CIAO DATE: 04/03

Facing Historic Challenges in U.S. International Education: The Role of International Outreach

Miriam A. Kazanjian

May 2, 2002

International Institute at University of Wisconsin, Madison

This evening I would like to present a national perspective on the historic challenges facing U.S. international education that have special meaning for Title VI of the Higher Education Act, and Fulbright-Hays 102(b)(6), both administered by the U.S. Department of Education.

Consider the opening sentence to a soon-to-be released paper by thirty-three national higher education associations under the leadership of the American Council on Education (ACE): “The tragic events of September 11, 2001, crystallized in a single, terrible moment the challenges of globalization and the importance of international research and education to our national security.” ¹ The paper focuses on the federal role in international education and calls for a national policy.

I think we all agree that at no time since the Sputnik event of 1957 has foreign language and international education received so much attention. And like that event of more than four decades ago, “the attacks of September 11 have brought America’s international preparedness to a new crossroad.” ²

The ACE paper goes on to say that, “Global transformations in the last decade have created an unparalleled need in the United States for expanded international knowledge and skills. ... our future success or failure in international endeavors will rely almost entirely on the global competence of our people. Global competence is a broad term that ranges from the in-depth knowledge required for interpreting information affecting national security, to skills and understanding that foster improved relations with all regions of the world. It involves, among other things, foreign language proficiency and an ability to function effectively in other cultural environments and value systems, whether conducting business, implementing international development projects, or carrying out diplomatic missions.” ³

It’s quite a broad menu that challenges both our educational system and the federal government in unprecedented ways. Various levels of skill and knowledge are needed on many more languages and world areas than ever before, and in virtually all the disciplines affected by globalization.

September 11 was simply a wake up call... the nation is unprepared. Federal officials and the media have been zooming in on the implications. At least three critical issues have special meaning for Title VI:

1. The need for more highly proficient foreign language and area experts in the less commonly taught strategic world areas.
2. The need to understand the implications of the war on terrorism on the economy, and
3. The need for greater American citizen understanding of other cultures, especially right now, the nations with predominantly Islamic populations.

I would like to discuss each of these and the implications for Title VI and Fulbright-Hays 102(b)(6) and their outreach activities:

Foreign Language and Area Expertise

Responding to new demands to protect national security in a broad range of arenas throughout the U.S. and the world, virtually every federal agency now is engaged globally. Estimates are that over 70 federal agencies and offices rely on human resources with foreign language proficiency and international knowledge and experience. One federal agency, the Department of Defense, estimated its total needs to be 30,000 employees dealing with more than 80 languages, most of which are less commonly taught. ⁴

A recent General Accounting Office report, as well as hearings of the Senate Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, have underscored the shortage of personnel with the foreign language and area skills required to meet security needs across the defense, intelligence, foreign policy and commerce agencies. Federal officials reported shortfalls in hiring and deficits in readiness that have “adversely affected agency operations and hindered U.S. military, law enforcement, intelligence, counterterrorism, and diplomatic efforts.” ⁵

Shortages of language-proficient FBI employees have resulted in the accumulation of thousands of hours of audiotapes and pages of written foreign language material that were not reviewed or translated in a timely manner, and that might have been a vital tool in averting disaster, such as the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.

Despite their own language training programs, several agencies recently scrambled to address deficiencies in the less-commonly taught and difficult to learn languages, such as those of Central Eurasia, South Asia, and the Middle East. Faced with these shortages after September 11th, the FBI resorted to the unusual step of a public search for U.S. citizens fluent in Arabic, Persian, or Pashto to help with the nation’s probe of the attack.

The threat of terrorism is seen presently as a long-term reality. This moves issues of security to the top of the international education agenda, at least as far as federal support is concerned. It does not suggest that international education be defined or driven solely by security issues, but these new imperatives for the national interest require immediate attention, especially by Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs. We are in a unique moment: policy makers are paying attention.

These programs are the nation’s primary base of resources and knowledge on the less commonly taught languages (LCTLs) and their world regions. A Department of Education study found that Title VI supported institutions “account for almost three-fifths (59 percent) of graduate enrollments in languages other than French, German, Spanish, and Italian. If one focuses on the least commonly taught languages, omitting the 10 languages with the highest enrollments (Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish), Title VI supported institutions account for 81 percent of graduate language enrollments nationwide.” ⁶ Because of their very high cost, these languages likely would not be taught at universities in the United States if it were not for Title VI.

Collectively these programs support the production of experts and the maintenance of a warehouse of international knowledge available to public and private sectors when needed. One might think of it as a form of “national guard” of foreign language and area expertise. I was recently asked by a Congressional office if Title VI really does serve national security interests. The answer is yes–it is one of the principle reasons the federal government is involved in international studies. Consider several excerpts from the Findings and Purposes of the Title VI statute:

“(a) FINDINGS- Congress finds as follows:

“(1) The security, stability, and economic vitality of the United States in a complex global era depend upon American experts in and citizens knowledgeable about world regions, foreign languages, and international affairs, as well as upon a strong research base in these areas.

“(3) Dramatic post-Cold War changes in the world's geopolitical and economic landscapes are creating needs for American expertise and knowledge about a greater diversity of less commonly taught foreign languages and nations of the world.”

And especially important for outreach directors:

“(5) Cooperative efforts among the Federal Government, institutions of higher education, and the private sector are necessary to promote the generation and dissemination of information about world regions, foreign languages, and international affairs throughout education, government, business, civic, and nonprofit sectors in the United States.” ⁷

How has this translated into concrete results?

Many of the graduates who benefited from Title VI programs have gone on to serve in key U.S. government positions, such as the former Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research; the former Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, and the former Press Spokesman for the Department of State. We could cite many more such examples.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that most career security foreign language and area specialists in agencies such as the CIA and DIA were trained at institutions with Title VI centers.

Title VI has responded to government needs in other ways: 1) The U.S. Army Foreign Area Officer (FAO) Program continues to send its officers to Title VI centers for their M.A. in language and area studies training and has done so since the inception of the FAO program three decades ago. 2) The U.S. Air Force relies on the resources of Title VI centers, most recently for course materials on the Turkmen language. 3) A Title VI center developed language training materials for Vietnamese, Tagalog, Indonesian, Mandarin Chinese and Korean learners for the National Security Agency and Department of Defense; and 4) A Title VI center served as a clearing house for language materials on Pashto, the language of the Taliban.

Chronic underfunding of these programs has inhibited their ability to keep up with increased national needs, one of the reasons we are facing shortfalls. Prior to September 11, not one university offered Pashto on a full time basis. However, with the infusion of new funding last year, and hopefully with more to come, Title VI programs have a responsibility to respond to new challenges in foreign language and expertise production.

Congressional report language was unusually proscriptive last year, an indication of the level of concern:

“The conferees find that our national security, stability and economic vitality depend, in part, on American experts who have sophisticated language skills and cultural knowledge about the various areas of the world. An urgent need exists to enhance the nation's in-depth knowledge of world areas and transnational issues, and fluency of U.S. citizens in languages relevant to understanding societies where Islamic and/or Muslim culture, politics, religion, and economy are a significant factor.

“Therefore, the conferees have included an increase of $20,478,000 for the Title VI/Fulbright-Hays programs to increase the number of international experts (including those entering government service and various professional disciplines) with in-depth expertise and high-level language proficiency in the targeted world areas of Central and South Asia, the Middle East, Russia, and the Independent States of the former Soviet Union. A portion of these funds is intended to enhance the capacity of U.S. higher education institutions to sustain these initiatives over time.” ⁸

The NRCs in these world areas were given a roughly 30% increase in per center funding, a doubling in FLAS fellowships, along with enhanced stipends and cost allowance.

The message is clear: it’s not business as usual. At the top of the “to-do” list is improving language instruction for service, and to produce experts with high levels of language proficiency who will enter government service or the professions. If Title VI doesn’t address this issue soon, Congress will look to other federal programs to do so.

Congress went on to suggest some activities to meet this goal:... “encourage the creation of distance learning initiatives to provide more universal access to language training, summer language institutes abroad, one-on-one language tutoring to accelerate student progress to the highest levels of proficiency, engaging the language resources of local heritage communities where appropriate, and increased collaboration with the Title VI language resource centers, the centers for international business education and research, and the American overseas research centers with a focus on the least commonly taught languages and areas and underrepresented professional disciplines.” ⁹ Congress also included language to provide more flexibility for overseas immersion opportunities through Title VI and Fulbright-Hays. ¹⁰

Title VI centers are challenged to find creative ways to address this challenge, to be proactive in ways that include an outreach vision for their centers that is more systematic, and national in outlook. A local, ad hoc approach to outreach is no longer sufficient.

One example is increased emphasis on outreach to government agencies and the media. Consideration should be given to a collaborative project among Title VI centers (National Resource Centers (NRCs), Language Resource Centers (LRCs), Centers for International Business Education and Research (CIBERs), and American Overseas Research Centers (AORCs)) to compile a comprehensive database of scholars with thematic, disciplinary and regional/country-specific expertise. This should be made easily accessible through the Internet to the news media, government agencies and other groups who might need background on important international events.

On the issue of foreign language training, LRCs were created to enhance the teaching and learning of foreign languages. Three exisitng LRCs focus on the languages of specific world areas. Last year Congress provided funds to establish three new LRCs specializing in Central Asia, the Middle East, and South Asia, to develop the resources needed to improve foreign language teacher training, materials development, and pedagogical strategies for the LCTLs of these regions.

One way the LRCs are thinking of addressing this challenge is through joint sponsorship of a summit on newly critical languages. The summit would develop a strategic plan of LRC initiatives for teacher training and resource development and dissemination, especially for advanced language training in the LCTLs. This project is pending additional funding.

American business needs and the implications of the war on terrorism on the economy

National security is increasingly linked to commerce, and U.S. business is widely engaged around the world with joint ventures and economic linkages that require its employees to have international expertise both at home and abroad. A recent study on the internationalization of American business education found that knowledge of other cultures, cross-cultural communications skills, experience in international business, and fluency in a foreign language ranked among the top skills sought by corporations involved in international business.

The war on terrorism threatens U.S. economic prosperity--and economic stability worldwide--in ways that are not yet entirely understood. International trade is clearly at risk. Increased U.S. border security has already slowed the flow of goods between this country and our North American neighbors, increasing costs for the many U.S. firms that rely on Mexican or Canadian firms as suppliers or customers. A Department of Transportation White Paper released earlier this week focused on this issue. The author of the report said that an attack in one of our major ports could have a trillion dollar impact on the world economy.

Research is needed to identify specific policy measures and avenues of global public and private sector cooperation that will make possible both homeland security and continued economic growth.

Political risk of American foreign direct investment clearly has been raised significantly as well. How can U.S. multinationals adapt to the new, enormous threat to overseas human and capital resources? What new human resource skills and levels of cultural understanding do corporations need to successfully operate in a dangerous global environment?

The Title VI CIBERs have made great strides in internationalizing U.S. business education, as well as in providing U.S. corporations with the international skills and knowledge to compete globally. They now are in a unique position to serve as a national resource in providing the education and research needed as part of coping with the aftermath of September 11.

In response, CIBERS are considering projects to:

• Address the impact of terrorism and border security needs on the worldwide conduct of American business, in collaboration with the private sector and government, including new research, workshops, and a national conference
• Promote understanding of Islamic cultures among U.S. corporations, and the challenges of conducting American business in those cultures
• Increase the numbers of business graduates with language fluency and area knowledge. There is opportunity here for more collaboration with other Title VI centers.

Greater American citizen understanding of other cultures, especially now, Islamic cultures

Global transformations also are driving new demands for globally competent citizens and international knowledge in almost all fields of endeavor, such as health, the environment, journalism and law. Whether it be in the culturally diverse U.S. workplace or on assignment abroad, employers increasingly look for candidates who have cross-cultural skills, foreign language proficiency, and the ability to meet the international challenges of their field. Increasing the pool of underrepresented minorities who pursue international careers is a critical dimension as well.

Producing a citizenry with global competence is the responsibility of our nation’s educational system. But educational institutions themselves face a shortage of teachers and faculty with global competence. From K-16 through professional education, there is a shortage of foreign language teachers and faculty, especially for the LCTLs, as well as of university level area and international studies specialists. Moreover, few teacher education programs in the United States focus on preparing their students to impart international knowledge and skills in the K-12 classroom.

Outreach to the K-12 community is essential, and I know the Title VI centers have been doing much in this area. Here I would simply urge that emphasis continue to be placed on updating curriculum materials (especially on Islamic cultures) and teacher training, especially in the LCTLs. I’ve been told that one NRC is developing a K-12 curriculum on Islam for PBS, a terrific idea. Finding creative ways to interest students early in studying LCTLs and their world areas also is needed. A good example is a recent University of Wisconsin, Madison “World Languages Day.” More Fulbright seminars and group projects abroad could be put in place for foreign language teachers. For example, a Middle East Center has been using the Fulbright Group Projects Abroad program annually to take a group of teachers to predominantly Muslim countries to develop curriculum materials and other classroom resources.

Outreach to other higher education institutions as they endeavor to internationalize is especially important for building support for Title VI in the higher education community at large. Demands for courses on the Middle East and Arabic, South Asia, and Inner Asia have increased, from community colleges to the large research universities. For example, a Middle East Center in the southwest is developing a systematic outreach program to all higher education institutions in the region to help them develop Middle East culture and Arabic language courses.

Pending new funding, the LRCs are considering

• Establishing a professional development fund for K-16+ teachers of Arabic, Azeri, Persian, Pashto, Uzbek, Urdu and other critical languages to provide funding assistance to teachers to participate in LRC sponsored summer training institutes
• Establishing a materials development fund for the these languages to provide small grants for K-16+ teachers to develop web-delivered instructional materials, and for LRCs to expand their technical teams.

Increasing the capacity of minority-serving institutions to produce globally competent graduates who enter the international service also is a priority. I am pleased to hear that the University of Memphis and seven other CIBERs are collaborating with the Title VI funded Institute for International Public Policy to internationalize business education at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). I know many NRCs work with HBCUs as well.

Community groups also are anxious for up-to-date curricula materials or information about the Middle East and Islamic culture. The NRCs and AORCs have an opportunity to share the results of their scholarship and expertise with the public in community forums, and I know have been doing so in overtime since September 11.

Finally, to tie all of this together, we need a national strategy. Last year’s report language suggested on important step in this regard: “The conferees urge the Department [of Education] to... provide greater national accessibility by government agencies, businesses, the media, and education institutions to the expertise and knowledge these programs produce... .” ¹¹ We need a major national website on all Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs, an idea I am pleased to see on your conference agenda.

America’s international preparedness is indeed at a new crossroad. As happened more than 40 years ago, Congress has placed Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs front and center on this challenge. We must give them positive reason to hold their attention.