In 2009 President Obama thrilled Chinese officials when he pledged, during a visit there, to nearly double the number of Americans who study in the country over the next four years. Warmed by the goodwill gesture, the Chinese government created a special scholarship for American students who wished to be part of what became known as the “100,000 Strong Initiative.”
Less than three years later, angry front-page editorials in the Chinese media blared scathing criticisms of the administration, reproaching the U.S. government for “illogical thinking and an immature mentality” and accusing it of “finding scapegoats and witch hunting.” The reason? A bureaucratic “mess-up” last month within the State Department that cast doubt on the future of a key Chinese government educational initiative in the United States.
These two incidents illustrate the sometimes stark contrast between the Obama administration’s rhetorical commitment to international education and the reality of its policy actions.
Mr. Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and other government officials have repeatedly emphasized the importance of academic and cultural exchange, making it a significant tenet of bilateral agreements with India and Indonesia, Brazil and China. Yet, policymaking and regulatory actions have threatened to undercut those statements of support.
Administration officials have talked about the importance of foreign languages but agreed to a budget deal that included “devastating” cuts to programs that teach critical foreign languages, like Arabic and Farsi. They’ve encouraged more Americans to study abroad, while enacting student-loan changes that could make it difficult for students to use federal financial aid at overseas institutions. They’ve pledged to make it easier for foreign students to come to the United States, yet new rules for English-language programs could restrict a popular path.
And then there’s the recent uproar over Confucius Institutes, China’s signature language and cultural centers, which one Chinese official suggested could harm Sino-American exchanges.
As an audience member at a session on visa policy at last week’s annual meeting of Nafsa: Association of International Educators plaintively asked, “Does the left hand know what the right hand is doing?”
Elevated Expectations
In some sense, the newfound attention to international education in the Obama administration may have raised hopes too high. In a landmark speech in Cairo, just months after taking office, the president emphasized the importance of educational exchanges to increasing understanding between the United States and Muslims around the world.
Later, he also promised to spend $165-million on partnerships to build up universities in Indonesia, his childhood home, and held a summit focused on higher education with India’s prime minister.
Echoing the vow to have 100,000 Americans study in China, the administration recently announced a new effort to send a like number of students to Latin America and the Caribbean.
Hillary Clinton “seems incapable of getting in front of a microphone in a foreign country without talking about student exchanges,” said Michael McCarry, executive director of the Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange, only partly joking.
Because international education never featured prominently on the agenda of Mr. Obama’s predecessors, people in the field say they previously had few expectations. “‘100,000 Strong’ from Bush—could he count that high?” said Mitch Leventhal, vice chancellor for global affairs at the State University of New York, of George W. Bush. “Obama, Clinton, they do value education.”
But there is some question of how deep the commitment goes. For months after Mr. Obama announced the “100,000 Strong” goal, there seemed to be little plan to make it happen. The project today receives no government support and is totally reliant on private funds. “Superficial” is how more than one educator has described the effort.
In the case of another high-profile announcement, the lifting of an embargo on academic travel to Cuba, some supporters have been disappointed in the execution. When rules governing visits to the Communist country were published, they failed to include a license category for independent study-abroad providers, putting those programs in limbo, even though many Americans travel with outside study-abroad groups.
When it comes to the Confucius Institutes, it appears that a narrow, bureaucratic focus obscured the diplomatic stakes. Last month, the State Department abruptly issued a policy directive, ordering some 600 schoolteachers affiliated with the language and culture centers out of the country because of visa problems, while directing the mostly university-based institutes to make significant operational changes, including getting accreditation.
Within a week, the department had largely reversed itself, saying the teachers, who provide Chinese-language instruction at elementary and secondary schools, could remain and backing completely off its insistence on separate accreditation for the institutes. Department officials pinned the controversy on routine oversight of visas for teachers and scholars.
“It’s like they pulled a string and found out that it’s attached to a lot other strings,” said Liz Reisberg, a research associate at the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College. “Just bureaucrats doing their jobs, without any kind of strategic understanding.”
Playing Defense
In other instances, such as recently adopted Department of Education rules on federal student aid, regulators persisted in applying American standards in a foreign context. Tougher U.S. reporting requirements have already led some Australian universities to refuse American students receiving federal aid, and the new regulations could push British institutions that lack degree-granting authority out of the student-loan program.
Education Department officials maintain they are doing nothing more than asking foreign universities to abide by the same rules as their American counterparts, rules meant to safeguard taxpayer dollars. But “Americans who need student loans to finance their education will be the ones shut out,” warned Mark Darby, counselor for education at the Australian Embassy in Washington.
Likewise, directors of English-language programs worry that their students could bear the brunt of stepped-up oversight by the Department of Homeland Security. The federal government is interpreting a 2010 law to require university-run language programs to produce evidence of accreditation during certification reviews, something the program administrators maintain was never intended. What’s more, they say some institutional accrediting agencies won’t attest that they have specifically reviewed the intensive English programs because they certify institutions as a whole.
Said Carl A. Herrin, who, until recently, worked as an international-education consultant: “There’s just a reluctance of the people doing the paperwork, drafting the memos, to step back and ask, ‘How does this fit into the bigger picture?’”
We’re “going by the book” was the response from Homeland Security officials at the recent Nafsa meeting.
For the frustrated language-program administrators, who say they had no inkling of the policy change, the lack of consultation chafes as much as the substance of the new requirement. But it’s hardly unique, says Victor C. Johnson, senior adviser for public policy at Nafsa. Sometimes regulators hesitate to talk to stakeholders, for fear of appearing to be overly influenced. Other agencies are just plain bad at communicating, he said. As a result, “mostly you’re playing defense.”
But it’s not a one-way street. International education has rarely emerged as a lobbying priority for national higher-education groups, and more specialized organizations have not always proven effective advocates in Washington. Mr. Johnson points out that his group has nearly 10,000 members, in the United States and out, on college campuses and off. “It’s a hard challenge to channel so many different constituencies,” he said.
Imperfect Enactment
Complicating matters is the fact that the federal government also does not always speak with one voice. Multiple federal agencies may have a stake in certain international-education matters, such as foreign-student recruitment. In that case, four cabinet departments, Commerce, Education, State, and Homeland Security, have vastly different approaches toward the role of commercial agents in overseas recruiting. That can create confusion for colleges.
“I don’t like the word, but what we need is a czar,” said Mr. Leventhal of SUNY, who helped found the American International Recruitment Council, a group that regulates and sets standards for foreign-student recruiters.
Mr. Johnson agrees, but he’s skeptical of it happening. International education is important in the Obama administration, but it’s not that important, he said.
“It’s a perennial problem,” he said. “The president makes an announcement. The bureaucracy enacts it imperfectly.
“The public expectation is that presidential pronouncements are self-executing. But those of us that work in the sausage factory know that’s just not true.”