1647 



Taking each in turn, this commentary will provide only such further 

 description as seems essential to a general understanding of program 

 goals, scope, activities, and management. The main purpose here is 

 to highlight policy and administrative gaps or problems, as identified 

 by the author of the study and as they may shed light on the inter- 

 action of science, technology, and American diplomacy. As indicated 

 earlier in this commentary, the undeniable advantages of foreign 

 exchanges of scientific personnel should not be dismissed ; rather the 

 purpose of the study was to suggest ways in which they could be 

 maximized. The further point implicit in the study is that U.S. 

 skills ^ in organization and management have been insuflBciently 

 exploited in this area, and that a part of the task of U.S. diplomacy 

 might be to correct this deficiency. 



THE FULBRIGHT-HAYS (STATE DEPARTMENT) PROGRAM 



'The Nation's first large-scale legislative program for international 

 educational and cultural exchange began in 1946 when Senator 

 William Fulbright sponsored an amendment to the Surplus Property 

 Act of 1944 to authorize a mutual exchange of scholars with 22 coun- 

 tries, financed by foreign countries derived from the role of surplus 

 U.S. war materials abroad" : 



The Fulbright program differed significantly from previous overseas scholarship 

 activities. These factors continue to characterize it today. 



First: The program was conceived so as to minimize involvement with prop- 

 agenda and cultural imperialism and to insure bilateral cooperation, by, (a) 

 requiring that the United States and each participating country sign formal 

 exchange agreements to authorize the program, and (b) by establishing binational 

 foundations or commissions, composed equally of U.S. citizens (including the 

 U.S. Ambassador) and foreign nationals, who would assist in local program selec- 

 tion and administration. 



Second: Architects of the program sought to establish an administrative frame- 

 work neither too dependent nor too independent of foreign poUcy by, (a) Placing 

 overall administrative responsibility for the program in the Department of 

 State; but also by (b) establishing a Board of Foreign Scholarships (BFS) charged 

 with selecting all participants and with general supervision of the program. 



Responsibility for administration and execution of the program was given to 

 the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (CU) in the Department of 

 State, which also administers other U.S. exchange-of-persons programs. CU, 

 acting under broad policy outlines set by the Board provides administrative staff 

 and secretariat for the program, negotiates agreements covering educational inter- 

 change with foreign governments, maintains liaison with U.S. embassies and 

 consulates overseas, and in Washington cooperates with other U.S. Government 

 and private agencies on particular aspects of the program.'^ 



According to one historian of this era: "The Fulbright program .' ' ". 

 fitted perfectly the spirit of the times. International-minded academic 

 and civic groups saw in it an appeahng and practical means to promote 

 world understanding." ^^^ 



The program is not a massive one. The total number of lecturers 

 and research scholars involved, in all geographic areas, was 1,229 in 

 1967-68, a peak year. Of the 1,229, 355 were in natural and applied 

 sciences, 309 in social sciences. The cost of the entire program in 

 1967-68 was $33,722,523. 



1S5 Ibid., p. 892. 



'S8 Ibid. The quotation is from The Fourth Dimension of Foreign Policy: Educational and Cultural Affairs, 

 by Philip }l. Coombs. 



