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

59. Statement Prepared in the United States Information Agency¹

Washington, September 11, 1965

USIA AND CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE

The Laws

USIA has two mandates from the Congress: Public Law 87–256 of September 21, 1961 (the Fulbright-Hays Act) and Public Law 402 of January 27, 1948 (the Smith-Mundt Act).

Under the Fulbright-Hays Act (and Executive Order 10034² implementing it), USIA does two things: (1) it conducts the overseas cultural and educational programs of the Department of State (CU): exchange of students, leaders and specialists, Fulbright scholars and teachers; (2) it conducts its own cultural and educational programs: libraries, book programs, binational centers, English teaching, American studies, music programs, trade fairs and East-West exhibitions. (Most of these cultural programs were authorized under the Smith-Mundt Act; the Fulbright-Hays legislation superseded it.)

The largest part of USIA’s job is described in the Smith-Mundt Act as “disseminating information about the United States.” This includes cultural and educational information as well as direct foreign policy information. Thus all USIA media are engaged in “cultural-information” programs.

When USIA was created in 1953, the dissemination of information, including cultural media, was separated from the educational exchange program in Washington. One result, however, was that the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (CU), which kept the exchange of persons, became known as a “cultural program” involving persons while USIA, which continued to operate all of the cultural programs which involved things (books, English lessons, musical recordings, etc.) and the information programs about cultural and educational institutions in the U.S., became known as an “information” program.

Overseas, no such confusion regarding division of labor exists. The Public Affairs Officer is responsible for all of these programs.

The Philosophies

There are two schools of thought. One would describe cultural and educational exchange programs as “culture for culture’s sake”³ which would, at best, result in “mutual understanding.” The other would describe USIA as a “propaganda” program which, by manipulating the facts about the U.S. and its foreign affairs, tries to gain acceptance for U.S. policies.

Though these two extreme views constantly plague USIA and CU, there is a middle ground which is achieved by meshing the two stated philosophies of the Fulbright-Hays and Smith-Mundt legislation.

CU officers, and to a lesser extent USIA officers who deal with cultural and educational exchange, are guided by the wording of the preamble to the Fulbright-Hays Act:

“. . . to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries by means of educational and cultural exchange; to strengthen the ties which unite us with other nations by demonstrating the educational and cultural interests, developments, and achievements of the people of the United States and other nations, and the contributions being made toward a peaceful and more fruitful life for people throughout the world; to promote international cooperation for educational and cultural advancement; and thus to assist in the development of friendly, sympathetic, and peaceful relations between the United States and other countries of the world.”

USIA officers are guided by the Smith-Mundt Act which calls for:

“an information service to disseminate abroad information about the United States, its people, and policies promulgated by the Congress, the President, the Secretary of State and other responsible officials of Government having to do with matters affecting foreign affairs . . .”

and more recently a Presidential statement which says: “The mission of the United States Information Agency is to help achieve United States foreign policy objectives by influencing public attitudes in other nations. . . by overt use of various techniques of communication.”⁴

As applied to operations, the first of these two philosophies results in CU programs that relate far less to immediate political objectives than to a long-range goal of achieving “mutual understanding.” For example, selecting U.S. students for political sophistication as well as academic excellence, though felt to be of importance by one politically sensitive arm of CU, is questioned by the CU Advisory Committee and the Board of Foreign Scholarships. Generally however, CU does apply some political criteria, especially to its American Specialist and its Foreign Leader programs.

USIA is not satisfied that this is done to a sufficient degree. The Agency applies political criteria rigorously to its cultural and educational programs. For example, English teaching is used to reach foreign leaders or to deliver a cultural and informational message to students. Our mandate is to present “those aspects of American life and culture which facilitate sympathetic understanding of American policies.”

USIA often applies these political criteria to the CU programs which it administers overseas and in its advisory capacity to CU in Washington. CU feels that this is an intrusion into its own affairs and a violation of the Fulbright-Hays philosophy.

The Problems

Many important groups, including Education and World Affairs, the Brookings Institution, the Board of Foreign Scholarships, the State Department Advisory Commission on Educational and Cultural Affairs, and individuals including Walter Johnson,⁵ HEW Secretary John Gardner, Senator Fulbright, and Mr. Frankel, the present Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, have joined CU in their disapproval of the Agency’s handling of its own and CU’s cultural and educational programs.

Among the elements of the problem, as they see it, are these:

—Cultural officers in the field are under constant pressure to apply political criteria to the exchange program, which the Fulbright-Hays Act defines as essentially non-political.

—The Agency places first priority on direct policy statements and their interpretations via the fast media. Thus USIA’s own cultural media are not as well-financed as its fast media, and receive less top level attention.

—USIA assigns its weaker officers to cultural affairs assignments.

—USIA cultural media are eliminated first when budget cuts come: libraries, English teaching, binational centers, American studies, music, lectures, etc. are the first, not the last, to go.

—Top personnel in USIA have been chosen predominantly with information rather than cultural backgrounds. Only one-third of the PAO’s have had experience as Cultural Officers. No present Area or Media Director has served as a CAO. Only one of the top six officers above them has ever served as a CAO.

In sum, these people feel that USIA is not a hospitable base from which to conduct cultural programs.

Most of these people agree with one or the other of Mr. Frankel’s proposed solutions: (1) A semi-autonomous foundation which would conduct all U.S. government cultural and educational programs, or (2) the upgrading of CU in the State Department accompanied by the absorption of USIA cultural programs and the CAO’s. Then, they feel, cultural and educational exchange could achieve excellence free from the taint of propaganda and from the press of immediate foreign policy and political considerations.

I believe:

—PAO’s and CAO’s conduct the CU exchange programs in keeping with guidelines set by the Ambassador and in accordance with CU instructions, bearing in mind political objectives.

—Cultural content, though important, is relatively less so than the dissemination of information which will achieve U.S. political objectives.

—Personnel assignments to ICS and CU are being upgraded. A number of top USIA officers are now assigned to CU. USIA regrets the loss of the Deputy Assistant Secretary position.

—USIA has been required to cut back in Europe across the board, and cultural programs have suffered.

In sum, I think that U.S. government cultural programs should not be separate from U.S. government informational-political programs. They are mutually supporting and should continue to be so.

The Future

As we discussed in the corridor on Friday,⁶ Frankel’s political orientation under Harry McPherson does not seem to have been total.

On the exchange program specifically, we are under several pressures. The Emphasis on Youth Program could accommodate the entire budget, so could the Labor Leader Program, so could the Journalist Program, vis-à-vis Viet-Nam.

I think you will find that Mr. Frankel will continue with his culture for culture’s sake approach, his expressed desire (soon to be published in his book called The Neglected Aspect of Foreign Affairs)⁷ to divorce culture from politics and all government agencies, and possibly the idea of making cultural affairs much more important in the Department of State than what attaches to an Assistant Secretary equated with area Assistant Secretaries.

If we had unlimited funds, we could presumably accommodate all these competing interests. As it is, I think we have to look at the national interest and program accordingly.

You spoke of getting something in writing from Mr. Frankel. I am not sure that it would be either possible or desirable at this point. What we need, I think, is a commitment from him that from within the limited budget of CU we take care of specific priorities which are essentially political in nature: youth, labor, government, journalism.

While he may agree to this over lunch, I think we are going to have a running battle because his philosophy is fundamentally different from ours.

Burnett Anderson⁸ Deputy Director
(Policy and Plans)

1. Source: National Archives, RG 306, DIRCTR Subj Files, 1963–69, Bx 6–29 63–69: Acc: #72A5121, Entry UD WW 257, Box 24, Advisory Groups—U.S. Educational and Cultural Programs, 1965. No classification marking. Drafted by Anderson, who sent it to Marks under a September 13 covering memorandum indicating that Marks had requested the statement in advance of his September 13 lunch with Frankel. (Ibid.) Anderson also sent a copy of a statement, with the same title, prepared by Echols, under the September 13 covering memorandum. In a September 23 memorandum to Marks, Lewis indicated that he wanted to add “two supporting points” to Anderson’s September 13 memorandum. (Ibid.)
2. The actual Executive Order is 11034. For the full text of the Executive Order, see 27 Federal Register 6071, June 28, 1962.
3. Charles Frankel says “Educational and cultural relations are important in the end, because they are educational and cultural relations.” [Footnote is in the original.]
4. The statement is from a January 25, 1963, memorandum from President Kennedy to Murrow in which the President articulates the USIA mission. See Foreign Relations, 1961–1963, vol. XXV, Organization of Foreign Policy; Information Policy; United Nations; Scientific Matters, Document 144; and Foreign Relations, 1917–1972, vol. VI, Public Diplomacy, 1961–1963, Document 109.
5. Professor of History at the University of Chicago; member of the CU Advisory Commission and the BFS; author of recent report on American studies overseas; as highly regarded as Frankel or Gardner in international educational circles. [Footnote is in the original.]
6. September 10.
7. The Neglected Aspect of Foreign Affairs: American Educational and Cultural Policy Abroad (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute, 1966).
8. Anderson initialed “BA” above this typed signature.