.- - House Document No. 89

TWENTY-FIFTH SEMIANNUAL REPORT ONEDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE ACTIVITIES

LETTERFROM THE

CHAIRMAN, U.S. ADVISORY COMMISSIONON EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE

TRANSMITTING

THE 25TH SEMIANNUAL REPORT ON THE EDUCA-TIONAL EXCHANGE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED UNDERTHE UNITED STATES INFORMATION AND EDUCA-TIONAL EXCHANGE ACT OF 1948 (PUBLIC LAW 402,80TH CONGRESS) FROM JULY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER

31, 1960

FEBRUARY 15, 1961.-Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairsand ordered to be printed

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1961

87th Congress, Ist Session

57011

LETTER OF SUBMITTAL

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,THE U.S. ADVISORY COMMISSION

ON EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE,February 14, 1961.

Hon. SAM RAYBURN,Speaker of the House of Representatives.

SIR: The U.S. Advisory Commission on Educational Exchangesubmits herewith its 25th semiannual report on the educational ex-change activities conducted under the U.S. Information and Educa-tional Exchange Act of 1948 (Public Law 402, 80th Cong.) from July 1through December 31, 1960.This report fulfills the requirements of section 603 of the above-

mentioned act which states that this Commission shall transmit-* * * to the Congress a semiannual report of all programs and activities

carried on under authority of this Act, including appraisals, where feasible, asto the effectiveness of the programs and such recommendations as shall havebeen made * * * to the Secretary of State for effectuating the purpose andobjectives of this Act and the action taken to carry out such recommendations.The membership of the Commission is as follows:

Franklin David Murphy, chancellor, University of California,Los Angeles, Calif., Chairman;

Arthur H. Edens, former president, Duke University, Durham,N.C., Vice Chairman;

Anna L. Rose Hawkes, dean emeritus, Mills College, and presi-dent of the American Association of University Women,Orleans, Vt.;

Noah Langdale, Jr. president, Georgia State College of BusinessAdministration, Atlanta, Ga.;

J. E. Wallace Sterling, president, Stanford University, Stanford,Calif.

A duplicate copy of this report is being furnished the Senate.Very truly yours,

FRANKLIN D. MURPHY, Chairman,U.S. Advisory Commission on Educational Exchange.

(Enclosure: Advisory Commission's 25th semiannual report to theCongress.)

III

TWENTY-FIFTH SEMIANNUAL REPORTTO THE CONGRESS

BY THEUNITED STATES ADVISORY COMMISSION ON

EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE

(July 1-December 31, 1960)

v

CONTENTS

PateI. Recommendation to the Secretary of State----------- 1

II. Appraisal of the educational exchange program--------- 4III. Changes in membership of the Commission----------------------- 5IV. Commendations for former staffdirector---V. Activities of the Advisory Committee on the Arts---------------- 5

APPENDIX

Report on the USIS cultural program in Germany --------- 9vIE

TWENTY.FIFi SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO THE CONGRESSBY THE US. ADVISORY COMMMISSION ON EDUCATIONALEXCHANGE

I. RECOMMENDATION

Integration of civil service and Forein Service personnel-"Wristonprogram"

The following exchange of correspondence concerning the abovesubject occurred prior to the period covered by this semiannual report.Despite that fact, it is the Commission's wish that it be recorded atthis time. It is to be noted that further steps toward a more flexibleapplication of the Wriston program to the Bureau of Educational andCultural Affairs have been taken by the Department since thisexchange of correspondence.Text of Commission recommendation to the Secretary of State (submitted

November 6, 1959):As you know, this Commission was created by the Congress

more than a decade ago to "formulate and recommend to theSecretary policies and programs" for carrying out educationaland cultural exchanges with other countries. Our recom-mendations through the ensuing years have always beenmotivated by a deep conviction that these exchanges are of thegreatest importance to the national interest and, therefore, meritthe wisest and best administration possible.

It is out of this conviction that the Commission wishes toreport to you its concern over a situation having possibly graveimplications for effective administration. I refer to the appli-cation of the so-called Wriston or "integration" plan to thepersonnel and organizational units engaged in conducting edu-cational and cultural exchange programs.We on the Commission have observed with interest, and with

sympathetic awareness of the complex problems involved, thesteps taken by the Department t9 effectuate the Wriston recom-mendations-particularly as they affect the interchangeability ofcivil service and Foreign Service personnel. It is with somereluctance that we have reached the conclusion that a too rigidapplication of these recommendations in this particular area ofthe Department may be harmful in at least three respects:

1. It may affect adversely the stability and continuity of theprogram.

Educational exchange is basically long range in its effects. Itrequires of administering personnel a background of accumulatedknowledge concerning conditions, both at home and abroad, thatexperience has shown are most salutary for the conduct of pro-ductive exchanges. Some of this knowledge is of a highly

181-542'-61 H. Docs., 87-1, vol. 1- 23

REPORT ON EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE ACTIVITIES

specialized character. Policies governing the program, more-over, have been established over the past 20 years, and adminis-trators must tread a wary path, allowing both modifications ofthese policies in the light of changing circumstances and ad-herence to, certain fundamental andwidelyy acceptedd principles.Thus a premium is placed ont experienceanid continuity 'of em-ployrnent, especially in certain 'key ':positions, and' the programsuffers from a rapid personnel turnover and relatively brief jobassignments.

2. It may impair domestic relationships vital to the program.To a degree unique among international government activities,

the exchange program is dependent upon the cooperation of theAmerican public channeled through voluntary agencies. Knowl-edge of our educational and cultural institutions, coupled withsensitivity to their needs and interests, is essential to the mainte-nance of this cooperation. While it is not difficult for someGovernment careerists in the field to develop such knowledgeand sensitivity, persons on duty assignments of 2 or 3 yearscannot reasonably be expected to do so.

3. It may deprive the program of persons with foreign fieldexperience in operating exchanges.The program benefits, also, from a knowledge of the conduct

of the program in cooperating countries. This knowledge ispossessed by USIS personnel-cultural affairs officers, in partic-ular-who are not covered by the Wriston recommendations.Ironically, therefore, a desirable interchange between the fieldand Washington is, in the case of educational exchange, handi-capped rather than promoted by implementation of theserecommendations.Your own interest in our educational and cultural relationships

is well known to the Commission. The establishment of theBureau of International Cultural Relations and the;appointmentof Robert H. Thayer as your special assistant in this area hasalready produced gratifying effects in the direction and co-ordination of these relationships. Because of our interest inseeing the potentialities of the educational exchange programfully realized under these auspices, we wished to bring the situa-tion described in this letter to your personal attention.

Departmental reply (dated February 8, 1960)Thank you for your letter * * * expressing your interest and

the concern of the U.S. Advisory Commission on EducationalExchange in the application of the Department of State's inte-gration program to the personnel and organizational units en-gaged in the educational and cultural exchange program.The aim of the integration program recommended by the Pub-

lic Committee on Personnel, the "Wriston Committee," was, inessence, the integration into the Foreign Service Officer corps asrapidly as circumstances would permit of the civil service officersof the Department engaged in the conduct of foreign affairs, aswell as the Foreign.Service Staff and Reserve officers in our dip-lomatic and consular offices abroad, so the Department couldbenefit from personnel with experience abroad as well as at home.This was accomplished by designating virtually all officer posi-

2

REPORT ON" EDUCATIONAi 'XCHAtD' 'ACtiRTES

tions closely oneted wih tew' conduct -of ' foreign affairs,Offers oceaping ·ta&e-positions; W-eeidcoutaged to becomeforeignn Servie Offi frsif thdy could!meft certain qualifications.Thedesignation of oreig Service Offlie -positions was by nomeans automatic, but had to meet criteria established in accord-ance with recommendations of the' Wriston Committee. Alofficer positions were designated which were primarily concernedwith (1) foreign affairs, or (2) the executive management of, oradministrative responsibility for, the oversea operations of theDepartment and the Foreign Service, for which there was inter-changeability between the Department and abroad.

Five years have elapsed since the integration program wasstarted. Its execution has not been easy. It has given rise to,or has served to create, a variety of problems; some of these youhave mentioned in your letter, such as the need for continuityand the need for a longer assignment of officers and less rapidturnover in positions. Certain adjustments have been made inthe program whereby certain positions originally designated For-eign Service have been changed to civil service status. Some ofthese changes of designations have occurred in the cultural areaof the Department. However, as has been true in other areasthe short-term problems in the Bureau of International CulturalRelations can be met, we believe, by the occasional adjustmentsfound to be necessary. Some of the longer term problems wepropose to eliminate by carrying out carefulrecruitment, training,and career development programs. These are in process, but itwill take several years before the full impact of them is felt onthe cultural programs.At present, the cultural area of the Department, especially its

largest component, the International Educational ExchangeService (IES), seems to be the most strongly affected by theintegration program. In 1954 all of the approximately 130officer positions in IES were designated as Foreign Servicepositions. To date there are 169 Foreign Service positions inthe Bureau of International Cultural Relations of which 67 arefilled by civil service officers. It has been alleged that educationalexchange work is so highly specialized that it cannot be adequatelyperformed by Foreign Service Officers and that the technicalnature of the duties performed in IES requires more continuitythan would be possible under the rotational system of the ForeignService. An analysis of IES officers, relationships, and proce-dures, however, undertaken by a Very recent survey by theinspection area of the Department, does not support the validityof these claims as broad generalizations. The inspectors foundthat many of the procedures in IES and in the Bureau of Inter-national Cultural Relations are involved and somewhat removedfrom the ordinary pattern of Foreign Service experience, andthat much of the work is very specialized; however, the work isnot technical in the sense of being unfathomable to those who havenot had special training and long experience. Many of the officerpositions in IES it is reported, can be learned within a reasonabletime by carefully selected Foreign Service Officers who are ac-customed to adjusting rapidly to a new type of work and to mak-ing the necessary contacts.

3

REPORT ON lDUCATIONAL6 EXCHANGE ACTIVITES

The Depaitment ii.strying toWoverome the problem of con.tinuity by lp.thnigbtoirsMd;y^te assignment,of offerswho bDave experienceoe wit cut program Tb. ,meresenior officers are beig assigned for 3 or even 4 years, and a tourof 4 years or longer will be normal in the future. The very juniorForeign Service Officers, however, will continue to have muchshorter tours. In addition to extending the tours of the ForeignService Officers, wherever possible, officers experienced in culturalaffairs who were integrated into the Foreign Service Officer corpsfrom the civil service a number of years ago and since have beenserving abroad, are being reassigned to the Bureau of Inter-national Cultural Relations. The Department has also beensuccessful on a limited scale in arranging for staffing some of thepositions in the Bureau of International Cultural Relations withofficers from the U.S. Information Agency who have had culturalexperience abroad and in detailing to USIA for cultural servicesoverseas Foreign Service Officers who have served in one of thecultural organizations and have displayed interest and talent incultural and exchange-of-persons operations. This interchangeof personnel has proved advantageous to both agencies and thepossibility of increasing this exchange of officers is under continu-ous study.

As we are able to bring back for assignment to the DepartmentForeign Service Officers or officers from USIA who have had ex-perience in dealing with educational- and cultural institutionswe believe that relations with the American public channeledthrough the voluntary agencies will continue to be as effectiveas heretofore.A recently concluded survey by a team of Foreign Service in-

spectors of personnel and organization of the Bureau of Inter-national Cultural Relations will be of further assistance in solvingproblems and in helping us to make such judgments in personneland designations as may be found advisable. It is expected thatthis survey will be available shortly.As you have pointed out, the recent establishment in the De-

partment of State of the Bureau of International Cultural Rela-tions has already produced gratifying results and the future prom-ises even greater potentialities for the United States in the culturalfield. It is apparent that cultural diplomacy is supplementingthe more traditional political and economic forms of diplomacy,and has taken its place as an active and important arm of U.S.foreign policy. If cultural affairs are to continue in their rightfulplace of importance in the conduct of our foreign relations, webelieve that Foreign Service Officers should not be eliminatedfrom this activity but should continue to hold important appro-priate positions in the Bureau of International Cultural Relations.

II. APPRAISAL OF THE EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE PROGRAM

The appraisal of the Department of State's educational exchangeprogram being conducted by Dr. Walter H. C. Laves, chairman of theDepartment of Government at Indiana University (as reported in theCommission's 24th Semiannual Report) is underway. An initial draftwill be submitted to the Commission at its January 5, 1961, meeting.

4

REPORT ON EDUCATIONAL XCHANGB ACTIVITIE

III. CHANGES IN MXEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSIONOn September 23, 1960, Noah N. Langdale, Jr., president, Georgia

State College of Business Administration, was appointed by the Presi-dent to the Commission. IHis appointment is subject to Senate con-firmation during the next session of the Congres. Dr. Langdale re-places Mr. Laird Bell whose term had expired-In recognition of Mr. Bell's services to the Commission, its member

adopted the following resolution:On the occasion of the retirement of Mr. Laird Bell as a member of the U.8.

Advisory Commission on Educational Exchange, his colleagues on the Commissionwish to express to Mr. Bell their appreciation of his long and devoted services tothe interests of the Commission and its activities.His wise judgment and his thoughtful consideration of the problems of educa-

tional exchange have made him an invaluable member of the Commission. Weshall miss his counsel and his attention to the work of this Commission, and weexpress the hope, even the conviction, that although no longer an active member,he will continue his interest in its activities and in promoting its purposes.-

IV. COMMENDATIONS FOR FORMER STAFF DIRECTORIn connection with the departure of Mr. Donald B. Cook Staff

Director for the U.S. Advisory Commission on Educational Exchange,the Commission adopted the following resolution:A. U.S. Advisory Commission on Educational Exchange:

RESOLUTONThe Commission expresses its appreciation of the devoted and loyal service of

the Staff Director, Mr. Donald B. Cook. His deep interest in the educationalexchange program, his great competence, his constant attention to the work ofthis Commission, and his invaluable assistance to each member have greatlyincreased the effectiveness of the Commission in its work.We regret his departure but express our satisfaction that he will continue to

be closely associated with the Commission in his higher position as Director of theOffice of Educational Exchange.

FRANKLIN DAVID MURPHY, Chairman.ARTHUR H. EDBNS,ANNA L. Ross HAWKES,J. E. WALLACE STERLING,

Members.(Adopted at the 46th meeting of the Commission on October 17, 1960.)B. A similar commendation concerning Mr. Cook's services wasadopted by the Advisory Committee on the Arts

V. ACTIvITIEs OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE ARTSThis Committee, created by the Congress to advise and assist the

President, the U.S. Advisory Commission on Educational Exchange,and Government departments and agencies in the conduct of thecultural programs authorized by Public Law 860, 84th Congress,held three meetings during the period covered by this report.In fulfilling its legislative advisory responsibilities, the Committee

has submitted the following statements to this Commission for itsreview and information:

5-

REPORT ON EDUCATIONAL ZXCHANGE ACTIVITIES.

A. EDUCATIONAL. AND CULTURAL RELATIONS PROGRAM SHOULD BEEXPANDED

During the course of:its 11 th meeting on December 20 and, 21, 1960,the Committee discussed the importance of the cultural relationsprograms to the people of the United States and the Government inits conduct of foreign relations. Following this discussion, the Com-mittee directed the Acting Chairman to write a letter to the Secretaryof State setting forth its views and recommendation,. a follows:Recommendation to the Secretary, of State (dated December 21, 1960)

Since the 11th meeting of the Advisory Committee on theArts, which took place today, was the last one which will be heldduring your tenure of office, the Committee has asked me toexpress to you its views on the importance of the Department'scultural relations programs in the execution of American policy.During the course of its almost 3-years of existence, the Com-

mittee members have become firmly convinced, through theirown travel abroad, through reports given them by foreign andAmerican participants in the exchange programs, and througha great deal of written material prepared in the Department and-at its overseas posts, that. the total educational and culturalrelations program is vital to the country in its relations withforeign peoples and that exchanges in the field of the arts areespecially so. -

It is the Committee's belief that these programs should beextended and expanded, and we respectfully request that yotuconvey the Committee's views on this subject to Mr. Rusk inyour early discussions with him.

B. COMPOSITION OF COMMITTEE

Also at its 11 th meeting, topics for future review of the Committeewere discussed as well as the terms of office of its members. TheCommittee unanimously adopted two recommendations which it feltshould be given consideration in the event legislation concerning thiscommittee should be amended under the new administration. Thesewere:

(1) Term of office of Committee members.Recommendation.--The term of office of each of the members of the

Committee appointed by the Secretary of State should be 4 years.(Under present legislation-Public Law 860, 84th Cong.-the termis limited to 2 years.)

(2) Designation of Chairman.Recommendation.-The Chairman of the Committee should be

selected by the Advisory Committee on the Arts from among its mem-bers. (Under present legislation establishing this Committee-Pub-lic Law 860, 84th Cong.-the Chairman is selected by the U.S. Advi-sory Commission on Educational Exchange from among its members.This Commission was established in accordance with the provisionsof Public Law 402, 80th Cong.)

6i

REPORT ON EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE ACTIVITIES

C. TOPICS UNDER CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE

Art exchanges with Iron Curtain countries, the relationships of theCommittee with art organizations, selection procedures of students inthe arts under Government programs, and the American specialistsprogram. ire among the topics of current interest to the Committee.

). PROGRAM REPORTS

Two reports were given to the Committee by officers of the Depart-ment at its ninth meeting on September 12-13, 1960. The first ofthese reports, by Mr. Heath Bowman, Chief of the PresentationsDivision, Office of Cultural Exchange, covered the activities of theDivision for the previous few months-and included a statement ofpossible presentations to be sent abroad by the Department under thecultural presentations program for the next year. This report byMr. Bowman is not included here since separate reports are made tothe Congress on this subject semiannually. The second report ispresented as an appendix to this report.

7

APPENDIX

REPORT ON THE USIS CULTURAL PROGRAM IN GERMANY

(By Mr. Warren Robbins, formerly Chief of the USIS Germany culturalprogram and presently assigned to the Committee's departmental staff)

Although most people know in general what USIS is, I find in coming back toWashington after 10 years overseas, that there is not enough awareness of thescope and depth of the USIS operation, of the experience it has behind it and thetechniques it has developed for the dissemination of cultural information and theproper projection of American culture overseas.The U.S. Information Service (USIS) carries on the oversea operations of both

the U.S. Information Agency and the cultural and educational exchange programsof the Department of State.

In recent years, it could be said, the USIS program as a whole has come of agein terms of increasing professionalism of its efforts and the general maturing ofits whole approach to cultural exchange.

Particularly under Mr. Allen's direction since 1958, its policies have crystallized,its objectives become defined its limitations recognized, and its integrity as alegitimate aspect of foreign affairs established.

In this maturing process, cultural programing has come to the fore for it hasbeen recognized that basic to transcultural communication is intercultural respect,and the first step for the United States to take in making its influence felt in otherlands is to make its image palatable to foreign peoples. This it has not alwaysbeen, as we only too well know.The projection of a palatable image of American culture can be achieved with

honesty and candidness, and this has become another strong point of USIS policy,allowing for a less sinister connotation for the word propaganda to evolve. Weare-all of us who recognize the need for creating receptivity to America's role andAmerica's message throughout the world-propagandists in a sense. And to theextent that our efforts are sincere and our motivation genuine, there is no reasonwhy we need be apologetic about it. The peoples of the world have come toexpect and accept propaganda from other nations as a foregone conclusion, theimportant thing being how it is engaged in. In Germany, as in many other coun-tries, America has come to be respected for its kind of propaganda, so much ofwhich is free of overt purposefulness.The USIS cultural program in Germany, which is the largest in the Agency's

world program, has undergone a rather fundamental transformation in the lastfew years from a program of quantity, trying to attract a mass audience andnot always as careful about quality in its early stages as it needs to be today, toone in which the highest standards of performance in music, of intellectual contentin lectures, and artistic quality in exhibits are consciously and increasingly stressed."Quality rather than quantity" and "hood taste, dignity, and restraint" havebecome the two current slogans governing its operation.

Since the heyday of American operations Tnder HICOG in Germany in 1951when there were over 50 information centers and an additional 100 branch li-braries, each with lights burning every night of the week and each carrying onextensive field programs in cooperation with adult education groups there arenow only 19 so-called America Houses which in English are today significantlycalled cultural centers rather than information centers. Located in theprincipal cities of Germany, their programs are greatly reduced and number3 or 4 lectures a month and an average of 1 concert by an American artist,in addition to regular film showings, continual display of exhibits on art andevery other aspect of American life and culture, and, of course, the daily-ex-cept Sundays-operation of the libraries, each with a collection of 15,000-20,000books circulated over 1 million times a year. Bookmobiles are no longer main-tained by the libraries but have been turned over to the German communitieswhich keep them running along the back roads of Germany, stUll with a goodlypercentage of American books circulating from them.

9

10 REPORT ON EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE ACTIVITIES

In addition, the centers, with the help of regional cultural officers-there aresix consular districts in Germany plus Berlin, most with a branch public affairsofficer, cultural officer, information officer, and a local staff-maintain contactwith universities and secondary schools, cosponsor teacher seminars, engage infolllowup activities with returned exchanges, and carry on representationalactivities upon the occasions of visits by ANTA-sponsored artists' groups, open-ings of exhibits, important lectures, etc.

All in all, it is an extensive program even today in its greatly reduced size,and its cultural impact is felt in every community where it carries on activities.Its effectiveness may be measured in terms of the thousands of column inchesof favorable newspaper coverage that its events have received through the years,and perhaps most significantly by such facts as the following: in five cities theAmerica Houses have been turned into something akin to binational centers inwhich communities, as well as private industries and organizations, contributefrom $5,000 to $15,000 a year to support them in recognition of their contributionas public service institutes. The mayor of one city risked his political career bysupporting against opposition a yearly grant of $15,000 to keep the "German-American Institute" alive in that city. In six cities of Germany-Berlin, Ham-burg, Munich, Frankfurt, Essen, and Cologne-beautiful new buildings havebeen put up to house the American centers and rented to the U.S. Governmenton long-term leases. The United States usually contributed what was equivalentto a number of years of advance rental, perhaps $125,000 to $150,000, with cityand state governments contributing two or three times the amount in cash, land,services, and utilities.When the City Council of Stuttgart dillydallied in the matter of providing land

for, and financing, a long overdue new America House it was severely remon-strated by newspapers in Berlin and Munich for not following the lead of thosecities and cooperating in the construction of an adequate building for such avaluable institution. The result was the construction of a brandnew AmericaHouse by the city of Stuttgart to be opened late in 1961. Such concrete responseas this to the cultural program of another country reveals true appreciation of itand constitutes a very real tribute to the manner in which USIS functions."Yours," our hosts tell us at every opportunity, "is the real way to makepropaganda."The American cultural program in Germany is directed and serviced by the

Cultural Operation Unit at the Embassy in Bonn which I headed prior to mypresent assignment. The section consists of 4 subunits, each headed by anAmerican and with a total staff of 55 German specialists and clerks, many ofwhom have been in the program for 15 years.

These subunits are the Speakers and Artists Office, a combination concertagency and lecture bureau, which programs lecture and concert tours by Americansand also maintains a thorough evaluation system of all events; an Exhibit Section,which builds its own exhibits and adapts those received from Washington and, inaddition, prepares posters, program covers, and display materials-it has some45 exhibits of various sizes in constant circulation among the centers, or on tapfor future use; a Library Servicing Staff, which carefully selects, orders from Wash-ington, or purchases locally, catalogs, and distributes some $50,000 worth of booksa year, and a Cultural Liaison Staff which carries on many of the miscellaneouschores of correspondence, research, relations with various organizations, extendingcourtesies to official visitors, etc., which are part of the Embassy's business. Inaddition, it has a Book Translation Staff now greatly reduced but which duringthe past years, has subsidized and supervised the publication of a total of 493American titles. With a thriving publishing industry in Germany today, how-ever, its activities are confined to assisting publishers with information aboutAmerican books and publishing houses, and producing a little book review quar-terly, Buecher Aus Amerika, which is distributed to about 3,000 publishers inGermany and Austria.You will, perhaps, be surprised to learn that during the past 14 years there have

been over 25,000 lectures held in Germany under USIS auspices and 7,000 concerts.This is a formidable number of events. A wide variety of Americans, and of Ger-mans and Europeans, giving firsthand impressions or specialized knowledge ofAmerica, have appeared before German groups, and an excellent cross section ofAmerican artistry have performed.Some of the more notable persons who have appeared on America House plat-

forms and stages during the past year have been Chief Justice Warren; ArnoldToynbee; Prof. Hans Kohn; S. I. Hayakawa; museum director Richard Davis;Saul Bellow; Thomas Mann's son, Golo Mann, a resident of California and a well-

REPORT ON EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE ACTIVITIES 11known author in his own right; Werner von Braun; Norbert Muhlen; LeonideMassine; Gen. Lauris Norstad; Professors Hofstaedter and Spiller; and manyothers prominent in the academic and cultural world.

Its lectures have ranged in earlier years from "The Spawning Habits of theSalmon on the Columbia River" when such a topic was specifically requested of anAmerican piscatorial scientist, to the more usual lectures on American history,economics, literature, foreign policy, art, etc. Problems of European integration,the Communist threat, NATO, the United Nations, etc., have all been amply dealtwith on Amerika Haus platforms. Today, however, the primary emphasis is uponAmericana with much more stress laid upon what's positive about American lifeand ideals than upon what's negative about the Soviet world. But this, too, inproportion and in context.Musical artists have included the Julliard and Fine Arts quartets, Aldo Parisot,

Blanche.Thebdm, Julius Katchen, and many others.Concerts which in early years served to introduce uninitiated German audiences

to the mere fact that America had superlative young artists used to include muchmore traditional European classical music than they do today, when the AmericaHouses are trying to build reputations as centers where contemporary (American)music is regularly performed. Concert programs are now usually half American,half European, sometimes all American, never all European. Performing artistsare now almost never Europeans performing American music as they sometimesused to be in past years, but almost exclusively American artists. Far fewer per-formances are held today, but they are by only top-range performers who can com-pete with the best performances going on in the highly competitive music life inthe German cities.Audiences for lectures and concerts range from 50 to 1,500 persons, depending

upon the nature of the event and the prominence of the person (average audience,100-400). Many events are cosponsored with German universities or scientific oreducational organizations, insuring specialized audiences for special topics.

All of the kinds of programs described herein are, of course, carried on inBerlin which is one of the cities in which American cultural centers are located.The Berlin Amerika Haus, however, warrants special mention since it serves notonly the people of West Berlin where it is situated, but carries on, in addition,special programs for thousands of persons from East Berlin and from the EastZone of Germany who come to its reading rooms, lectures, concerts, exhibits,etc., often at personal risk in order to break through the communication barrierset up by the Communists and maintain contact with the West. The BerlinAmerika Haus is probably the most active and dynamic institution of its kindanywhere in the world.The majority of the 1,000 or so events sponsored by USIS Germany this year

were arranged for directly by the Embassy or the centers themselves. A numberof the headliners, though, of course were sent to us by the Department of Statespecialists program or under the President's Fund. For these we were mostgrateful, but they didn't begin to fill the great need of a program the size ofGermany's. We drew heavily for lecturers upon Fulbright professors, not onlythose stationed in Germany, but from all over Europe, and we latched ontoevery other bit of American talent that happened to be hovering accessibly onthe European Continent.In most country programs the activities I have described, along with the

exchange program, are carried on under the supervision of the cultural attache.The size of the German program, together with its objectives on the universitylevel, however, have made it advisable to free the cultural attache of any opera-tional responsibility, and his activities are confined to high level representationalevents and relations with the universities where, incidentally, during the past 2years much progress has been made in the establishment of several new chairsof American studies.The exchange program is administered in Germany by an Exchanges Unit

which supervises, also, the activities of the field offices operating at the grass-roots level.The total USIS budget for Germany today is some $2}j million (as compared

to around $24 million for public affairs around 10 years ago). Of this figure,perhaps 85 percent goes into the operation of the cultural program, primarilythe fixed costs of operating 20 cultural centers. But the largest single operatingbudget during the last fiscal year was that of the cultural unit, all of which speakswell for the character and makeup of the USIS program.Policy is laid down in an annual country plan which translates the general

global policies of the Agency and the Department of State into local terms.

12 REPORT ON EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE ACTIVITIES

Every activity for which money is allocated must be related to the foreign policyobjectives outlined in the country plan, but, as we have seen, a major effort is tocreate receptivity for American leadership through a very broad cultural programThe future goals and direction of the USIS cultural program in Germany, as

in most countries, can be reasonably well extrapolated from previous experience.In a culturally active country such as Germany today, with its beautiful newtheaters, opera houses, concert halls, and museums, America cannot afford todemonstrate anything less than perfection in its own cultural offerings with com-petition in every major city from German Russian, French, Spanish, and Englishcultural events. Anything less than the best becomes clearly counterproductive.This, the 30 or so American cultural officers in Germany realize and are, therefore,striving toward selectivity and ever higher quality in their programs.The response has been gratifying. The America House in Tubingen reports

that in programing, perhaps only one-fourth to one-third of what it used to, butin having only the very best, its total audience has grown and its program takenmore seriously.

Gradually the attitude toward American culture, and with it the attitude towardAmerica, has been changing in Germany as it has been in other countries of theworld. This change has been brought about, in part, by such things as the visitsof four major American symphony orchestras to Germany in recent years whichforced critics to reluctantly acknowledge that our orchestras compete with, orsurpass, their best ones; by the fact that by far the greatest proportion of artworks at the largest postwar exhibit, Documenta II, held last year at Kassel,Germany, were American, attesting to the fact that the nerve center of contempo-rary painting has shifted to the United States; or by the tour of the Jerome Robbinsballet, which to my mind was the single most effective cultural event that hasever been sponsored by the United States in Germany and which caused theaterdirectors and critics to revamp not only their views of what American culturehas produced, but their entire attitude concerning the future direction of thedance in their own country.

In this process of change in the German image of American culture, I believe itis reasonable to say, and to believe, that USlI9has played a strong catalytic role.The limitations of time have made it necessary for me to leave untouched a

number of significant aspects of the U3IS cultural program. To sum up in twosentences what this program is trying to achieve, I might say that it is attemptingto counterbalance the kind of image of America fostered by Frank Lloyd Wright,among others, who is supposed to have said: "America is the only country whichhas gone from barbarism to decadence without becoming civilized in the mean-time." We try to offset this image of a materialistic, soulless nation by demon-strating in effect: "Yes, America is a country of 50 million bathtubs, but with ahumanist in every onel"

o