95. Briefing Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs (Richardson) to Secretary of State Kissinger 1
Monthly Report for November
We believe we can effectively pursue your intention to promote an increased sense of public participation in the foreign policy process by, inter alia, extending our reach into the intellectual community. The variety of relationships we in CU now have with that community are especially active, constructive, and for all practical purposes undisturbed by any problem of confidence.
While we are far from the Department’s only available instrument (INR, FSI, PA, the regional bureaus and others have their own direct linkages), we do believe that 26 years of experience with educational and cultural programming has built a network of fruitful relationships that can readily be further developed. It is a task we intend to pursue with emphasis in the future.
As you know, State has since 1947 engaged the academic community in direct international exchanges of “Fulbright” scholars and graduate students for periods of a year or more. There are now some 38,000 former Fulbright participants in this country and some 375 American scholars currently participate in the grantee selection process. Also, CU support and encouragement of programs of counselling, orientation and enrichment for foreign students not sponsored by USG agencies—now numbering more than 150,000—help to bring very large numbers of American professors and educational administrators into a constructive, although often indirect, relationship with us. Our arrangements for outstanding short-term visitors to this Country (some 3,000 per year) also bring Department sponsorship to the attention of American experts in a wide range of disciplines and professions—including especially those with competence on problem areas of common international concern. In the arts we have enjoyed a cooperative relationship for many years in the selection and support of tours abroad by outstanding performing groups. Finally, there is a smaller but important [Page 334] flow abroad of American intellectual and professional leaders selected for their capacity to engage influential groups in useful dialogue.
Other specific projects in which we are currently engaged with elements of the U.S. academic/intellectual community are the following:
1. The development, with Steve Bailey of the American Council on Education, of five new joint task forces to enhance liaison between the government and the academic community on questions related to international education and research. (I serve as chairman of the government participants.) The five task force assignment areas are:
- —The government-academic interface in international studies;
- —Transnational research collaboration;
- —The diffusion of the product of international studies;
- —Language skill reserves; and,
- —Mid-career travel funds for area experts.
2. Continuing attention to the controversial question of HEW funding for foreign area and language studies centers around the country, under Title VI of the National Defense Education Act. (Apparently as a result of cumulative pressures from you and numerous others, Secretary Weinberger has written in a letter dated November 12, 1973 to Professor Lyle Nelson of Stanford—Chairman of CU’s Presidentially-appointed Board of Foreign Scholarships—that HEW will reconsider funding NDEA Title VI programs in its FY 1975 budget.)
3. Increasing support of programs aimed at stimulating American black college involvement in internationally-oriented activities.
4. A USIA initiated November seminar in Europe which brought together American and West European scholars, journalists and creative writers to evaluate cultural exchange with the Soviet Union.
5. Subsidizing foreign participation in the programs of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies.
6. Stimulation of the process which led to the outstanding conference in Venice last month on the Crisis in the Universities. The leading American scholars who participated joined in the decision by their colleagues from 14 nations to broaden the scope of the effort (re-named as the International Council on the University Emergency) and make it permanent.
7. A continuing dialogue with a variety of American scholars and professionals concerned with China, centering in the Committee on Scholarly Communications with the PRC and the National Committee on U.S.–China Relations.
8. An elaborate system of privately managed but officially coordinated U.S.-Japanese consultations and exchanges in a steadily growing [Page 335] number of fields ranging from television documentaries to museum exhibitions and from newspaper editors to reciprocal image studies.
9. A dialogue with a variety of other intellectuals to obtain ideas useful in developing an over-all U.S. cultural policy concept.
10. A new Bicentennial-oriented effort which Professor Robin Winks (Yale) is helping us organize to reform and strengthen “American Studies” worldwide. We expect this project will be funded in part by the Humanities Endowment and the Ford Foundation.2
All these activities combine to provide an effective window on the academic world and offer a good base on which to build broader relations.
- Source: Washington National Records Center, RG 59, Records of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Office of Policy and Plans, Subject Files, 1961–1977, FRC 306–81–24, CU—Monthly Report to the Secretary. No classification marking. Drafted by Neil A. Boyer (CU/OPP) and Richardson. Pickering sent a memorandum on November 6 notifying all Assistant Secretaries and Office Directors that Kissinger had asked them to submit monthly reports “covering significant items and analyzing trends in the bureau or office’s area of interest.” Pickering’s memorandum and CU’s monthly reports are ibid.↩
- Richardson’s April 1974 monthly report to Kissinger details CU’s “expansion and reinvigoration of American Studies programs in other nations” as part of its contribution to the public diplomacy component of the national commemoration of the Bicentennial of the American Revolution. (Ibid.)↩