduate school, can furnish the bulk of the education and research essential to cope with the complex problems all over the world that cannot be ignored. This imposes grave responsibilities on Western, particularly American, education. Can man's educational resources meet the challenge? This may be the key question of our time' indeed, it may be the key question of all human history.95 Given a situation in which such favorable attitudes toward edu- cation and international relations are so strongly expressed by key decision-makers in large foundations, and a situation in which the circumstances of man's existence and future have a striking inter- national dimension, it is not surprising to find many American universi- ties in a frenzied state of adjustment to the necessities of inter- national programs. Even a casual glance at American universities today will reveal activities which suggest that the academic community is making serious and careful program, operating, and administrative 95These comments are extracted from the Annual Report of the Ford Foundation for 1958, pp. 11-13. 128 preparations for an intelligent reaction to the growing internationalism of the foundations. The same glance will reveal symptoms of "foun- dationitis" among academics, namely, the belief that the way to the philanthropoid's heart is through a large international program within the institutional framework of an established university. How ef- fectively American universities will utilize the opportunities offered to them by the foundations to expand their participation in international relations remains a matter of conjecture. Details of the impacts of these developments are presented in the remaining chapters of this study. Independent Activities of Universities on the International level Thus far American universities have been primarily pictured as responding to stimuli from external sources for the development of inter- national contacts. The importance of these stimuli for the expansion of the universities' roles in international relations through international programs is recognized as extremely important, but it should be indicated that universities have made their own contributions, also. While much of what has been presented as background material for this study tends to draw attention to the relative passivity of the universities as con- tributors to the current expansive trends in international education, there exists an essential active aspect of universities' internationalism that antedates the twentieth century interest and support on the part of such organizations as governments and foundations. This international activity of American universities, although modest in size, has shown its own type of dynamism, and in so doing has supplemented, complemented, and stimulated the interactions between universities and the external sponsors of international programs. 129 The earliest ideas concerning universities emphasized the inter- national aspects of such institutions. Paris, Bologna, and Salerno, usually mentioned among the original models for present institutions of higher education, were centers to which scholars, both student and faculty, migrated from all parts of the civilized world. The migrant scholars represented a variety of ethnic and cognitive groups, but they had a unity of purpose in education. Education dramatically transcended lines of racial and cultural distinction. Having undergone numerous physical changes wrought by such important phenomena as the growth of nationalism and religious separatism, universities of today bear only slight physical and administrative resemblance to those of medieval times,96 but the idea that man's quest for knowledge is universal has survived and persists today, and importantly, shows signs of new vigor. Haskins says of the relationship between twentieth century uni- versities and medieval universities (after cataloguing their physical differences), ". . . that the university of the twentieth century is the lineal descendant of medieval Paris and Bologna. They are the rock whence we were hewn, the hole of the pit whence we were digged. The fundamental organization is the same, the historic continuity is un- broken. They created the university tradition of the modern world, that common tradition which belongs to all our institutions of higher learning, the newest as well as the oldest, and which all college and university men should know and cherish."97 This common tradition has 96The development of universities is covered in Charles H. Haskins, The Rise of Universities (New York: Henry Holt a Co., 1923), and S. S. Laurie, The Rise and Early Constitution of Universities (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1891)T7 97Haskins, 9p. cit., pp. 5-6. 130 served historically as an avenue for international intercourse in edu- cation.98 It has been temporarily and/or partially disrupted by major cataclysms such as wars and the narrowing influence of certain religions and of nationalism. But as Haskins suggests, and as the current rem surgence of activity in international education demonstrates, the tra- dition has never been lost entirely. On the bases of this common tradition, of the desire of men to expand their knowledge, and of the paucity of educational centers, edu- cational travel has been a part of a university education from the very beginning. Not only have universities always been few in number, there- by requiring travel by many scholars. They have also been relatively specialized in terms of the subject-matter areas in which they could lay claim to particular expertise. Extremes of duplication.have never been characteristic of the universities, notwithstanding their location in different countries. Thus, it has always been common for advanced students of a particular field to travel to the cities or countries in which instruction in their fields of interest was offered. If a man desired instruction in several fields, he wandered from university to university until his interest and education were "satisfied."99 As nationalism progressed, belief in the necessity of traveling to a large number of universities to complete one's education declined; for nationalism encouraged the development of diversified universities within one country supposedly capable of meeting the technical c, 98F0r development of this theme see especially Metraux, pp, cit., pp. 2-6. 99Ibid, p. 4. The story of Pantagruel's, the giant of Rabelais' Gargantua and Pantagruel, visits to nine universities to complete his education is recounted by Métraux. 131 n "100 requirements of an education. But educational travel received an important spur from another direction just as its basis appeared to be challenged. The new development was in the form of international travel as a capstone to a period of formal study within a national university. Particularly in the cases of junior members of national elites, there was emphasis upon the "grand tour" during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.101 Although the term "grand tour" is seldom overt- ly included in the rationale for many current student travel programs and 'junior year abroad" programs, its influence is significant. Con~ cepts of democracy, mass education, and utility have reduced the curren- cy of the term "grand tour," but the notion of educational travel which it involved has persisted. In summing up the early internationalism of universities and scholars, Métraux says, By the end of the eighteenth century, then, there had developed in Western society two principal motivations for study abroad: it was a way of acquiring knowledge when centers of learning were few, and a means of completing the educational process by contacts with other people and other mores. As a social phenomenon, cross-cultural education was almost entirely subject to individual initiative often motivated merely by current fashion, but sanctioned by a well-established tradition. As an educational practice, however, it tended to evolve and progress, adapting itself to trends ipogducational theory and regional and cultural conditions. The impact of nationalism served to transfer these motivations from the very general level of the world to the more specific national levels. The reorientation of universities on a nation-state basis did looHaskins, pp, cit., pp. 29-31. 101Metraux, Q. cit., p. 5. 102mm, p. 6. 132 not destroy contacts among universities, but it did contribute to a significant change in the character of these contacts. The rise of independent national states tended to reduce, at first, the number of wandering scholars. But they were rapidly replaced by renewed edu- cational intercourse, which eventually became relatively formalized and/or regularized. The impact of large-scale organization, which was so much a part of the growth of nation-states, on universities helped to foster the development of formal exchanges of scholars between re- cognized institutions in different countries. Standards of all types became more prominent, schedules were adhered to, and the granting of degrees grew more systematic. Such developments when joined to the motives of acquiring knowledge of and contact with peoples of other cultures, which have been part of the common tradition of education, opened the way for the evolution of those relationships between uni- versities which this study recognizes as international programs. Concurrent with the identification of universities with nation- states was the increase in scientific and intellectual developments. The causal relationship between these two developments is still a subject of historical controversy, and its outcome, while interesting, is not crucial to this study. But the fact that scientific and intel- lectual advances were made within the context of a nation-state system is important, for the form of that system laid the groundwork for "a complex system of intercultural relations among scientists and .103 scholars. Having created associations within their respective nations along professional lines, the academics used them as avenues for international communications and through them built an elaborate 103Ibid, p. 7. 133 system of international associations which met regularly in inter- national congresses and conferences. Thus, another systematic element was added to the international relations among scholars and institutions of higher education. Another step along the way to the current state of university» related international activities followed close on the first stages of nationalism. Imperialism, wars, and growing international contacts among elite groups served to create the impression that some nations were “more advanced" than others. In an era of growing nationalism, it is not surprising to see that those classified as “retarded" endeavored to rid themselves of such a label by acquiring some of the attributes of the more advanced nations. Their attempts led to a marked upsurge in foreign study on the part of faculty and students shortly after the l860's.10u American universities felt the impact of these developments only slightly, for they had yet to be compared favorably with their venerable European predecessors.105 American elite groups were still receiving at least part of their education abroad. University education of the highest prestige was still almost the exclusive possession of Europe. During the period just covered, American universities were not prominent in international education. They maintained international contacts and utilized the work and examples set by leading universities 101‘The size of this movement is commented upon by Metraux, pp, p;p,, p. 8, on the basis of statistics provided by Reinhold Schairer, Die Studenten im internationalen KUlturleben (Mflnster in Westfalen, 1927), Chapter I. 105Only one American university has been engaged in an inter- national program that began before 1900 and continues to the present. See IROP, pp, pip,, p. 29. 13a in other countries, but they were too young and too unrecognized to have a noticeable impact on foreign universities. Most of their energies were focused on their own growth problems within a society which was undergoing rapid change. like most other American institutions at the turn of the century, universities were largely self-oriented and mostly immersed in essentially parochial concerns. The first major break- through occurred in conjunction with World War I. The international "coming of age” of the united States was recognized, albeit with some shock, and the elevation of the United States to the rank of a world power became a matter of concern among educated Americans. In the aftermath, American universities, encouraged to a large extent by the experiences of their staffs during the war, embarked on many inter- national programs.106 Some were affiliated with religious organi- zations, as has been indicated in the early part of this chapter, but most were sponsored by university groups alone or in conjunction with private funds.107 As international educational activity came to be institutional- ized through formal affiliation with American universities, 1920 repre- sented an important turning point. American universities were not com- pletely unaware of foreign universities, for many of them were actively following German models,108 prior to 1920; but they had made only the 106T‘he period 1920-29 saw a marked increase in the number of international programs started and still continuing. See IROP, pp, cit., p. 29. 107For an example of how influential persons contributed to the atmosphere promoting the expansion of international educational programs, see Nicholas MUrray Butler, The University and the Inter- national Mind (New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1931). 108Me’traux, pp, cit., p. 13. See also Gustavus Ohlinger, The German Conspiracy in American Education (New York: George H. Doran Co., 1919). 135 smallest efforts to establish formal relationships with foreign uni— versities or related agencies abroad. The most famous examples of pre- Wbrld War I affiliations are probably those of Yale, Harvard, and Oberlin in the Far East. Beyond these examples, there were few vigorous efforts to provide a regular basis for the international interchange of materials and persons among educational institutions ppp_institutions. The intellectual and political atmosphere during and immediately follow- ing World War I, however, favored the growth of internationalist atti- tudes among elite groups, including those influential in American uni- versities. The initiative for the development of programs in international education at this time came almost entirely from private individuals and groups.109 The government played mostly an indirect role, as has been indicated. But foundations like Rockefeller, Guggenheim, and Carnegie provided stimuli and financial assistance for universities to seek overseas contacts. The experience of university staff and students during the war fired a wave of enthusiasm for foreign study and for the formal exchange of students and faculty.110 Thus, at this time, one finds the University of Delaware and Smith College embarking on the now famous I'junioryear abroad" programs. Suddenly by 1923, there were over 7,000 foreign students in the United States; and the spiral has'continued upward from that time. By 1929, over 700 organizations, some of them 109Ibid, p. 15. 110A brief history of these developments is contained in United States House of Representatives, Committee on Government Operations, Eighty-fifth Congress, Second Session, Government Programs in Inter- national Education (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959), pp. 31-33- 136 111 universities, were sponsoring student and faculty exchanges. As is 112 shown in The International Programs of American Universities, many of these exchanges never became formalized to the extent that they can be classified as international programs, and many others ceased to exist as the Great Depression spread through the world. But those that were developed represented the beginning of university initiative in inter- national programs and have since the inter-war period been used as a reference point for the numerous international programs now operating as "university-sponsored." That is, they are primarily supported by student and university funds. Today, the growth of university—sponsored international programs between 1920 and l9t0 seems modest compared to the growth period follow- ing WOrld War II. Of the 382 international programs in operation at the end of 1958, forty were supported entirely out of university funds, seventy-eight were supported jointly by university funds and by fees charged to students participating in such programs, and forty-four were supported by university funds with some outside assistance. Thus, 162 or #2.5 per cent of the current international programs depended primarily 113 on American universities for their continuance. The American Council on Education reports that such activities currently cost American uni- versities over six million dollars in non-reimbursable expenditures.llu Although this expenditure is small as compared to the expenditures of 111Metraux, pp, cit., p. 16. 128cc especially Tables 2D and 2E, pp. 29-30. 113IROP, pp, cit., Tables 2X, p. 47. 111‘American Council on Education, "International Educational Activities of American Colleges and Universities," published in mimeo- graphed form, April 17, 1957. 137 the government and foundations for similar purposes, it represents a significant amount in terms of the disposable income available to uni- versities. In the present context of financial pressure on universi- ties, six million dollars is precious. Therefore, the fact that uni- versities choose to make such expenditures tends to refute the popular impression that universities are like giant blotters, absorbing outside funds as they become available without committing their own resources to international programs. The major portion of expenditures for international programs made by American universities has been made by private institutions. Such factors as tradition, the relative newness of strong public uni- versities, and the local responsibilities of public universities have acted to hinder the growth of international expenditures by these insti- tutions. But perhaps the most important deterrents have been the specific prohibitions by fund-granting agencies, in most cases state legislatures, relative to the expenditure of public monies for inter- 115 These practices tended to keep the internationalist national purposes. impulses of public institutions pent up until the advent of government spending for university-operated international programs. Linked to public universities' vigorous service orientation, the funds for "inter- national extension work" offered by IIAA in 19uo appeared as a way to broaden the impact of public universities. Consequently, the pre-ICA period of government financing for international purposes was dominated by the public health and agriculture programs of public universities. Also in this context, the quick responses of such persons as Bennett 115The story of the financial restraints imposed on state institutions by the legislature, and the weaknesses of such a system, is related in Malcolm Moos and Francis E. Rourke, The Campus and the State (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1959). 138 and Hannah to the Point Four program on behalf of the public universi- ties take on a new logic. Public universities simply lacked the “free funds' to pursue international programs, and this made them largely dependent on shifts in attitudes among political elites. Public universities have moved swiftly in the past ten years to compensate for their initial lack of participation in international affairs. The record indicates strongly that American universities have not been passive participants in the development of international programs. First, public universities have been the most active single group in the field of ICA-sponsored university contracts.116 Bennett and Hannah stand as examples of the vigor with which public universities have pursued government funds for international purposes. Secondly, public universities are actively engaged in establishing themselves as prime recipients of foundation grants for international programs. In contrast to their experience in government circles, public universities find themselves competing with formidable private universities for foundation favor. Netwithstanding the earlier relationships between foundations and private universities, the public universities have made striking progress in attracting foundation funds.117 This may well be one aspect of the arrival at the forefront of American education which some public universities have experienced since World War II. 1 6 1 IROP, pp, cit., pp. 23-24. Examination of the quarterly reports issued by ICA indicates clearly the dominant role of public universities in government contract programs. 117The annual reports of Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller show the steady increase in the number and size of grants to public uni- versities since 1953. ' 139 The numerical increase in international programs since World 118 War II is striking. A check of the program descriptions in The International Prograpp of American Universities indicates that the major sponsors of the new programs started during the period l9u5-50 and still operating were universities and foundations. In the atmosphere of internationalism following the war, and before the political impli- cations of American international prestige became expressed in govern- ment policies of technical assistance, the universities started numerous student tour and study-abroad programs, and sought out foreign universi- ties with which to exchange faculty and students. This latter develop- ment usually involved foundation assistance in financing, thereby giving the appearance of more active foundation participation than may have been the case. It was only in the last years of this period that foun- dations and the government came to dominate international program spending, although universities operated the programs. The first years represented an upsurge of student and faculty interest combined with an unprecedented influx of foreign students to the United States. Amid the shifting patterns of interest, American universities did some things in international programs that such institutions as foundations and the government could not easily do. They made the first hesitant steps to capture, preserve, and transmit the educational values accruing from their international experiences. The first manifestations were changes in course content and offerings, curricula changes, 1183ee IROP, pp, cit., p. 29, for comparative figures. 1H0 ll institution of area studies and international relations majors, etc. 9 The value of the results thus far is debated in many institutions, but the search for ways to relate international participation to the uni- versity campus continues. In the final analysis, it is in this area of educational impact of international programs at home and abroad that the contributions of the universities may overshadow those questions clustered around financial arrangements. If the educational results do not appear justifiable, universities may be faced with the necessity of retreat and/or a serious redefinition of their general educational role. On the basis of a survey of its affiliated institutions, the American Council on Education concluded apropos of the international activities of American universities: Educational institutions believe that the human mind will dictate the course of the future. When minds search together for the common heritage of truth, a cross-fertilization of ideas and understanding results. This is an educational process that takes place without regard to national bounda- ries. It has a vital part to play in insuring a future of peace and progress. . . . Because of these convictions, American institutions have supported international edu- cational aciggities--their own and those sponsored by the government. 119This entire development is chronicled and examined in a series of books sponsored by the American Council on Education. The series title is I'Studies in Universities and World Affairs.” The following books have been published to date: Howard E. Wilson, American College Life as Education in World Outlook (1956k Cora Du Bois, Foreigp Students and Higher Education in the United States (1956); Vincent Baker, World Affairs and the College Curriculum (1959); C. Dale Fuller, Training of Specialists in International Relations (1957); Jehn Gange, University Reseapph on World Affairs (1957 ; Cyril O. Houle and Charles A. Nelson, The University, The Citizen and World Affairs (1956); and Fred Cole and Richard W. Sterling, World Affairs iannstitutions of Higher Education in the South (1958). 120It is interesting to note, and perhaps indicative of the thinking of academics and the American Council on Education in particu- lar, that this statement differentiates only between government and university programs. Such statements seem to betray an implicit as- sumption on the part of those who so pronounce that somehow only money lul The growth of international educational activities has been haphazard. Different government and private programs have developed at different times to meet different purposes. Confusion has resulted--confusion which threatens to obscure the basic educational process involved and to jeOpardize the effectiveness of the national effort. . . . American colleges and universities believe that 'the time of testing and trials has passed,' as one institution has phrased it, and that order must be established in thiizirea at the instigation of American higher education. These examples concerning the ways in.which both public and private American universities have expressed their interest in inter- national relations demonstrate that universities are not simply passive instruments of fund-granting organizations. Their instrumental nature will be explored further, but for now it seems appropriate to stress the fact that the influence of American universities themselves is part of the story of how international programs have come to occupy a promi- nent place today in American higher education. This influence has blended with that of religious organizations, government, and foun- dations to create, in part, roles which American universities currently perform in international relations. The examples are far from ex- haustive in that they do not cover every aspect of university interest, but they may convey a sense of the complexity of the relationships among the actors with whom this study is concerned. received from the government for international programs is of a special character. While this assumption is frequently made in academic circles, as the interviews used in this study will Show, it is not an accurate description of the patterns of interaction existing between universities and foundations, not to mention religious organizations. 121American Council on Education, "International Educational Activities of American Colleges and Universities," published in mimeo- graphed form, April 17, 1957, p. u. CHAPTER IV PERCEPTIONS OF KNOWLEDGEABLES ABOUT ACTS PERFORMED BY UNIVERSITIES THROUGH INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS In Chapter I (see pp. 6-9) the concepts of status and role as developed by Ralph Linton were introduced. Linton states that the two concepts are integrally related, in that role is the dynamic aspect of status. Further, any particular status or role is derived from situ- ational factors as well as from the perceptions of the person or persons occupying a status and performing the related role or roles. The historic situational factors which have contributed to the development of a general status-definition for American universities in international relations were described in Chapter III. Admittedly, this brief record of the past activities of various institutions does not provide a complete picture of the situation in which the international status of American universities evolved. But it is suggested that the data provided represent some of the most significant situational factors which have contributed to the present international status of American universities. Incomplete as this aspect of the picture may be, it does convey the impression that the international status of American universities has undergone relatively rapid change, and that the roles of American universities in international relations have increased in number and possibly in importance. lu2 143 It is the purpose of this chapter to present data on the per- ceptions held by knowledgeables concerning the universities' general international status and roles. The data are derived from the 303 interviews conducted for this study. In those interviews, knowledge- ables in the field of international programs were encouraged to make statements indicating some of their perceptions relating to acts per- formed by universities participating in international programs. The statements were distributed into three categories representing: (1) statements about pppp_kinds of acts universities are expected to per- form, (2) statements about ppp_universities are expected to perform such acts, and (3) statements about ppz_universities are expected to perform such acts. The knowledgeables from whom the statements were obtained in- cluded 193 persons who were directly identified with the universities in the sample used in this study, twenty-three persons who held official positions in the Ford and Rockefeller foundations and Carnegie Corpo- ration, and eighty-seven persons who were employed by the U.S. Govern- ment in positions closely related to international programs. The statements made by each of these three types of knowledgeables are described and analyzed separately in this chapter; however, greater attention was given to statements made by university personnel, since their perceptions of their roles and those of universities constitute a focal point of this study. The 303 interviewees were permitted considerable latitude by the interviewers in the formulation of their responses. The questions asked the interviewees were very general. The interviewees were en- couraged to talk of international acts related to universities both in luu terms of their own universities and of all American universities. By "opening up" the interview situation at the outset through the use of such very broad questions, the interviewers attempted to obtain indi- cations of the respondents' general attitudes toward international programs. From this general level, the interviewers then attempted to move the respondents toward indicating the more specific types of inter- national acts they thought universities might appropriately perform, and toward discussing how and why these might be carried out. The re- spondents were not directly presented with a number of alternatives from which they would select the ones which best described their atti- tudes. ,Instead, choice was suggested generally in terms of broad ranges of possibilities which might lead the respondents to formulate their own answers. Accuracy and Validity of Data Admittedly, many factors detract from the exactness with which perceptions about pppp_acts American universities perform internationally and pp! and pp! they perform such acts can be extracted from a diversi- fied population of respondents reacting to very general questions. To reduce the number of difficulties which might arise in interpreting "open-ended" responses, normal interviewing safeguards were used, in- cluding uniform interview instructions and schedules of questions, prompt recording of the interviews from notes, and arrangement of inter- views in advance. Given such safeguards and the common focus of interest of the respondents, it seems reasonable to assume that the statements made by the various types of respondents represent rather accurately the public or semi-public attitudes of this particular sample of knowledgeables with respect to certain aspects of the participation of 1u5 American universities in international relations through international programs. In assessing the validity of the responses obtained during this study, it is important to be aware of the fact that the respondents were themselves considerably involved in the statuses and roles about which they were making statements. Also, the group of knowledgeables in this relatively new area of education (new primarily with regard to its size and impact) is quite small. Their small numbers would favor awareness of what others in the same field are thinking, saying, and doing, and might reduce their candor. Notwithstanding the fact that all respondents were given assurances of anonymity, each reader must probably evaluate in his own way the extent to which the responses represented the "real," personal attitudes of the respondents relative to international programs, as distinguished from the ”public“ portion of the respondents' per- ceptions. It is the writer's opinion that the responses, taken as a whole, represent combinations of private and public attitudes and per- ceptions. Undoubtedly, also, the statements express the respondents' "individual" views to a considerable degree rather than the "official" views of their institutions. gBut since these "individual“ views un- questionably have been developed within the frameworks and environments of these institutions, it seems reasonable to assume that they are use- ful indicators of the more generalized attitudes about international programs which have currency among knowledgeable American educational leaders and sponsoring organization leaders at large. Finally, the reader should be aware of two other aspects of the data used in this chapter. First, Tables 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 1u6 are presentations of the frequencies with which certain kinds of state- ments about international acts performed by American universities are made by knowledgeables identified in this study. Since some respondents made more than one statement which was applicable to the particular question posed by the interviewers and since all such responses were tabulated, the number of responses occasionally exceeds the number of respondents. Second, since all such responses are included in the following tables, it is possible that the data tend to reflect more strongly the statements, and consequently the perceptions, of those who spent a considerable amount of time with the interviewers than of those who spent less time with the interviewers. The impact of the differ- ential interview durations on the validity of the data presented and discussed in this chapter cannot be accurately ascertained. It can be stated, however, that, as a rule, the respondents were provided with as much time as they seemed to feel they needed to answer the questions posed by the interviewer. If the interview was cut short, it was on the initiative of the respondent. In general, it is the writer's observation that no crucial problems related to interview length arose during the interviewing for this study which caused a significant number of respondents to make fewer statements than they desired. Previously Collected Data Studies of similar kinds of expectations and perceptions held by university personnel (not including representatives of sponsoring organizations) have been reported in at least two other instances. One study was conducted under the auspices of the American Council on Edu- cation (ACB), and reported in a bulletin of the Council issued in 1957 under the title, "International Educational Activities of American 1&7 Colleges and universities: Report of Survey of Member Institutions of the American Council on Education." Another was completed in 1958 by the Institute of Research on Overseas Programs (IROP), Michigan State University, and the findings are included in The International Programs of American Universities: An Inventory and Analysis. Portions of the ACE report are directly relevant to the materials used in this chapter, especially those dealing with the purposes of international programs and the means of carrying out such programs. Therefore, results of the ACE study and this study will be compared as appropriate. To a lesser extent, the IROP report has some comparable data. The IROP data were gathered from international program coordinators, the ACE questions were directed to university presidents, and the respondents for the present study represented various levels of university personnel as well as some non-university persons. Notwithstanding these differences in the popu- lations queried, there are enough similarities in the respondent popu- lations to make comparisons fruitful, especially since any evidence is scarce. It should be noted that these studies were conducted in differ- ent years, but years not far apart, running from 1956 to 1959. Findings In making statements of hgw_universities are expected to perform international acts, the respondents appeared more secure and were more explicit than when they made statements dealing with wha£_and why, They had a better grasp of the resources which universities could apply to international activities than they had of the types of acts which con- ceivably might become part of the general roles of American universities in international relations. When the respondents came to grips with why_ American universities should perform international acts, they appeared lu8 least securely anchored to supporting facts or totthe supporting folk- lore of academia. ‘In such circumstances, their expectations represented a mixture of educational piety, humanitarianism (sometimes secular and sometimes semi-religious), careerism, government policy, foundation influence, and individual soul-searching. Thus if one could picture expectations in terms of propinquity to the person expressing them, one might construct a picture in which expectations about hgw_would be most closely associated with the respondent as an individual, those about why associated with the individual reapondent and with many others, and expectations about gh§§_between the two. Types of Acts Universities are Expected to Perform‘ Througx International Programs The knowledgeables from universities and sponsoring organizations were asked to specify those kinds of acts which they understood from all their sources or information to be expected of universities in inter- national programs. Thus, the respondents were not asked at first to indicate the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the international activities of American universities, but merely to look about them and to state what kinds of actions they and others expected from universities in international relations. As they looked about them, they generally were inclined to list several kinds of acts, of fundamentally different natures. At this point, it was suggested to the respondents that they narrow the field of expected acts down to the one or more typg§_of acts, to which they attached the highest degree of expectation that they would be performed. In this manner a number of offehand observations were eliminated, and the expected acts were more clearly described. Generally their remarks provided sufficient information to permit placement into the following categories, which have been used below in Tables 6 and 7: 1) 2) 3) u) 5) lug Political -- Acts which respondents apparently perceived as contributing directly to international peace and harmony or to the quest for such goals, and/or acts which they apparently perceived as directly in support of national policy in the international area, as expressed by the overt political apparatus of the state. Ideological -- Acts which respondents apparently perceived as attempting to alter the value and belief systems of other societies. Specifically, this tended to mean acts the re- spondents perceived as encouraging other pe0ples to view the United States and its democracy favorably and to view the Soviet Uhion and its form of communism unfavorably. Humanitarian -- Acts which respondents apparently perceived as contributing to the general upgrading of the conditions of humanity. Such acts emphasize concrete concern for the welfare of other men and for man's "innate" right to a "better" life. Cross-Cultural "understanding! -- Acts which respondents apparently perceived as contributing to increased compre- hension and/or understanding of cultures and habitats that are not part of one's own national or cultural tradition. Respondents' comments on such acts tended to emphasize an expectation of general improvement of the "human condition" through cross-cultural communications and the resultant "understanding." Educational -- Acts which respondents apparently perceived as primarily designed to contribute to the institutionalized 150; training of individuals through contact with the formal educational agencies of another country. Such acts tended to be overtly labelled as "educational" enterprises, as distinct from those other aspects of international programs which may have incidental educative value but which con- ventionally are primarily classified by other standards. 6) Economic -- Acts which respondents apparently perceived as intended to contribute primarily to the means of satisfying the material wants and needs of other societies. many of the ICA-financed international programs involving universi- ties fall under this classification; their use of educational institutions tended to be viewed as instrumental. 7) chgg -- Acts which do not correspond to the descriptions for categories 1-6. FOr example, the assumption that American universities can act as a sort of "supermarket'I from which foreigners can select any kind of assistance and/or cooperation they desire. As shown in Table 6, administrators and teachers at American universities, on the basis of the frequency with which they made state- ments indicating their expectations about the acts American universities are to perform through international programs, put the most emphasis upon acts which were classified primarily as educational, economic, and cross-cultural. Among university administrators, the expectation that universities will perform educational acts was more frequently avowed (3H.0$ of all statements tabulated) than the expectation that they will perform economic (27.01) and cross-cultural (l9.u$) acts. While teachers ranked these classes of acts in the same order, the frequency 151 o.ooH she o.oo~ H: o.ooH Hem o.ooH mun Hesse >.H Ha o.o o m.H m o.~ 0 sense m.n~ omfl o.o o ~.n~ mm o.>m am oasosoem m.sm osm m.mm sm H.mn moH o.sm OHH ascofipmosen m.mH «NH w.mm ma «.ma 3: s.aH mm Hanspflsoummoso m.m m: m.: N m.m mm m.m ma ssfisspfisaasm m.m mm o.o o m.m ma o.w ma HecamoaooeH ~.m mm o.o o H.m 3H o.m ma Headpfiflom .mv Am. A». Ame Am. Ase Ans .mv AH. $5023 $5823 upsocspm upsoosum masseuse anemones . 35:64 . 35:64 .sdsp Has .>«s= Has as use: as one: as one: as one: as use: as use: ha. eve: he can: muses apnea muses muses 3:03 3:3 nusosspspm massespapm -spspm -opspm -opspm nausea -opasm usuepm muse she do u .0: Hence a: do u to .92 Ham no u so .ez 4-n do u no .92 .Ho .non zv msdecosmom Ammuzv wsfiocosmom Ammfiuz. msaecosmsm Ammauzv wenceonmam 38823 .535 :4 upcecspm 98:38. 30333554 meg Hgomhmm hpfimhefing .Ho GOHHmOHHHmdeO I“)! ; gmomm A4293: Enema. mien—”BE AH om ~.om mH OHEocoom m.mH Hm m.mm mH o.mH NH s.mH mH Hs:0Hpmosem o.aH as a.mH NH m.mH mm m.HH OH HesspHsu-mmoso m.m mH N.MH m m.n s :.n m seHsspHssssm ~.NH mm m.: n m.HH MH m.mH NH HmOHwOHoseH m.nm No N.n m m.mn an m.mm mm HmsHpHHom .mv Ami Hey Amy Ami He. Amy Amy HHv Hocmomamm Hmssomaom mammam>o mmomuo>o .m.= CH .m.p CH .>pr .>H:D Hensomumm Hmcdomamm Hmccomamm Hensomumm Hmscomnmm Hassomamm ..coz HHm ucoz HHm . venom .ccsom £an . $8 £300 :38 as was: as was: as see: as sea: as was: as see: as mess as see: muses muses muses muses mazes muses muses muses mpo< -mpssm -msepm -epmpm -mpepm -osesm -spmum -osssm -suesm Hem so u .02 Hesse Ho so a so .02 nHH H0 m as .oz am as a as .02 so momma HOHHqu msHecoamsm .mssm .>Hsp-soz HH< Ammuzv manzoamom Homeomnmm noapwncsom Homuzv mchcOQmmm mmomno>o .mamm .p>o¢ Awmuzv wQchommmm .m.D CH .msms .psoe Hmcsomnwm thmno>annsoz mo GOHumonHmmmHo A-iIJ.II'!||\!.|Ic’iYIII'{1I.IrI Ilalr-'l.|¢l'.|..-lllvillllll- It'll m=HZD meo< mo mflmwe mus BDom<_AmzzommMM NBHmmM>HZDIzoz um mezmzme oH m.» NH .sse .sem .m.p NeHeeom m.em HsH o.o o e.ew em n.am am ceases semen s 32on .m5 NsHesmm «.0N Ne o.Nn N m.mH ON s.NN em .m.p op .som NsHNsHsm “my Hwy Haw Ami Hm. He. Amy HNV HHv Hessomnom Hcscomaem musmcspm mpsoospm macromoe mammomme .mHsHsu< .mHsHse4 .>H:= HHN .>Hea HHN he mum: he one: an mum: hp men: an mom: he mum: he cums an mama muses muses muses masts muses muses mNHHpr on mucoaoumpm masosopmpm umpmuw nepmpm umpwpm umpmpm neumpm umpmpm non H6 a .02 Hesse mN as a no .62 mNH as a no .62 NmH so a no .02 assesses was .momuz. msHesosmmm Hessomnom .>H£D HH< RNA: msHesoQNem mpsmcspm .HwNHuzv.meHesosmem .mpmnosme MANmanV wch:OQmom thpwhpMfiCHavd mmHuHmnochb .meorvmz Hocsomnmm thmpo>Hsa no SOHHNoHMHmmNHo mxdmcomm AHZD mDme 2H mw<3 MMdSHmm Ebom<_Amzzommmm NBHmmM>HZD Mm mezmzm9an n.H> mHN o.mm :H ~.wm em ~.>~ wHH mpHmnmpHcD -Oputhmpm>H:= a. 80 E 30 5 t: 5 NV 3 Housemaem Hossomaem mucocspm mesmesum maonomme assesses .chHeu< .mHsHee< .>H:D HHw .>H:= HHN he mum: an arm: he mum: he mum: he was: an men: he mum: he cum: muses mecca muses muses muses mpcms mm: on musesopmum mpsmaopwpm umpmpm umpapm acumen seamen -mpmpm acumen empomaxu 09¢ non H0 a as H38. N 00 a .8 .02 NH .8 a .8 .02 NH a0 u H0 .02 msHsHmsssHss mucosowsmaa< Rome: msHesosmom RNA: Nfiesosmse SNHuE wfieeosmsm .NmHuz. wfiesosmsm 3:33.38 Hessomawm .>H:= HH< mucoespm anemones maouwnpchHse< mo manM Hessomaom thmne>an ho GOHpNOHMHmmmHo mzHZD mazuzuozHZD Mm mezmzmadsm mo NOZMDOMmm 0H Mflm0H, soHpeeesoa 0.NH m0 0.mm 5H m.m HN n.0H 0m asHmsesHsp .0. Hm. «as 200 200 2:. ins 2N. HHV Hossomnom Hossomamm mpsoespm mucoespm muonomoe anemones .mHsHsu< .mHzaa64 .sHep HH0 .>Hs0 HHN as sea: as see: as some. as 00m: an see: as see: he eve: an cum: muses moses mazes muses muses muses mpsoessssm assessessm -mpssm -mpepm uspsem -mpmem -oessm -msepm pen a0 u .02 Hspoe 0N 00 u 00 .02 m:N 00 a e0 .02 mmN e0 a e0 .02 1 sense Anomuz. weHeeosmom HmNuzv msHeeosmsm 20NHu20 wsHesosmem HNmHu2. msHesonmse 20 Homsomnom .>«:= HH< undersea whosowma macawhumacdav< moonsom Hossomamm thmae>Hmp mo coamedMHmmmHo mxdmcomm HHfloum 09 BOMNNM zH2D MDHm:.:omm muombom uma abomd.flmzzommuu MEHmmN>HzD Mm msznxufimam mo MDZMDOQMM .HH mHmse 175 groups held quite different views. That is, 51.5 per cent of the state- ments made by university administrators indicated that they expect government support for international programs, and 36.5 per cent of their statements suggest that they expect such support from foundations. University teachers almost reversed the order of frequency of their stated expectations: 57.5 per cent of their responses indicated that they expected foundation support and 32.3 per cent that they expected government support. When the respondents elaborated on these expectations, the teachers showed a preference for foundation support, grounded in what appeared to be their belief that foundation money is "better" than government money since the former has fewer strings attached to it. To support this preference on their part, the teachers relied primarily on general references to "keeping politics and education separate" and similar cultural myths of American society. Further questioning revealed that many of those teachers who had negative feelings about government support had had or were aware of adverse administrative experiences with the government related to international programs. They cited numerous examples of administrative errors and shortcomings in international programs which they attributed to the government. Such examples, as well as the persistent doubts teachers tended to express about administrators generally, appear to have influenced teachers to the extent that they frequently overlooked the obvious fact that the government has more at stake in international programs than foundations and that the government far outspends the foundations in the same field. Thus, many university teachers either attempted to ignore the over-all dimensions of international programs and thefinability of foundations A /—' 176 to support operations of the present magnitude on a continuing, expanding basis, or they were suggesting limiting the programs to the capacity of non-government sponsors. Statements by administrative respondents did not depreciate the contributions of foundations to international programs, but while ac- knowledging the possibilities of support from the foundations, they often made statements indicating that they were aware of the considerable growth potential in the area of government-supported international programs. Having been more actively engaged in seeking out money for universities than most faculty members, administrators may be more astute in their evaluations of the potentials of certain sources of funds, and may tailor their expectations accordingly. Throughout the interviewing process, administrators complained of many "shortcomings" in the operations of government-sponsored programs and generally spoke highly of foundation programs. But despite their apparent preferences for foundation-sponsored programs, they claimed to be "realistic" in their expectations about possible future sources of funds for the growing international involvement of universities. Operating from this “realistic" position, they frequently claimed that the only reasonable expectation about sources of funds is the one involving increased re- liance on the government for support. In a broad sense, trends of support for education in general in the United States reinforce the administrators' expectations. Combining the statements of all university respondents relating to the probable sources of funds to support international programs (see Table 11, Columns 8 and 9), it is apparent that the most frequently stated expectations in this area divide into two almost equal groups. 177 Statements suggesting that foundations are the most promising source of funds for international programs appeared with slightly greater frequency than those suggesting that the government could be expected to provide funds. The difference in frequency was slight-~uu.8 per cent favoring foundations and 41.2 favoring the government--but the definite cleavage into two substantial groups could indicate that the academic community has not made any decisions which would tend to exclude either of these two types of sponsor for international programs. However, the high frequency of statements naming the government as an expected source of funds represents a substantial departure on the part of university personnel from the kinds of supports universities relied on during the earlier history of international programs. More striking than the possible confusion or disagreement among classes of university respondents as to the sources from which support for international programs might be expected is the difference between these stated expectations and the reported pattern of sponsorship. The IROP study reported that of the 382 international programs in operation at the time of the study, the largest number received some support from the government. That study also mentioned a fact about sponsorship which is not included in Table 11, namely, that "the normal pattern is one of joint financing using two or more sources of funds."129 Ac- knowledging this fact, one can see from the data in the IROP study that the government has a financial stake in more programs than any other single organization and that its total investment exceeds that of all 1 0 other organizations combined. 3 Given this state of affairs, it is 12 gIROP, 9g. cit., p. 116. 130Ibid, Table 2X, p. 47. 178 difficult to explain logically why university respondents failed to in- corporate this fact into their stated expectations about where money comes from for international programs. The most probable explanation is that the university respondents as a group were not aware of the exact dimensions of the government's intervention in international edu- cation processes. They perhaps knew of an increase in government activity in this area, but they had not yet assessed its impact. Why Universities are Expected to Perform International Acts The most complex aspect of international programs is that dealing with Eng universities are expected to perform international acts. From the history of international programs, and especially their recent history, there is some evidence to indicate that universities have frequently agreed to participate in international programs without clearly deciding why they were expected to do so. We find the American Council on Education, the Institute of Research on Overseas Programs, the U.S. Government, and university leaders, among others, attempting to determine with some greater degree of clarity why universities have responded as they have to expectations tending to draw them more directly into international relations. Such studies began considerably after the universities had entered into substantial international commitments, which suggests that possibly some universities acted some- what impulsively and, later, paused to consider more carefully what they had done. Groups such as ACE's Committee on Institutional Programs Abroad engage in reappraisals of university participation in inter- national programs almost annually. Searching questions relating to the programs are frequently posed by conferences on international development 179 as well as by sections of professional organizations such as the Ameri- can Political Science Association. The result has been that American universities have begun to formalize their views about why international programs are appropriate university activities and to harmonize such views with the expectations of sponsoring agencies, and with basic government policy. Table8’12 and 13 show what university and non-university person- nel stated they believe to be the major expectations as to why universi- ties perform international acts. The kinds of "reasons” used in Tables 12 and 13 are the same as those used in the IROP study. .The statements of university respondents indicating why universi- ties are expected to perform international acts are fairly evenly dis- tributed among the following three reasons, which are ranked (see Table 12) in terms of the frequency with which they were mentioned: (1) development of the cooperating countries abroad, (2) general advancement of knowledge, and (3) strernhening of the 0:3. university; This order appears logically consistent with the previously reported statements of university respondents as to what acts are expected of universities in carrying out international programs (see Table 6). As shown in Table 6, university respondents most frequently stated that educational and eco- nomic acts are expected of universities in international programs. Obviously, both of these types of acts are related to the development of the cooperating foreign countries. Moreover, if the statements about ”general advancement of knowledge" and "development of the cooperating country" in Table 12, Columns 8 and 9, are combined, that combination I (approximately sixty per cent of the statements) is almost the same as the combination of statements made in the "educational” and "economic" 180 .meomoH>nousH no sense: on» as mesh on» ma musesopmpm no hopes: on» .eaomenenp "NH oHnNB :H cmcpooon mH usocsoqmon some he suswpaoaaa pace on»: ma sopfim common man haze "ouoz 0.00H non 0.00H 0N 0.00H 0NH 0.00H NmH H0009 0.H m 0.0 0 m.H N 0.H m 20200 0.NH mm 0.: H N.HH :H N.mH mm 00>Heesnso 20HH02 .nom .m.b no unoaasm N.:N 0s 0.: H 0.:N Hm m.mN m: 2pHms0>H00 .m.2 0:» 20 wfiesfiwsofim N.Hn 00 0.0 0 N.:n m: 0.:0 mm supesoo .sos .0000 on» no psosq0Ho>mn :.0N mm 0.Nm MN 0.NN 0m 2.0H 0N 0200H3022 20 psosoosm>e< Hanosoc .0. Amy 220 20. 20. 2:2 Hm. AN. 2H0 Hossomnom Hessomaem menopaum mesonspm anemones masseuse .mH:HEe< .mfisasu¢ .sHep HH0 .sHep HH0 2s 0002 2n 0002 20 000: 20 000: 2s 000: 20 0002 he was: he mum: muses muses muses muses muses muses madnmopm. assesspwpm messsepesm -00002 ussspm -meeum . -mpepm -0psum -muasm mom a0 m .02 Hmsoe 0N 20 u e0 .02 0NH 20 a a0 .02 NmH 20 m 20 .02 HesoHssesossH Hmonu2v msHeeosmsm HmNuzv wsH0s00m0m 20NHn20 wsHesosmsm HNmHn20 meHeeosmsm s02 awesomnmm .>H:= HH< # mucouspm masseuse unapNAumasdau< msommem Hossomnom 2pHmno>Hnb no :OHpNoHMHmmmHo shun“: 1 m=HZD .m.b Mm: zomaeus« no sense: on» mm was» on» 0H mucosopmpm we amass: on» .oaomononp HmH «Home :H emcaoomp 0H usoeconuen some he spsmunonaH pace on»: ma so>Hm common on» hamo "one: 0.00H 0HH 0.00H 0N 0.00H 00 H0000 o.H H o.o o N.H H 20:90 0.00 00 0.0H 0 0.00 00 00>H0000no 20HH02 swfionom .m.: 20 uaogqsm 0.: 0 :.2H : N.H H sthhesHee .0.0 on» no wchesumsonum 0.H: 0: 0.00 :H 0.00 N0 0200000 stesoe .0000 0:» no acesgoHo>en m.H N ~.w m o.o o emceHzosm mo acoaoocm>e< Hanococ 200 20. 20. 2:. .00 AN. 2H0 .mmm .>H:= .aom .>as= Hescomnom Hensonaom Homeownem Housemaom mssawoam unoz HHm usoz HHm soapsucsom :OHpmessom pcossno>oc usescao>o¢ 20 0002 00 000: 20 000: 20 0002 20 0002 20 0002 HssoHsssssssH mucosepmpm nusoaopmum musoaouapm museaopmpm mpsosopwpm musoaepmum 0HH 00 u 20 .02 0N 00 u 20 .02 00 00 u 00 .02 000 20HHn20 msHesosmmm .nNuzv meHeeosuom Hemn2v NeHeeosmsm. 0000000 Housemaom .>HnaucOz HH< Hofiomaom . 0552 i Hessomaem .pbou Hossounpm huauno>aspusoz no soauaoauunuaHo mzHZDuzoz Hm mszmzm9<9m mo MUZMDONSM nH Mamfis= .N M inas.z. 0.NH Hm m.mH mm o.o o m.wm mmm 0.» pm Toosoa>moucH no coupmasdom Hmpoe .H :5 3: .8 as E G. E c: E E E moaned nofipaa compmfi soapma noapma undom meow undom econ argon anon undoa mcom usaom mnom :a neon -mom ca neon -mom ea mnom .mom :a neon -mom :a neon uaom spam no u no & unmm no x no & -mom mo R no ‘ uhmm no m mo & upon mo R ho ‘ moroccoammm mcoapmnnsom one pzoacno>oc new hHHmnocoo .m>«n= noes» .m>Hn= zoos» haaamosoa no nozmn¢ noncommuman uom hfianmaamm aom hflfiaaaapm neoconomman 02 none: oz moosonohmaa neoconomufia none: mommy um>fioommm none: co>aoonom hows: oo>amomom vo>aoonom neoconohmaq o>apmmumacfiad< no anoauqoomom mazmnuoamum.mc“manna.mDOHm<>wwmunM>HNomum.adremmcmxomm nz< mmHBHmmm>HzD Immxaum muozmmmmMHo M>HB