Foreign Relations of the United States, 1917–1972, Volume VII, Public Diplomacy, 1964–1968

120. Memorandum From the Director of the Policy and Research Staff, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State (Colligan) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs (Frankel)¹

Washington, December 16, 1966

SUBJECT

• Meeting of Representatives of Foreign Missions in Washington and of U.S. Universities: The “Technological Gap”

I was invited by Mr. Christensen, Dean of the Educational and Cultural Officers in D.C., to attend their meeting with the Board of Directors of the National Association for Foreign Student Affairs (NAFSA) and representatives of about 50 U.S. universities enrolling more than 400 foreign students. A few of the embassy representatives were concerned with consular rather than with educational or cultural affairs.

The meeting was devoted almost entirely to the question of the “technological gap” between the United States and other countries with emphasis on the flow of their students to and from the United States. (A significant addition is noted below.) Thus it served as something of an indicator of current thinking of other governments or, at least, of their embassies in Washington regarding this problem.

On behalf of the foreign embassies represented, Mr. Christensen expressed his thanks to Mr. Humphrey of the American Council on Education and to me, as the representative of CU, for our attendance. (We were the only “outsiders” invited.) He referred with appreciation to the previous discussion of this problem at a cultural officers’ meeting in the Department of State and to the Report of our June Conference,² which all embassies in Washington have now received. He also said that, since the meeting and the circulation of the Report, he and his colleagues had given much thought to this problem. He referred also to the interest of the American Council as indicated particularly in the recent number of the Council’s Bulletin on International Education, (November 17, 1966), which was devoted entirely to this subject.³ He hoped that there would be future meetings on the same theme, and perhaps even definite suggestions to make within the next few months, when, as he assumes, Congress will consider something like the “Mondale Bill” of the last Congress.⁴ He looks forward to pursuing this question further at the monthly meetings of cultural officers. At some such meeting representatives of the Immigration and Naturalization Service will be invited to participate.

The Report of the June conference, the summary by CU/PRS, dated November 1, 1966,⁵ and the ACE’s Bulletin, implicitly served as the working papers for the discussion. This was reflected in the meeting and in informal conversations with key people afterwards. While no resolutions or recommendations were made, the general trend of the discussion may be summarized as follows:

1. Much of the discussion was based upon the assumption that, as someone put it, it is “impossible to generalize about foreign students as such—there are too many kinds.” To try to cover all of them in any single form, legislative, political or academic, would do more harm than good since it would lead to more and more inflexibility rather than the other way around. Much of the discussion was based on an acceptance as fundamental, of the distinction between the “unsponsored” foreign students, usually here under “F” visas, and the “sponsored” students, that is, those under “J” visas, and and also those sponsored by other countries—their governments, institutions, or organizations.

2. It was well recognized that unsponsored students form by and large the greater number. Most other countries are as reluctant to stop the exit of their citizens as the U.S. is to stop their entry. Such action would put a limitation on their freedom of movement, which not only would be morally unjustifiable, but also, in many cases, would deprive them of the superior opportunities for study which are offered in the United States. This feeling is tempered, however, by a general concern about the need for trained personnel in their own countries. There seemed to be a general consensus that more might well be done by the sending countries to persuade their students to return home after their studies—largely by building up their own institutions, making more and better job opportunities available, and providing facilities, salaries and standing, which would give promise of adequate job satisfaction. There was no indication that specific steps should be taken by the U.S. Government through legislation to control the flow of these unsponsored students to the United States.

3. These steps, and others also, apply to “sponsored” students—those under J visas or sponsored by their own countries. (The ratio of students under the sponsorship of the other countries to other foreign students was suggested by some of the figures that were mentioned. Thus, of 1200 Iranian students reportedly in the United States, only 200 are sponsored by the Iranian Government. Out of some 8000 Indians, only 100 are under the direct sponsorship of the Indian Embassy.) It was recognized that there was a gap between these two types of “sponsored” visitors, but no suggestions were made that further action by the U.S. Government would solve the problem.

It seemed generally agreed that the purpose of the “two-year rule”⁶ for “J” students was a well-meant attempt by the U.S. Government to discourage the permanent residence here of a large percentage of such “sponsored” students, but it was pointed out that the U.S. has no control over where foreign visitors may go after they leave the U.S. under this rule. That many of them go to “third countries” rather than home simply underlines first, the unwillingness of many of them, for one reason or another, to return home immediately, at least, and secondly, the essentially multilateral nature of this problem. The “drain” is not only to the United States. (It was reported that, at a meeting of representatives of five South American countries last August, Mr. Galo Plaza, former President of Ecuador, discussed the “brain drain” with particular reference to a recent study in Chile. It was proposed at that meeting that this item be put on the prospective “summit meeting” next year in Latin America.⁷)

Attention continued to focus on what other countries might do to plug the leaks in the flow of sponsored students. It was pointed out that there were many points in the “lifeline” of the foreign student at which some action can be taken by their own countries. Where students are selected by the other governments or institutions such selection should be made in full awareness of the need for such trained people in their own countries. A few countries already have more specific controls. India, it was reported, has some control through (1) foreign exchange regulations, (2) the quality of students selected as determined by their academic records, and (3) the priority of fields of current significance to Indian development. This also meant closer collaboration between other countries and American universities, whose autonomy and independence of the federal government places a correspondingly greater duty on the representatives of other governments to work cooperatively and persuasively with them and with their students to maintain student interest in returning home. The degree of cooperation between the representatives of other countries and American universities varies widely in practice from country to country. Representatives of governments which were already doing much of this attested warmly to the cooperation which they had received from universities, notably from foreign student advisers. Such cooperation might not only be increased, but extended by strengthening connections between “hosts” and “home” institutions, where possible.

Another useful step that should be more widely used is that of job placement afterwards. One example of placement efforts here in the U.S. was offered by the Korean representative, who explained that Korea had an office in New York specifically for this purpose. Placement offices might well be established in the home countries also, and continuous contact maintained between these placement offices and foreign students even before their return. Such offices, if they were to be successful, would have to offer students a reasonable choice of opportunities which they would wish to pursue at home. “International institutes” outside the U.S. might also help solve the problem, as the Latin American group, already referred to.

It was also suggested that part of the solution of the problem lies in the field of public relations in the home countries, and that our Conference Report with its summary might be used as a basis for such publicity. (I made no objection to this point. We have already sent copies to each of the embassies in Washington as well as to our own posts abroad. What use they make of the Report is something which each government should decide for itself.)

In regard to possible legislation and government controls there seemed to be a general feeling that what was needed essentially was greater flexibility in the conditions governing study and stay in the U.S., including more time to be spent here, but combined with or compensated for, by making such periods more specific and clear cut and by taking decisive action at the end of that time. The U.S., for example, should allow two years rather than eighteen months for “practical field work” for foreign students thereby enriching the experience that they can bring to bear on their return to their own countries. Prompt decisiveness in action regarding their return would go far to minimize leakage. Decisiveness in administering regulations might also, somewhat, discourage the “drifting” of “eternal students” from one university to another while in this country.

There was no enthusiasm for precise, tight arrangements between the U.S. Government and the other governments involved in the enforcement of international travel regulations or the selection of students, beyond those which grow out of already existing, broader agreements—for example, those involving the binational commissions and the USOMs in the respective countries.

The representatives of American universities were very active in the discussion. They emphasized particularly, that the basic position of the U.S. should be not to “exploit” the flow of students from other countries insofar as such flow is designed to build up institutions and generally provide trained manpower. At the same time they confirmed the opinion expressed by several embassy representatives that cooperative contact could be a very effective way of keeping in current touch with their students during their stay, bringing to the special attention of university officials the special significance of students whose studies here were designed to fill manpower needs in their own countries. Initiative for such contacts rested with the embassies. They pointed out that U.S. institutions, like governments, were reluctant to discourage entry into their institutions.

In private conversations after the meeting, some of them deplored the use by the U.S. of the term “brain drain” as being, however well meant, a phrase easily exploitable for anti-American propaganda. They preferred the use of such terms as the migration of talent and skills,” or the “technological gap.”

In general the meeting was a useful one. The representatives of NAFSA indicated that they should like to pursue this problem in their regional meetings during the next several months.

The discussion also brought out the following facts. First, that the statistical gap in the diagnosis of this problem is as great in other countries as it is in the U.S.; the fields that were stressed in general conversation were the health professions (physicians and nurses especially) and engineering, with emphasis on electronics. The discussion by and large followed the suggestion made in the CU/PRS summary of November 1, 1966, in that it was primarily a lively exchange of information and views which helped put the problem in sharper perspective while, at the same time, underscoring a wide variety of concerns and problems faced by other countries in carrying these matters out. The embassy representatives that were most active in expressing themselves were those of the UK, Chile, Ecuador, Greece, Iran, India, Israel, and Korea.

I restricted my remarks to indicating that we were still pursuing our diagnosis of the problem and would welcome any suggestions for dealing with it. I brought them up to date on the summary of current action attached to the Conference Report, offering to talk informally with embassy representatives or university officials on this matter individually.

Addendum

Much of the first hour of the meeting was devoted to a discussion of a problem which the chairman, Mr. Christensen, in effect, ruled out of order, but in which consular representatives in particular, expressed great interest. Chance reference to the proposal of Mr. Henry, of Harvard, on the desirability of a new kind of an “H” visa, led to some discussion of it. Stressing the fact that he was speaking for himself as an individual, not as a representative of Harvard University, much less NAFSA, he indicated that the so-called “H” visa and the “J” visa under which visiting instructors or professors came to the U.S., was unsatisfactory; the former because it was interpreted as requiring proof that the position to be filled by a visiting instructor was a “permanent” one whereas universities would prefer to describe such positions as “temporary.” Otherwise, he thought, we were in effect perpetuating the “brain drain” by insisting on the “permanence” of “temporary” teachers. As to the J visa he indicated that the two-year rule frequently broke up a man’s work when he might be making an important contribution. He would like to propose the establishment of a new H visa under which prospective instructors could be allowed to occupy a post declared to be “temporary” so that, in effect, if they turned out well, they could continue to stay here unhampered by the two-year rule. While several questions were asked of Mr. Henry regarding his proposal, no one else spoke in support of it. One representative (India), said that it was precisely this sort of thing that he thought would actually increase the “brain drain,” especially because of the difficulty of determing the meaning of the word “temporary” in this context. Mr. Henry replied by citing certain examples especially in the field of area studies.

1. Source: National Archives, RG 306, Subject Files, 1955–1971, Acc. #69–H–3445 [A], Entry UD WW 200, Box 174, Brain Drain 1966. No classification marking. Drafted by Colligan on December 15. Copies were sent to Louchheim, Canter, Batson, CU Area and Staff Directors, and members of the Interagency Council.
2. See Document 112 and footnote 2 thereto.
3. A copy of the American Council on Education’s November 17 Bulletin on International Education entitled, “International Migration of Intellectual Talent,” is in the National Archives, RG 306, Subject Files, 1955–1971, Acc. #69–H–3445 [A], Entry UD WW 200, Box 174, Brain Drain 1966.
4. See footnote 4, Document 112.
5. See Document 112.
6. Reference is to the United States Government’s “2-year home-country physical presence requirement” for recipients of J Visas, which required that these visa recipients return to their home countries for a cumulative period of at least 2 years at the conclusion of their exchange programs in the United States before being allowed to: change status to nonimmigrant H or L worker visas; adjust status to that immigrant visa holder or lawful permanent resident; or receive an immigrant visa or H or L worker visas at U.S. embassies or consulates.
7. Presumably a reference to the OAS summit that took place in Punta del Este, Uruguay, April 11–15, 1967. See footnote 3, Document 117.