Foreign Relations of the United States, 1917–1972, Volume VI, Public Diplomacy, 1961–1963

84. Minutes of a Meeting of the United States Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs¹

ACEC/S Document 3

Washington, June 19–20, 1962.

[Omitted here are the title page; the table of contents; Section I: List of Participants; and Section II: Official Commission Business.]

III. GENERAL PROCEEDINGS

1. Greetings and Statements by Assistant Secretary Battle:

After calling the meeting to order, Chairman Gardner called on Mr. Battle who was scheduled to discuss his recently assumed responsibilities as Assistant Secretary.

Mr. Battle opened his remarks by expressing his appreciation for having, he thought, one of the best qualified groups available to assist him and the Government in increasing the effectiveness of this country’s educational and cultural exchange programs. In commenting on the significance of this new assignment, he stated in part—“I am very eager to take on this job . . . it combines my two careers and most of my hobbies . . . I have had many years in the Department of State in the field of foreign policy and quite a few years outside in the educational-foundation world, so to merge the two, and along with other things that I have done, it is a particularly pleasant prospect.”²

He then expressed his desire to be absolutely candid and straightforward with the members and to feel free to share with the Commission his problems of which he has a great many.

Mr. Battle then pointed out that in taking on a new job individuals are bound to approach it in slightly different ways in order to fit their own mode of operation but this doesn’t mean one is right or one wrong. He added that he has several fairly clear ideas of what he believes should be done. He then spoke of one in particular—the philosophy of the operation itself. He then pointed out that the emphasis in the past has been to try to separate the operations of the office of Assistant Secretary—to keep two sort of separate entities. This, in his opinion is something he could not work with. He feels that the Assistant Secretary in charge of the program is responsible for the operation—that in the opinion of most people anything that goes right or wrong with the specific, detailed operation of the Department’s program is his responsibility and, therefore, he must accept that responsibility. Thus, the first step he has taken is to make Mr. Boerner his Deputy, thereby placing the full responsibility for the operations in the Assistant Secretary’s office. Yet, he said, this still leaves much to be desired.

Over a great many years new programs have been added, either by Congress or other initiative and pocket units have been set up to take care of particular situations. The focus of the Department of State has always been around the geographic area. These geographic bureaus in the Department still have a very key role. Many other agencies of Government are organized on a geographic basis. Therefore, CU has been the exception and although the Department is supposed to be doing the coordinating it has not been geared to coordinate. To organize CU on a geographic basis is going to be very upsetting for a time and it cannot be started immediately. Mr. Coombs had come to the same conclusion and had started a great many plans for the geographic organization. The planning that was done while he was here will be of enormous help in going into this shift.

As to the important and complicated subject of coordination, Mr. Battle stated that from his own experience in Government, coordination really has to be done at two levels—first, as to day-to-day knowledge and exchange in an operating way of what goes on; and second, on a policy level—the first forms the basis for the second. He cited his early experience in the Department as a desk officer for Canada at which time a series of meetings were held every month or six weeks pulling together the people who worked on Canada in various Government agencies. There was no agenda, no decisions—just a review on a regular basis of what had recently happened in Canada and what each individual had pending that affected Canada. This afforded a simple mechanism for exchanging problems with which each agency was faced with respect to Canada and led to the planning and development of a unified position whereby all agencies would not be moving in at the same time to try to get something from the Canadians. Mr. Battle thought this sort of a device will be a starting point for the coordination that is absolutely essential to the conduct of the CU program. Thus if the Bureau is organized on a geographic basis it will provide a focal point whereby CU personnel working in a specific area can get in touch with their counterpart in each of the several agencies.

Then, he added, you have the level of policy which he believes is his responsibility, with due regard to his superiors, the Commission, and others. This has to be achieved in several ways—the first and very basic part is “good will” and in this connection he has been calling on people in other agencies, having them over for lunch and discussing their respective programs. He believes the above two mechanisms form the basis for a chance at coordinating a very complicated structure.

He then expressed the view that we have got to find some way to relate what we do, and what the foundations do, to what we are trying to achieve and what our aims and goals are in this country. We cannot simply operate independently. It is his hope that when the Bureau is organized on a geographic basis that the individuals working on a country desk or an area desk will keep close tab on what is happening in the foundations and Government which will form some sort of basis for decision-making, and bring about a better coordination of programs.

Mr. Battle briefly commented on the personnel situation in the Bureau calling particular attention to the people who are to head up the geographic areas. He believes they are competent and experienced and will form an excellent nucleus around which to build this structure. He also informed the Commission that he had been assured of space in the new building for at least all of the key offices of CU.

In closing, Mr. Battle stated “. . . It is my hope that instead of offering you papers of final recommendations . . . that I hand you problems . . . and hand you these problems at early stages, rather than late stages, and get your thoughts and help on them. I think that in this group the program has one of its greatest assets. I hope you will permit me to use it in the way I am speaking of, or modified as you would want it, but to make it a group with which I can freely and openly talk about some of the difficulties I have. . . .”

Dr. Gardner thanked Mr. Battle for his remarks and stated “I think I speak for every member of the Commission when I say that we are impressed with the very open, straightforward, constructive view you have taken of our work. And I will say that I personally have been very deeply impressed with the energy that you have brought to this job and with the command you have already gained of these difficult problems that you have mentioned.

“I know all of the Commission members were somewhat shaken when Phil Coombs, who was our first point of contact, suddenly appeared to be leaving, and it is gratifying to us to find someone moving in with such energy and straightforward interest in the work of the Commission.”

[Omitted here is information concerning the 10-year perspective for the Commission, a study regarding past U.S. educational and cultural exchange programs, and African students.]

5. REMARKS OF MR. EDWARD R. MURROW, DIRECTOR OF UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY

On behalf of the Commission, the Chairman extended a warm welcome to Mr. Murrow who had been invited to meet with the Commission. In calling on Mr. Murrow, he stated that the Commission would be delighted to hear about his own activities and what he expected of this Commission. He pointed out that this Commission is a fairly new group. Although each member has a very deep familiarity with one or another part of the whole program, all of them are now becoming familiar with the bewildering variety of agencies, projects, programs, and rivalries. He expressed the view that it would be most helpful to the Commission if he had any words of wisdom about its relationship to USIA and if he had any worries or problems on which he would like their advice.

Mr. Murrow opened his remarks by stating: “You mentioned two words: rivalries and worries. I can deal with the first one in short order by saying that Luke³ and I have an agreement—that since there is bound to be a degree of confusion in Washington (it is built-in), we are not going to export said confusion—we will deal with it here. ‘Worries’. This would take the rest of the afternoon.

“I am not aware of any important friction between the Agency and this particular area of State. I am aware of some inadequacy on both sides. I am not sure that the counseling or selection of students brought here is adequate. I am not sure that our cultural officers are of as high a caliber as they should be. These are all things on which we are working. But I would not be able to come here and register a series of complaints, or even a major one.”

At this point Mr. Battle remarked: “Ed, I made some fairly sweeping commitments on your behalf and mine this morning in an off the record session here about the new degree of our cooperation. I pointed to the great help you had been in clearing up some of the nasty little details of the Executive Order⁴ which I am told will be out very soon. I made all sorts of sweeping promises of our continued cooperation, and I didn’t even check with you before I did it, because I was sure it was all right in the light of the discussion we have had.”

Mr. Murrow replied: “I agree with everything you said. We both face the problem of keeping our bureaucrats in line, but I think we can do it.”

In reply to Dr. Gardner’s question as to this Commission’s relationship with the USIA’s Advisory Commission on Information, Mr. Murrow stated: “The Advisory Commission on Information is becoming a fairly active Commission, which we welcome. I gather from the language of the Hays-Fulbright Act that this Commission is also entitled and empowered to advise us. This, also, will be welcomed. And I would think, particularly, to give us advice (if the opportunity affords) based on firsthand observation and knowledge. Because I become increasingly convinced that, aside from certain policy ideas, our major problem consists of getting the right man in the right place. And when we do that, the operation functions; and, when we don’t, whatever the directives or guidelines, it doesn’t function.

“And I would think that at some point you, or certain members of this Commission, would want to sit down with our Commission and exchange views and impressions.”

Dr. Gardner stated that he would initiate correspondence with the Chairman of the Information Commission, Mr. J. Leonard Reinsch, that would lead to an exchange of views.

The question was raised by Dr. Johnson as to the advisability of having a writer in residence, or an artist, depending on the country, who is freed from the detailed work with which the cultural officer is involved. Mr. Murrow stated “it is conceivable and this question has been discussed at great length over the past year. One time Ambassador Galbraith wanted such an officer in Delhi. After a few months’ experience, he changed his mind entirely. However, I personally would like to see this done.”

As to the role that USIA can play in promoting a point of view which might be conducive to more careful selection and financing of African students coming to this country, Mr. Murrow stated that he did not have a quite orthodox view of the matter of African students coming to this country, having had a little experience in this area for thirty years. He thinks that there are too many coming here and that they are not sufficiently well chosen. He would like to see more Government money spent in developing technical training institutions and vocational schools in the African countries. And, to a large extent, this would apply to universities as well.

Dr. Adams, referring to the Commission’s “special study,”⁵ raised the question as to how Mr. Murrow would evaluate the effectiveness of USIA. Mr. Murrow stated that he would have to break it down by categories. He went on to say: “The wireless file we operate, which covers 10,000 words a day to five geographic areas by radio teletype, has improved only because it is less bloated than it was. There is still too much of it.

“The Voice of America is less important than the local placements we make through tapes and packaged programs on medium-wave transmitters.

“There are a lot of misconceptions about this Agency. I had some; I probably still have some.

“The libraries abroad have too few books of the language of the country in which they are located. In short, too many English books in French-speaking countries—that sort of thing.

“The bi-national centers in many cases have become rather the equivalent of the English-Speaking Union, if I can say that without offense. They are engaged in talking with people who are already converted.

“There is not enough give and take. They don’t make enough effort to get in left-wing students, and so forth; and break a little intellectual furniture inside as well as having windows broken—that sort of thing.

“The exhibits program: we have had three in the Soviet Union this year—one dealing with plastics; one with transportation; one with medicine,⁶ and this has been one of the most exciting activities because we make an analysis of the questions asked by the Russian visitors. We will have had about a million and a quarter through those three exhibits by the first of July. The type of questioning reflects a great curiosity, ranging far beyond the subject matter of the exhibits.”

In response to questions raised by the Chairman as to what he considered as weak spots in the CU programs, Mr. Murrow stated that obviously the process of selection was first; second, the provision of an adequate and intensive training course in English; and third, the problem of adequate follow-up for the returned grantee.

Mr. Boerner stated, as a recent returnee from the field: “I think that it is important for all of you to remember that out at the operating level there is no program other than the USIS program that Ed runs for his own organization, and for us too. So that everything we do is intimately connected with Ed’s interests, and his organizational activities.

“And it seems to me, Ed, that the work of this Commission is something that you and your people ought to be completely aware of, and could be brought in on at all times, and manifest your interest. Take as simple a thing as this study which the Commission is making—I mean it is not a simple thing, but the idea is simple. You immediately get into the problem of what the local post thinks about what should be said in the questionnaires; and the local post is USIA. Now we have cultural officers there; they are on USIA payroll, and the choices of the cultural officers are made essentially within USIA. So we are intimately connected all the way through. If your people go out in the field to talk to our people, the people who are running our program, you are going to talk to USIA officers when you arrive . . .”

Mr. Murrow referred to his earlier statement about getting this Commission’s advice by “first-hand reports from the field.” It was his opinion that the Commission’s surveys would cover two parts: (1) whether the planning and the concept here in Washington by Messrs. Battle, Boerner, and Company is adequate and tailored to the need; and (2) whether the actual execution in the field is being properly done which is USIA responsibility.

Dr. Foster raised the point that the stereotype of America which is in the minds of many people in other countries is an unfavorable one. They think of us as a materialistic society, as not hard-working sometimes, and they do not have a good or favorable impression of our cultural development. Much of this impression, he believes, they gain through the fruits of our commercial enterprises abroad. He wondered to what extent the USIA program deals with counteracting this point of view.

Mr. Murrow replied: “It is a problem and it is not soluble because the sum total of what we do abroad represents very little in the total spectrum of communication.

“There are, for example, 35,000 missionaries abroad spending about four times our total budget. There are a million military personnel and dependents. Television alone is now exporting between $40 and 50 million worth of product from this country. We are in the television business; we are in the movie business. But the impact of our output, compared to the networks, the syndicators, and the Hollywood export, is nothing—I mean it is a tiny fragment.

“I have done a little arguing with the people in Hollywood and in the networks in an effort to persuade them to have some regard for the impact as well as the income derived, but I have not had much success.”

Dr. Gardner thanked Mr. Murrow for attending this session and expressed the Commission’s desire to be of assistance in connection with any specific problems which he might wish to bring to its attention.

[Omitted here is information concerning the role of contract agencies, the Commission’s budget, the role and status of Cultural Affairs Officers, Commission attendance at international meetings, and university-to-university relationships. Also omitted is ACEC/S Document 3 (Attachment 1), “Objectives of U.S. International Educational and Cultural Programs.”]

1. Source: National Archives, RG 306, Office of Research and Assessment, Library, Archives, Office of Archivist/Historian, Records Relating to the Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs, 1962–1978, Entry P–138, Box 1, U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs 1st–5th Meeting Minutes 1962–1963. No classification marking. Prepared by the Departmental Staff of the USACIECA in September.
2. Battle joined the Department of State in the 1940s and served on the Canada Desk before serving as a special assistant to Acheson and as First Secretary and Chief of the Political Section of the Embassy in Copenhagen. He left the Department of State to serve as Vice President of Colonial Williamsburg and then returned to the Department in 1961.
3. Battle.
4. Executive Order 11034—Administration of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961—was issued by the President on June 25. (27 Federal Register 6071, June 28, 1962) A copy of a June 26 White House press release containing the text of the Executive Order is in the National Archives, RG 306, Office of Plans, Subject Files, 1955–1971, Acc. #65Z1075 [B] (General IOP), Entry UD WW 334, Box 180, Fulbright–Hays (1962).
5. The “special study” consisted of a congressionally-mandated report regarding the past effectiveness of educational and cultural exchange programs due to Congress by December 31, 1962. It included a study conducted by International Research Associates (INRA), whose staff surveyed former grantees and local leaders in 20 countries. In addition, the Commission members interviewed Ambassadors and Embassy officials for their views on these programs and prepared staff papers, and Gardner sent inquiries to individuals outside the U.S. Government. For the final version, see A Special Study on the Effectiveness of the Past Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs of the U.S. Department of State: A Report to Congress From the U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs Pursuant to Public Law 87–256: Also Constituting the First Annual Report of the U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs, 88th Cong., 1st sess. House Document 93 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1963). The Commission’s first annual report is also printed as A beacon of hope—The Exchange-of-Persons Program, a report from . . . The U.S. Advisory Commission on International Education and Cultural Affairs (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963). Documentation on the “special study” is in the National Archives, RG 59, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Multilateral and Special Activities, Secretariat to the U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs and to the Advisory Committee on the Arts (11/62–1963), Study Materials, 1962–1963: Lot 72D363, Entry A1–5458 and ibid., Records Regarding a Special Study on Educational Exchange Programs, 1962–1963: Lot 68D277, Entry A1–5461.
6. See footnote 5, Document 41.