University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

International education: Implications for United States national security

(USC Thesis Other)

International education: Implications for United States national security

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION:
IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY
by
Hai Hong
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF SCIENCE
(EDUCATION)
December 2004
Copyright 2004 Hai Hong
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 1424244
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 1424244
Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract iii
Chapter 1: The Shifting Nature of National Security 1
Chapter 2: Internationalized Curricula and Language Learning 20
Chapter 3: U.S. Student Mobility and Study Abroad 39
Chapter 4: International Students 55
Chapter 5: Conclusions 79
Bibliography 82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iii
ABSTRACT
Following the Cold War, the concept of national security was expanded from
solely military issues to include a much broader range of threats. Consequently, the
United States’ strategies for maintaining security must also evolve. As September 11
demonstrated, military strength is no longer sufficient to guarantee security;
therefore, the U.S. must now strengthen and utilize “soft power” tactics, including
international education. A national effort must be made on all levels to educate a
globally literate society by: 1) Incorporating study of other cultures and regions into
higher education curricula, particularly with an emphasis on foreign language
requirements, 2) Increasing U.S. student participation in overseas studies, especially
to destinations not traditionally visited by American students, and 3) Recruiting and
supporting international students to study in the U.S., as well as integrating these
students into the U.S. student body.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
CHAPTER 1: The Shifting Nature of National Security
On September 11, 2001, four passenger airliners synchronously hijacked by
terrorists crashed into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and a field in
Pennsylvania. On this day, an international threat - of which most Americans were
wholly unaware - transformed the concepts of national security and terrorism into
household concerns. The attacks and the events which followed also served as a
cogent reminder to the nation of our inextricable ties to the rest of the world and of
the interdependence of all global problems, making it clear that the threat of
international conflict did not end with the close of the Cold War.
Yet, the context of this watershed in modem American history was largely
incomprehensible to many Americans, who were ill-prepared to confront global
issues. Similar to the way the launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik I in 1957 evinced
an alarming disparity between American and Soviet students’ mathematics, science,
and foreign language capabilities, so too did September 11 serve as a startling
indication of how our educational system has failed to adequately equip the current
population with the skills and understanding to effectively navigate through life in
the international context.
There is a tendency for American attitudes towards the rest of the world to be
insular - even superior - with regard to culture and language. Indeed, the emergence
of the United States from the Cold War as the world’s sole military superpower must
be recognized as a principle motivation, as are the nation’s economic and scientific
influence, the strength of the U.S. Dollar, the prominence of the American higher
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
education system, and the position of English as the new lingua franca of
international transactions. It is vital, however, that Americans understand the role of
their country, particularly in the age of globalization.
While the breaking down of international barriers is capable of encouraging
governments to “pursue peaceful, democratic, rules-based, and market-oriented
policies, resulting in richer, healthier, safer, more educated, and more stable world
population,” globalization has in some instances created destabilizing forces within
individual countries and aggravated social and political inequalities, leading to
further socioeconomic polarization (Cronin, 2001, p. 951). There is a widely held
belief that globalization “feeds corporate profits at the expense of workers,
undermines democracy, accelerates environmental destruction, lowers health and
labor standards, sharpens class differences, imposes cultural homogeneity, feeds
crime, and escalates armed conflict” (p. 951).
While globalization can either be viewed as beneficial or adverse, it is an
inevitable reality of today’s world, whether or not nations choose to accept it. It is a
responsibility of the United States, often identified as the leading proponent of
globalization, to help ensure that the results are more constructive than they are
harmful. Disillusionment with globalization is frequently accompanied by anti-
Americanism and, consequently, threats to U.S. security and safety. Therefore, it
remains imperative that Americans become internationally cognizant for the sake of
achieving world peace as well as understanding potential and existing threats to the
nation’s security.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
What constitutes national security: Shifts in paradigms
Security during the Cold War. In evaluating international dynamics and U.S.
national security, one must first understand the evolution of - and ensuing debates
over - security paradigms which have shaped American attitudes. Recognizing
historical changes in security threats allows us to investigate modem approaches and
generate effective strategies for advancing peace.
During the Cold War the Realist approach, which emphasized nation states’
ultimate goal of “maximizing] their power and advancing] their self-interest, often
at the expense of others” (Stares, 1998, p. 13), became the dominant perspective in
American views of international relations and in policy-making in matters related to
security. Thus the Cold War face-off, characterized by the U.S.’s focus on the
containment of communism and checking of Soviet strength, led to an arms race in
which national security was thought of in terms of prospects of war and development
of martial strength (e.g., numbers of nuclear warheads, placement of troops and
missiles, and technological advancements for the military). This primacy of power
distribution among states is, according to Florini and Simmons (1998), the defining
characteristic of Realist security. In this view of security “.. .what matters is military
power. Economics matter, too, but only because wealthy states are more militarily
capable than poor ones, not because states wish to make their citizens better o ff’ (p.
27).
The allocation of resources with clear geopolitical preferences and the
establishment of certain institutions, such as the United States National Security
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
Council in 1947, clearly demonstrate the preponderance of the Realist approach in
defining security after World War II (Florini & Simmons, 1998).
Defining Security. During the U.S.-Soviet contest for spheres of influence,
the fear of existential threats permeated all aspects of U.S. foreign affairs. Justifiably
so, since under the prospect of nuclear annihilation, Americans felt they had no
choice but to invest in military strength by developing and hoarding more powerful
weapons. Yet, as Graseck (1993) points out, most Americans during the four decades
of the Cold War had never considered what the world would look like at the end of
the nuclear standoff.
Indeed, with the fall of the Soviet Union, questions arose regarding the
elements that constituted security. Growing concern over economic and
environmental issues in the 1970s and 1980s and transnational crime and “identity
issues” in the 1990s, combined with the “dissatisfaction with the intense narrowing
of the field of security studies imposed by the military and nuclear obsessions of the
Cold War,” led to the subsequent debates over what security should encompass
(Buzan, Waever, & de Wilde, 1998, p.2).
In 1983 Richard Ullman proposed the first definition to call for broader
perspective than the traditional view would allow. He argued that a threat to national
security should be defined as:
.. .an action or sequence of events that:
(1) threatens drastically and over a relatively brief span of time to degrade the
quality of life for inhabitants of a state, or
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
(2) threatens significantly to narrow the range of policy choices available to
the government of a state or to private, non-governmental entities (persons,
groups, corporations) within the state (p. 133).
Further demarcation of the various roles involved in security came from
Buzan et al. (1998), who defined the significant agents involved in security issues.
Referent objects are “things that are seen to be existentially threatened and that have
a legitimate claim to survival,” which is traditionally - but not always - the state, the
nation (“in a more hidden way”), government, territory, or society. It is on behalf of
the referent object that security action is taken. Securitizing actors are those
participants which declare the referent object as existentially threatened and in doing
so, securitize an issue. Examples of securitizing actors may include “political
leaders, bureaucracies, governments, lobbyists, and pressure groups” (p. 40). Rarely
are the securitizing actors also the referent objects, although this may sometimes be
the case - governments, for example, may be “able to speak successfully of security
on their own behalf’ (p. 40). The functional actors in the security equation are those
“actors who affect the dynamics of a sector... a polluting company, for example, can
be a central actor in the environmental sector - it is not a referent object and is not
trying to securitize environmental issues (quite the contrary)” (p.36).
Using the traditional military-political approach of Realism as a backdrop,
Buzan et al. (1998) contend that “security is about survival” and that the “special
nature of security threats justifies the use of extraordinary measures to handle
them... [B]y saying ‘security,’ a state representative declares an emergency
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
condition, thus claiming a right to use whatever means are necessary to block a
threatening development” (p.21).
To illustrate with an example: In 1962, the Kennedy administration
(securitizing actor) declared the clandestine presence of offensive missile sites in
Cuba (functional actor) a clear existential threat to the population of the United
States (referent object). After weighing such options as a full-scale invasion or
immediate air strike, the administration ordered a full naval quarantine of Cuba.
Realist approaches would certainly affirm the appropriateness of labeling these
events as security-related.
A more recent example illustrates a threat that, while not of direct existential
consequence, would still qualify under Ullman’s two criteria for security threats: In
1996 international computer hackers (functional actors) were identified as “a
catastrophic threat” with the ability to conduct massive attacks on the U.S.
information infrastructure (referent object), spurring the Central Intelligence Agency
and the U.S. Department of Defense (securitizing actors) to establish a center on
computer attacks within the National Security Agency (“Cyberspace Attacks,”
1996). These examples clearly demonstrate the evolution and broadening of
securitization.
Yet the trend to increasingly widen the security agenda from solely military
to a nearly all-encompassing definition of international and domestic affairs has
received criticism from some analysts (Alagappa, 1998; Rodgers, 2000). While there
has been much argument for maintaining the traditional Realist view - Buzan et al.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
(1998) cite numerous sources - the dominance of the military component has, over
the course of the last decade, given way to a more diversified approach to national
security, which acknowledges the interdependence of all global problems:
Environmental pollution does not recognize political borders, just as extreme poverty
in developing countries, internationalization of companies, relocation of firms and
factories, and fluctuating markets in the most remote countries can all greatly affect
the stability and economies of the US and all other nations (Symonides & Volodin,
1995). Similarly, terrorism, crime, drug sales, the spread o f AIDS, shifts in
demographics and immigration, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction can
no longer be seen as problems of an individual country or even region.
Correspondingly, the U.S. has made a number of administrative changes
following the end of the Cold War. Florini and Simmons (1998) trace some of these
changes, particularly those made by the Clinton administration. Several new offices
and positions were created in the traditional wings of government, including the
national intelligence officer for global and multilateral issues in the intelligence
community, the Department of Defense’s deputy undersecretary of defense for
environmental security, the State Department’s undersecretary for global affairs, and
the National Security Council’s new Directorate for Global Environmental Issues.
Broadening o f Security. In examining the concept of the traditional
definitions of security, which he describes as “unduly restrictive and misleading” in
the way they limit the concept of security to “the threat, use, or control of military
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
force,” Alagappa (1998) contends that security must be characterized as more than
concern with force (p. 63). Similarly, Buzan et al. (1998) state:
International security is mostly about how human collectivities relate to each
other in terms of threats and vulnerabilities... Little of interest can be said
about the security of an isolated object (e.g., the security of France); thus,
security must be studied in a wider context (p. 10-11).
Accordingly, they dissect security into a number of sectors - Military, Political,
Economic, Societal, and Environmental. Yet, there is still much debate about what
constitutes security. On one hand, for example, Buzan and colleagues define
environmental security as disruption of ecosystems, energy problems, population
problems, food problems, economic problems, and civil strife which may encompass
a large range of referent objects - “from relatively concrete things, such as the
survival of individual species... or types of habitat... to much fuzzier, large-scale
issues, such as maintenance of the planetary climate and biosphere” (p. 23).
Conversely, skeptics of environmental security argue the applicability or usefulness
of such inclusiveness, as the definitions of secure environment and of “the
environment” itself are ambiguous (Alagappa; Florini & Simmons, 1998).
Moreover, critics warn of the dangers of overextending the definition of
security. According to Alagappa (1998), “If all forces and events that threaten life
are treated as threats to national security, then the term will cease to have any
analytical value” (p. 48). Likewise, Walt (1991) contends that while nonmilitary
dangers also demand consideration, broadening the concept of security excessively
to include all potential threats “would destroy its intellectual coherence and make it
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
more difficult to devise solutions to any of these important problems” (p. 213). This
is not to say, however, that security should not include nonmilitary issues, but rather
that security should encompass only those issues directly relevant to the main focus
of the field. Among these, Walt suggests that the concept of “statescraff ’ (i.e., arms
control, diplomacy, crisis management, etc.) is critical to national security.
Why define security? What is the significance of the debate over security?
Naturally, elements that will be securitized and the levels of securitization set will
vary by state and across time. For example, while religion is politicized in some
states, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Burma, separation of church and state exists in
others, such as France and the U.S. Culture is securitized in some states - the former
Soviet Union and Iran - but not in others, such as the United Kingdom and the
Netherlands (Buzan et al., 1998). Why, then, define security?
The answer is simple: attention and resources. The concept of security is
typically conflated with priorities that deserve a nation’s attention and resources. It
remains critical that policymakers and scholars acknowledge security threats,
including those not necessarily military in nature, and allocate sustained attention
and sufficient resources. Florini and Simmons (1998) note the difficulty the U.S.
government has had in providing nontraditional security issues with adequate
funding and initiatives: “With the U.S. foreign assistance budget lower in real terms
than it has been in over two decades... Congress is reluctant to allocate resources for
long-term strategies to address issues that are not yet of crisis proportion... (p. 63).”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
Just three years after this was written, the U.S.’s failure to adequately support
long-term strategies did in fact contribute to a major crisis - the terrorist attacks of
September 11. It is now imperative that we recognize the need for more adaptable
approaches to security, regardless of the exact definition we entertain. Current events
(and subsequent shifts in security paradigms) affirm the shortcomings of military
capacity alone, as threats to security may come from a multitude of possible sources.
At this juncture it becomes critical for the United States, the “world’s pre-eminent
military power... not currently threatened by any state of remotely similar power,” to
adapt its military focus to correspond with the changing nature of threats to security
(Rodgers, 2000, p. 60). This assertion continues to ring true today, and there is
certainly no paucity of evidence to support it.
Consider issues of security-related significance that have appeared in recent
headlines. Trafficking of humans continues to be a major problem - as many as
17,000 people are coercively relocated to the U.S. each year for the purpose of
sweatshop labor, sexual exploitation, or domestic servitude, bringing $9.5 billion
each year to criminal organizations that also handle weapons and illicit drugs
(“Trafficking Victims,” 2004). Computer viruses and worms can be debilitating to
organizations, businesses, and government offices - the “Sasser” worm created by an
18-year old student in Germany bogged down public hospitals in Hong Kong and
one-third of post office branches in Taiwan, delayed twenty British Airways flights,
and stalled British coast guard stations’ computers (“New Sasser Version,” 2004).
Furthermore, modem terrorist plots such as the attacks of September 11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
unequivocally show that the military strength of a state is not enough to guarantee
the security of its people.
Hard power vs. Soft power
In addition to defining security, it is also important to define the measures
taken to ensure security. Using the model of hard and soft power, concepts coined by
former Assistant Secretary of Defense Joseph Nye, we will examine strategies
currently used by the federal government to promote U.S. security as well as the
importance of internationalizing U.S. higher education.
Nye (2002) defines power as “the ability to affect the outcomes you want,
and if necessary, to change the behavior of others to make this happen...” (p. 4). In
terms of the power of a nation, this is often associated with possession of certain
resources, such as “relatively large amounts of such elements as population, territory,
natural resources, economic strength, military force, and political stability...” (p. 4-
5)
Hard power involves the use of “inducements (carrots) or threats (sticks)”
(Nye, 2002). For example, persuading or coercing other nations or institutions to act
in a certain way through the application (or threat thereof) of military might or
economic leverage would be considered hard power. On the other hand, soft power
or “getting others to want what you want” is:
.. .an indirect way to exercise power. A country may obtain the outcomes it
wants in world politics because other countries want to follow it, admiring its
values, emulating its example, aspiring to its level of prosperity and
openness. In this sense, it is just as important to set the agenda in world
politics and attract others as it is to force them to change through the threat or
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
use of military or economic weapons... It co-opts people rather than coerces
them (p. 8-9).
Limitations o f hard power. Proponents for broadening the definition of
security often criticize the tremendous allocations provided to hard power
institutions vis-a-vis incommensurate funding spent on vehicles of soft power {i.e.,
nonmilitary and human development methods). They argue that the substantial
resources spent on the military would likely be more cost-effective, particularly in
curtailing the potential for violence, if utilized for such purposes as education, health
care, alleviation of poverty, housing, and sustainable development. Florini and
Simmons (1998) note the lingering dominance of Realist thinking in the
establishment of U.S. institutions; however, they suggest a reevaluation of modern
needs in security, arguing that if the hard power of Realism does not “provide an
adequate description of current reality, basing security policy on Realism should
decrease security by causing policymakers to pay attention to the wrong things and
to allocate resources inappropriately” (p.24). Following the dissolution of the Soviet
Union, according to Steinbrunner (2000), reassurance should have superseded
deterrence as a our organizing policy in international security: “If reassurance were
to be established as the predominant principle, the active confrontation of deployed
forces would be replaced by continuous enforcement of collaborative rules designed
to preclude military forces from being mobilized into an immediately threatening
configuration” (p.2).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
O f course, the abandonment of all military power and shirking the use of
force in all cases is both radical and impossible. In today’s world, the maintenance of
military force is necessary to safeguard the nation. However, the use of soft power
has been historically underutilized, particularly since September 11, precisely when
it has been most needed. Joseph Nye (2002) writes:
As a former assistant secretary of defense, I would be the last to deny the
continuing importance of military power. Our military role is essential to
global stability. And the military is part of our response to terrorism. But we
must not let the metaphor of war blind us to the fact that suppressing
terrorism will take years of patient, unspectacular work, including close
civilian cooperation with other countries (p. xv).
The need fo r increased soft power. In the years since the events of September
11, it has become especially clear that today, the work of the “greatest world power”
must be done with finesse and diplomacy, allowing for multilateral action and
alliances, not with coercion and bullying, which often breed resentment and anti-
Americanism. On September 20, 2001, President Bush delivered a clear message to
the world: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” This doctrine,
according to Michael Hirsch (2002), “has been used to justify a new assertiveness
abroad unprecedented since the early days of the Cold War - amounting nearly to the
declaration of American hegemony - and it has redefined U.S. relationships around
the world” (p. 19).
September 11 served as a startling wake-up call for the United States.
However, while the terrorist attacks and the subsequent War on Terror reanimated
American interest in international affairs, the United States must ensure that U.S.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
foreign policy does not amount to a “declaration of American hegemony.” Today, in
order to ensure national and international security, it is imperative that the U.S.
reanalyze the strategies it uses in foreign policy and consider more proactive
methods of maintaining its power and influence, because as Peter Peterson (2002)
points out:
Today, America has a serious image problem... [TJhere is little doubt
that stereotypes of Americans as arrogant, self-indulgent, hypocritical,
inattentive, and unwilling or unable to engage in cross-cultural
dialogue are pervasive and deep-rooted. In the eyes of some,
Americans largely ignored terrorism as a problem until faced with the
enormity of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon (p. 75).
In working towards these solutions, the United States must appraise its
current position and restructure its priorities. Stephen Flanagan (2001) outlines five
broad conclusions regarding areas deemed imperative to the U.S. government’s
strategy and organization. He asserts that the U.S. must:
1. Establish closer coordination between the economic, security, law
enforcement, environmental, and science and technology
policymaking communities in Washington;
2. Provide “more robust funding” to nonmilitary instruments of
foreign policy, thereby achieving a better balance with military
instruments;
3. Create streamlined, flexible, and integrated U.S. Government
decision-making processes adapted to the Internet Age;
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
4. Produce policymakers and military planners who are more aware
of historical, technological, cultural, religious, environmental, and
other aspects of world affairs than they have been to date; and
finally,
5. Build and maintain coalitions with friends and allies to channel
globalization in constructive directions.
O f particular relevance is the second point: the importance of achieving a
balance between “hard” and “soft” power to ensure security. We must strike a
balance between the use of military and economic hard power and the fostering of
cultural diplomacy through international exchange and education. Ultimately, the
success of the United States’ foreign policy depends on the nation’s “soft” powers,
which are currently neglected: “Nonmilitary instruments of U.S. foreign policy, such
as foreign aid, educational exchanges and scholarships, visitor’s programs, public
diplomacy, and contributions to humanitarian programs and multilateral
organizations are pitifully small in comparison with U.S. military power and global
reach” (Flanagan, 2001, p. 29). As Flanagan points out, the amount of funding for
these programs has dwindled from 4 percent of the Federal budget in the 1960s to a
mere 1 percent today.
Additionally, the exigency for increased multilateral cooperation in dealing
with globalization and resolving current issues (Point 5) and the need for more
internationally cognizant specialists and policymakers (Point 4) also require that
education in the U.S. train globally literate people and combat the insular mindset of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
American culture. An example of American insularity can be seen at the highest
levels of government; while experts suggest that U.S. Congressional staff should be
encouraged to visit critical regions and “global trouble spots” (Flanagan, 2001, p.
30), fewer than one-third of the members of U.S. Congress own valid passports
(Parisi, 2001).
Need fo r International Education
While troubling, the fact that over two-thirds of members of Congress do not
own valid passports (and, therefore, do not travel abroad) is not the main issue. It is a
symptom of a much larger problem, one that starts at the highest levels of our
government and permeates the whole of American society. That is, the vast majority
of Americans is frighteningly ignorant of the rest of the world yet remains
unconcerned with remedying this situation.
American “collective ignorance. ” A 2001 report by the National
Commission on Asia in the Schools (Sanders & Stewart, 2003) found that “young
Americans are dangerously uninformed about international matters, especially Asia,
home to more than 60 percent of the world’s population.” Twenty-five percent of
college-bound high school students were unable to correctly name the ocean that
separates the United States from Asia. Eighty percent were unaware that India is the
world’s largest democracy.
Similarly disappointing results were found in the National Geographic-Roper
Global Geographic Survey (2002). Their awareness that last season’s television
program “Survivor” took place in the South Pacific notwithstanding, Americans’
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
performance was startlingly poor. O f the over 3,000 young adults surveyed in nine
countries, Americans ranked second to last. Furthermore, their geographic ignorance
did not bode well for security concerns: despite frequent - indeed, daily - news
reports of conflicts in parts of the world (e.g., the Middle East and Central Asia),
approximately 85 percent of Americans failed to locate Afghanistan, Iraq, or Israel
on a world map. Only 19 percent could identify four countries that officially
acknowledge possessing nuclear weapons. Fifty six percent could not find India -
home to 17 percent of the world’s population. Nearly 30 percent could not locate the
Pacific Ocean, and almost one-third overestimated the population of the United
States to be one billion or more.
From this, one can only conclude that changes must immediately be made.
The widespread lack of knowledge of the rest of the world that characterizes
American society, aptly referred to by Roger Bowen (2000) as our collective
ignorance, is a clear sign that the U.S. must reevaluate its long-term strategies and
focus more of its efforts on nonmilitary crisis prevention instruments - first and
foremost, educating Americans to become internationally cognizant. Undoubtedly,
this has real-world, security-related implications. The nation has no choice but to
develop a “better stocked and more diversified toolbox.... to solve problems for
which military power is not well suited” (Flanagan, 2001, p. 29). Bowen argues that
the United States, “a nation self-appointed as the world’s policeman, should know
about and be familiar with the cultures of the peoples being policed. Indeed, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
same reasoning applied to business - know your customer - is simply
commonsensical” (p.71).
New approaches are needed to enhance U.S. relations with the rest of the
world. Concerns of national security dictate a need to create a globally cognizant
population, to keep U.S. students and professionals competitive in the global
market, and to improve foreign relations and the image of America abroad. How?
One well-known and often-touted answer is international education.
Stephen Walt (1991) argues: “Support for ‘scholarly infrastructure’ has been the
most effective way for private foundations to contribute to long-term progress”
(p. 230). The importance of education in diplomacy is commonly cited, and the
dividends earned from educational investments are vital for promoting peace and
stability and safeguarding national security.
Defining international education. Currently, the “internationalization” of
institutions as a “process of educational reform” has become an increasingly popular
concept - a “catch-all term that people use as best fits their purpose” (Schoorman,
1999, p. 19). While the mission statements of many colleges and universities contain
the word “international,” the actual definition and implementation of the
internationalization process seems to be inconsistent and enigmatic. Echoing this
national discrepancy are inconsistencies at the university level. The American
Council on Education reports that although 75 percent of the 750 colleges and
universities surveyed in a nation-wide study underscore the importance of
international education in student recruitment literature, only 40 percent “identify
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
international education as one of the top five priorities in their strategic plans and
only about one-third have formed a campus-wide committee or task force to work
solely on advancing campus internationalization efforts” (Engberg & Green, 2002).
A coherent and proactive national policy must be established to reinforce
internationalization of learning in the broadest sense. U.S. colleges and universities
would be galvanized to produce experts in foreign languages, area studies, and cross-
cultural competence by concentrating on three main issues:
1. Internationalized curricula - Incorporating study of other cultures and
regions into higher education curricula, particularly with an emphasis on
foreign language requirements.
2. Study abroad - Increasing student mobility and U.S. student participation in
overseas studies, especially to destinations not traditionally visited by
American students.
3. International students - Recruiting and supporting international students to
study in the U.S., and integrating these students into the U.S. student body.
The following chapters will explore each of these three areas in depth,
investigating challenges faced and making recommendations for change.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
CHAPTER 2: Internationalized Curricula and Language Learning
The United States, as the nation with the greatest potential to promote peace
and stability in the world, faces a great number of challenges in the 21st Century.
Terrorism, globalization, poverty, political instability, weapons of mass destruction,
environmental deterioration, and the myriad issues troubling the world can and do
ultimately affect the U.S. These are complicated issues that demand international
attention. It will be necessary to cultivate innovative and globally competent
individuals to tackle these problems and to promote security. According to Graseck
(1993), action is necessary at all levels: the American public must realize the
significance of international preparedness, policymakers must be guided by a
framework or standard of internationalization, and educators must prepare students
to live in a rapidly-globalizing world.
Internationalized curricula must involve an institution-wide implementation
that promotes faculty involvement and development, while strengthening
international understanding and area expertise. Perhaps most critical in terms of
security concerns, however, is the development of American students’ foreign
language abilities, which lag far behind their counterparts in many countries.
Public opinion about international awareness
The American Council on Education (ACE) conducted two surveys of the
public, students, and faculty in both 2000 and 2002, which sought to assess
American attitudes about international awareness prior to and since September 11,
2001. The ACE Public Opinion Poll (2002) reports that although increased media
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
coverage of international affairs and violence in the Middle East and elsewhere in the
world should have provided Americans with much more exposure to issues involving
international events and key players, the number of people who report following
international news regularly has not increased since September 11 (although a
percentage of those who already follow international news, now do so more closely).
Furthermore, interest in international news is positively correlated with age and level
of education.
While only half of respondents in both ACE’s 2000 and 2002 surveys feel
that knowledge of international issues would be important to their careers over the
next 10 years, over 90% of respondents in both surveys - regardless of age, income,
level of education, or gender - feel that this international knowledge would be
important in the careers of their children or other young people. There continues to
be strong support for international education, and support for foreign language
requirements in high school and college have intensified from 2000 to 2002,
regardless of respondent age, level of education, or income.
The establishment of a forum to foster understanding of global issues is a
precondition for educating students to be global citizens. The role of colleges and
universities in the U.S. is, therefore, a critical one. As Stephen Walt (1991) suggests:
“Support for ‘scholarly infrastructure’ has been the most effective way for private
foundations to contribute to long-term progress” (p. 230). The American public
seems to agree: nearly three out of four of ACE’s survey (2002) respondents,
regardless of ethnicity, age, income, or level of education concur that U.S. “colleges
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
and universities have a responsibility to educate the public about international issues,
events, and cultures.. .with 39 percent saying they strongly agree” (p. 3). Yet, while
the public acknowledges the importance of international knowledge and the key role
that higher education plays in creating global cognizance, one in four respondents
(17% of college graduates and 30% of those with less education) conveyed that their
formal education did not provide them with the “knowledge to fully understand
current international events.” This dichotomy suggests that while the American
public expects higher education institutions to prepare students for global citizenship,
some feel that their education has not adequately equipped them with the necessary
skills.
The importance of an internationally educated population is also vital for
American businesses in the private sector, as commerce increasingly crosses borders.
Also, because commerce is increasingly tied to national security, U.S. economic
prosperity and stability depends on educating the American citizenry for life in the
global context. According to the Coalition for International Education (Ward, 2003),
a recent study of internationalization of business education in the U.S showed that
knowledge of other cultures, cross-cultural communications skills, international
business experience, and fluency in a foreign language were among the skills most
highly desired by international corporations, yet business schools typically fail to
train students adequately in such areas. In fact, “The most common reason cited by
U.S. businesses for not pursuing export opportunities is a lack of knowledge and
understanding of how to function in the global business environment” (para. 13).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
With respect to student interest in international education, potential for
growth certainly exists. The American Council on Education’s (ACE) poll of 500
high school seniors continuing on to four-year colleges found positive attitudes
towards international studies showed promising statistics (Hayward & Siaya, 2001).
• 85% planned to participate in international courses or programs,
• 48% wanted to take part in study abroad,
• 28% planned on taking part in an internship abroad,
• 57% planned to study a foreign language,
• 50% planned to take courses on the history or culture of other countries, and
• 37% planned to take international studies or business courses.
Because interest in such experiences do not necessarily translate into action,
it is becomes important to determine what barriers to international learning students
face. Oftentimes, the academic infrastructure does not require, allow room for, or
provide adequate access to internationally-oriented courses, foreign languages, or
study abroad.
Faculty and international coursework
Changes must be made at the university level. Internationalization is not
“simply a matter of adding a language requirement, introducing a global requirement
into the general-education curriculum, or increasing the number of students going
abroad...” (Engberg & Green, 2002, p. 10). Rather, efforts towards
internationalization at U.S. colleges and universities must be intentional, integrative,
and comprehensive, with sufficient breadth and depth.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
Perhaps one of the most fundamental ways to internationalize the curriculum
and atmosphere on university campuses is through faculty presence. Incentives for
faculty to incorporate elements of internationalization into lessons inside and outside
of the classroom will ultimately foster global competencies in students. Moreover,
the addition of international criteria for hiring new faculty or as a factor in merit,
promotion, and tenure decisions would allow a college or university to achieve an
internationally-minded campus (Williamsen, 2003).
Despite the practicality of such initiatives, U.S. institutions do not seem to
have caught on. The American Council on Education (ACE) surveyed 750 colleges
and universities and found that only 4 percent specify international work or
experience as a factor in evaluations for promotions and tenure (Engberg & Green,
2002).
Another issue lies in the disproportionate coverage and attention different
regions of the globe receive in college and university courses. Western Europe and
Latin America are relatively well covered nationally, while Asia, Africa, and the
Middle East comparatively receive almost no attention - the recent increase in study
abroad enrollments in Japan and China notwithstanding (Cummings, 2001). In light
of the substantial political, economic, and security-related significance of these
regions for the U.S., this insufficient coverage is particularly disconcerting.
Programs, area studies, and educational exchanges that target key regions or
nations, such as those economically dynamic Asian countries or emerging former
Soviet Union nations in Eurasia, are wise economic and political investments. They
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
are likely to prove instrumental in promoting democracy and economic reform in
countries negatively affected by globalization, thereby preventing hostility and
international crises. Similarly, the importance of including more extensive coverage
of security-critical regions such as the Middle East is incontrovertible.
Foreign languages
It is widely recognized that English is becoming the lingua franca in
international relations. It is the primary language used in business, trade, politics,
academics, science, the media, the arts and literature, as well as travel and tourism.
In fact, one of the reasons Americans give for not learning other languages is that
people around the world learn English anyhow. Nevertheless, there are a number of
contexts where English will not be sufficient to ensure adequate communication. For
example, in the Asia-Pacific region subtleties in etiquette are often reflected in
language (Cummings, 2000). Understanding values of other peoples and the ability
to establish rapport require skills that allow effective communication.
Additionally, a number of studies indicate that students who have several
years of a second language have a better vocabulary and are more expressive and
creative writers in their first language (Masuyama, 2000). Similarly, Stanley Mickel
(2000) argues that Asian language study “stimulates intellectual development in
unique ways,” referring to the grammatical structures of Asian languages, which
oftentimes differ significantly from those of European languages “in ways that reveal
new and provocative modes of thought” - such as the lack of gender markers in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
Chinese nouns and pronouns and the signals of relative social status conveyed by
Japanese verb endings (p. 54).
Finally, and perhaps most relevant to our topic of security, a continued lack
of foreign language proficiency on the part of Americans could deflate both our
economic profits as well as our capability to defend the nation from potential threats.
State o f foreign language education in the U.S. The need to encourage
foreign language study in US colleges and universities is a real one. The number of
US students studying foreign languages in high school and college is significantly
low in comparison to other industrialized nations - including English-speaking
countries. Most students in Asia, for example, develop a working knowledge of at
least one language by the end of high school, while in Europe, the establishment of
the LINGUA program through the Single European Act of 1992 helped promote
multilingualism among the European populace (Masuyama, 2000).
In the United States, the Modem Language Association (MLA) reports that
more undergraduates are taking foreign language courses than ever before: 1.4
million students - a record high and 17.9 percent increase since 1998 - enrolled in
such courses in Fall 2002 (MLA, as cited in ACE, 2003b). However, while the
absolute numbers of higher education students taking language courses may have
increased in the last several decades, the percentage of total higher education
enrollments has seen significant decline: from 16.1% in 1960 to 7.9% in 1998 (ACE,
2000). Moreover, these students are highly concentrated in the fields of humanities
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
and social science, and the vast majority does not even achieve an elementary level
of competence.
Declining rates of language study are partly attributable to the significant
drop in foreign language degree requirements. In 1965, eighty-nine percent of four-
year institutions required foreign language study for graduation. This figure fell to 68
percent by 1995. More recent surveys show a further plunge: only 37 percent of
higher education institutions require foreign language study for graduation (Engberg
& Green, 2002).
ACE (2000) reports that the languages studied are also disproportionate: In
1998, most students took Spanish (55%), followed by French (17%), German (8%),
and Italian and Japanese (4% each). Asian languages constitute a mere 6% of total
enrollments (Cummings, 2001), which is alarming, considering the rapidly growing
demand for Asia-competent individuals to work in political and economic roles in
the Pacific Rim. The study of Arabic, while seeing a recent 93 percent gain, is still
distressingly low (ACE, 2003b). Cummings reported that only 0.5 percent of
language enrollments are in Arabic, 1.3 percent are in Hebrew. A minuscule
percentage (0.15%) of students enroll in African languages.
When students do study languages, rarely do they achieve an adequate level
of competence. In a U.S. national survey, the American Council on Education found
that only 42 percent of respondents reported being able to speak a language other
than English “at least somewhat well.” This is a significant drop from the 58 percent
result of the 1988 Gallup survey of foreign language proficiency, which had an even
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
higher threshold for positive responses asking for “speak fluently” rather than “speak
at least somewhat well”. Moreover, only 17 percent of those who reported speaking
another language said they were fluent in that language - an even more dramatic
decrease from the Gallup survey’s 58 percent just 12 years prior (Hayward & Siaya,
2001).
History o f language education in U.S. While disappointing, the rates of
language study and proficiency in the U.S. are not surprising, given the perfunctory
attitude the nation has historically held towards learning other languages and
cultures. Hines (2003) traces America’s “off and on affair” with languages - from as
early as 1606, when Jesuit priests and other missionaries began learning the
languages and cultures of indigenous peoples, to the end of the Spanish-American
War in the 19th century, when national education organizations in the U.S. called for
the mandatory study of a foreign language for all students, to the training of linguists
during World War II and the Cold War. The U.S.’s capricious history of foreign
language learning has led to today’s low proficiency rates, and little effort has been
made to rectify the dismal situation.
In fact, twenty-five years ago a government report critically noted inadequate
international education and language preparation in U.S. high schools and colleges,
as well as a shortage of globally literate professionals. The 1979 President’s
Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies was created to evaluate
“the state of language and international studies and their impact on the nation's
internal and external strength.” The Commission reported that they were:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
.. .profoundly alarmed by what we have found: a serious deterioration in this
country's language and research capacity, at a time when an increasingly
hazardous international military, political and economic environment is
making unprecedented demands on America's resources, intellectual capacity
and public sensitivity....
Nothing less is at issue than the nation's security... National security,
moreover, cannot safely be defined and protected within the narrow
framework of defense, diplomacy and economics. A nation's welfare depends
in large measure on the intellectual and psychological strengths that are
derived from perceptive visions of the world beyond its own boundaries....
Americans’ scandalous incompetence in foreign languages also
explains our dangerously inadequate understanding of world affairs. Our
schools graduate a large majority of students whose knowledge and vision
stops at the American shoreline, whose approach to international affairs is
provincial, and whose heads have been filled with astonishing
misinformation (President's Commission on Foreign Language and
International Studies, as cited in Fulbright, 1981).
The Commission called for a national effort and proposed a number of
initiatives, including federal funding to develop 20 international high schools to
“serve as national models and to offer intensive foreign language and cultural studies
in addition to all regularly required courses” (Herron, 1985); however, no significant
show of federal support happened until twenty years later. In 2000 President Bill
Clinton released his “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and
Agencies” on international education, which - in addition to recognizing the
importance of international students - affirms that the “United States needs to ensure
that its citizens develop a broad understanding of the world, proficiency in other
languages, and knowledge of other cultures.” Item 4 of the ten-item memorandum
calls for “strengthening foreign language learning at all levels, including efforts to
achieve bi-literacy.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
Clinton’s memorandum - the first of its kind ever released by a President -
clearly emphasized the need for international education in order for Americans “to
compete successfully in the global economy and to maintain our role as a world
leader.” Unfortunately, however, no major breakthroughs in policy or institutional
development followed. Engberg and Green (2002) note that the President’s “list is
complete and admirable, but without any accompanying funding, its impact was
limited.” In the last several years, it has been higher education associations that have
worked to further the agenda of international education, releasing “a spate of national
reports” while “high-profile studies and pronouncements from policy-makers have
been sporadic, at best” (p. 8).
Quite simply, the United States has never held foreign language learning in
high regard despite frequent calls to action. This is reflected in the fact that we have
never adopted a language policy. Essentially, “ [international crises, political
expediency, and public interest or disinterest have always held sway in decisions
related to the establishment, the continuance or discontinuance and the funding of
programs” (Hines, 2003). Rather than proactive development of language skills,
changes in American attitudes towards foreign language learning have time and time
again arisen solely as the resulting consternation of some national crisis. In The
Washington Post Paul Simon (2001), former Democratic senator from Illinois and
chairman of the board of the National Foreign Language Center at the University of
Maryland, writes, “In every national crisis from the Cold War through Vietnam,
Desert Storm, Bosnia and Kosovo, our nation has lamented its foreign language
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
shortfalls. But then the crisis ‘goes away,’ and we return to business as usual. One of
the messages of Sept. 11 is that business as usual is no longer an acceptable option”
(para. 7).
Language education and security. Less than one percent of U.S. graduate
students study languages considered critical for national security, and before
September 11, not a single institution of higher learning offered full-time courses in
Pashto, the language of the Taliban (Ward, 2003). Clearly, American linguistic
shortfalls have direct relevance for national security, and following the terrorist
attacks, the signs could not have been more obvious.
Streamers ran across news reports and press conferences, urgently requesting
fluent speakers of Arabic, Farsi, and Pashto to work as translators. This rather
disconcerting failure of government agencies to maintain sufficient staffing with
adequate security-critical language skills dramatically exposed decades of American
linguistic negligence. Nothing could communicate clearer the need for broadened
language education than our inability to understand voices “captured on a flight
recorder... speaking in a major world language” and our failure to “provide
specialists to analyze potentially prophetic field reports that collected on the desks of
intelligence officers” (Collins & Davidson, 2002, p. 52).
According to the Coalition for International Education, “...over 80 federal
agencies and offices rely on human resources with foreign language proficiency and
international knowledge and experience” (Ward, 2003, para. 7). The U.S.
government alone requires 34,000 such employees, and this figure does not take into
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
consideration the growing needs of U.S. businesses for a globally competent and
culturally diverse workforce (NAFSA 2003b).
A shortage of linguists also affects the U.S military, which has particularly
low retention rates for its language force. Marion Flines (2003) cites Government
Accounting Office statistics, which show that once discharged, over 40 percent of
the U.S. Army’s linguists do not return. Furthermore, the Defense Language
Institute, the State Department's Foreign Service Institute, and Department of
Education language programs also express unsatisfactory numbers of linguists with
higher levels of proficiency.
This has direct relevance to the attacks of September 11. In its report
“Counterterrorism Intelligence Capabilities and Performance Prior to 9-11”, the
Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security of the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence on Counterterrorism (2001) evaluated the performance of
three key governmental agencies charged with the responsibility of protecting the US
from terrorism - the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), and the National Security Agency (NSA). While the report did
not conclude that the attacks of September 11 could have been prevented, it did
reveal that among the various gaps in counterterrorism capabilities, the three
agencies had one common, glaring weakness: a critical shortage of linguists.
The Congressional committee’s report on intelligence cites specific evidence
of foreign language shortfalls:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
CIA has paid insufficient attention to foreign language training and document
exploitation efforts requiring linguists. In the most recent class of new case
officers in training, less than one-third had any language expertise...
(Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, 2001, p. iii).
.. ..A January 2002 report noted that FBI projected shortages of permanent
translators and interpreters in FY 2002 and 2003, and reported backlogs of
thousands of un-reviewed and untranslated materials. In key counterterrorism
languages, FBI reported having in June 2001 a critical shortage of special
agents with some proficiency, and FBI had very few translators and
interpreters with native language skills in those languages (Subcommittee on
Terrorism and Homeland Security, p. v).
.. ..In April 2000, GAO reported a significant shortfall in linguists at NSA.
After the 9-11 attacks, this shortfall actually increased slightly and was well
below additional requirements identified since 9-11 (Subcommittee on
Terrorism and Homeland Security, p. vi).
Furthermore, the subcommittee’s report recommended that the intelligence
community develop a long-term hiring and maintenance strategy for ensuring
adequate numbers of linguists, particularly in less-commonly taught languages.
Specifically, the report recommended that the CIA require all new case officers and
analysts to attain a “level 3” language proficiency prior to initial deployment, in
addition to directly tying language proficiency maintenance to performance
evaluation.
The language shortfalls exposed after September 11 provide unequivocal
evidence of the importance of foreign language study for U.S. national security, and
it is imperative that long-overdue changes in language study policies and
requirements be implemented. Yet, despite the findings of this committee that
insufficient language skills were the single greatest limitation faced by the
intelligence community, “foreign language programs are faced with the paradox of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
having to justify budgets, prove relevance, and resist marginalization” (Hines, 2003,
para. 1).
Federal funding. Leaders, politicians, and educators have released a number
of statements declaring the undeniable need for improved language learning, but in
the end, funding speaks louder than words. Federal funding remains the primary
indicator of government support, and judging from current levels and trends in grant
funding, the outlook seems almost bleak. The National Defense Education Act
(NDEA), passed in 1958 following the launch of the Sputnik, and the National
Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) notwithstanding, there has been little federal
grant funding for foreign language learning (Hines, 2003). Educational programs that
do receive funding, such as those of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA), focus predominantly on mathematics and science education, leaving foreign
language education in the lurch.
While controversial for its implications for civil liberties, the U.S Patriot Act
of 2001 (H.R. 3162), may help to promote language learning. The National Virtual
Translation Center (NVTC) was established in February 2003 through the Patriot Act
for “the purpose of providing timely and accurate translations of foreign intelligence
for all elements of the Intelligence Community” (NVTC, para. 1). Everett Jordan,
director o f the NVTC, says that the under the Patriot Act, the federal government
will invest record levels of time, money, and energy into languages and language
technologies, going even beyond the efforts made in the post-Sputnik NDEA (Hines,
2003). The Patriot Act, characterized by Congress as an act to provide appropriate
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
tools required to intercept and obstruct terrorism, has become the “most recent
opportunity for the valorization of America's foreign language programs, and for the
injection of new resources and fresh approaches to course content” (para. 26).
Beyond the creation of the NVTC, however, evidence of record funding and
support has yet to be seen. When the Bush administration took office, it espoused a
broad support for K-12 education, with little mention of international education or
higher education. Despite much rhetoric following September 11, it seems that
international education for the American public is still not a priority for the Bush
administration (Engberg & Green, 2002). This becomes especially evident when
examining the fiscal year 2005 federal budget proposal, which the Bush
Administration passed on to Congress in February 2004. In his budget message,
President Bush (2004) highlights his three highest priorities for the upcoming year:
“First, America will prevail in the War on Terror by defeating terrorists and their
supporters. Second, we will continue to strengthen our homeland defenses. Third,
this Nation is building on the economic recovery...” The proposed budget clearly
reflects these goals. With a 2005 discretionary budget of $33.8 billion, the
Department of Homeland Security will receive $3.6 billion more than in 2004 - a
doubling of funding since 2001. The Department of Defense will receive $401.7
billion - seven percent higher than 2004, for a total increase in defense spending of
35 percent from $296.8 billion in 2001. Moreover, the House Budget Committee
Democratic Staff (2004) declares that the Administration’s proposed budget far
underestimates the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and an
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
additional $40 to $55 billion of federal spending should be factored into the 2005
fiscal year budget. The Bush Administration budget touts “the largest increase in the
Defense budget since the Reagan Administration” and “Doubled investments in
missile defense systems, deploying the first ever land and sea-based system.”
Meanwhile, growth of discretionary domestic budgets has slowed
significantly. The Department of Education’s proposed budget is $57.3 billion - up
$1.7 billion (three percent) from 2004. Despite this modest increase in overall
education spending, the Bush plan does not look favorably upon higher education or
international education, specifically. According to the American Council on
Education (2004), the International Education and Foreign Language Studies
program, which “supports comprehensive language and area study centers within the
United States, research and curriculum development, opportunities for American
scholars to study abroad, and activities to increase the number of underrepresented
minorities in international service,” will receive level funding ($103.1 million), while
the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), which “supports
exemplary, locally-developed projects that are models for innovative reform and
improvement in postsecondary education,” will receive $32 million - a $125.7
million reduction in funding.
Advancement of international education requires the infusion of new funds
into the federal programs of international education - specifically, Title VI, which
supports domestic training and research, and Fulbright-Hays, which supports
overseas education and research. These programs, created at the height of the Cold
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
War, “remain the federal government’s most comprehensive and successful
mechanisms for supporting the production o f the nation’s expertise in foreign
languages, and area and other international studies, including international business”
(Ward, 2003, para. 4). Title Vi-funded institutions train “81% of the graduate
language enrollments in the least commonly taught languages” (para. 9).
Recommendations fo r change
Role o f the federal government. The U.S. public must, first and foremost,
become convinced that learning about other cultures, countries, and foreign
languages truly is an important component of modern education. In order for this
change in mindset to take place, politicians and educators must take the role of
promoting this belief, and a strong policy must be established at the national level.
The National Policy on Languages in Australia, for example, resulted in language
education in almost every Australian primary school (Pufahl, Rhodes, & Christian,
2001).
Role o f state governments. International curriculum and language learning
must begin at an early age, in order to cultivate international interest and greater
levels of proficiency in foreign languages. While training at the pre-collegiate level
is a minimum standard, the U.S. should begin teaching foreign languages and
introduce international-mindedness even earlier, in elementary and middle schools.
Role o f colleges and universities. In educating a globally-literate population,
U.S. colleges and universities must create an atmosphere that fosters international
interest. This can be achieved by creating incentives for faculty to incorporate
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
components of internationalization into their teaching, introducing a global
requirement into the general education curriculum, and requiring foreign language
study. Courses and languages taught must also be diversified to include adequate
coverage of countries, regions, and languages less commonly taught.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
CHAPTER 3: U.S. Student Mobility and Study Abroad
U.S. leaders have frequently called attention to the importance of study
abroad in promoting goodwill between nations. In November 2001, just weeks after
September 11, President George W. Bush declared that, in the light of the terrorist
attacks:
We must also reaffirm our commitment to promote educational opportunities
that enable American students to study abroad, and to encourage international
students to take part in our educational system. By studying foreign cultures
and languages and living abroad, we gain a better understanding of the many
similarities that we share and learn to respect our differences. The
relationships that are formed between individuals from different countries, as
part of international education programs and exchanges, can also foster
goodwill that develops into vibrant, mutually beneficial partnerships among
nations.... America's leadership and national security rest on our commitment
to educate and prepare our youth for active engagement in the international
community.
In his 2000 “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and
Agencies” on International Education, President Bill Clinton, a former Rhodes
Scholar at Oxford University, designated the first call to action of his ten-item
memorandum to study abroad:
The Secretaries of State and Education shall support the efforts of schools
and colleges to improve access to high-quality international educational
experiences by increasing the number and diversity of students who study
and intern abroad, encouraging students and institutions to choose
nontraditional study-abroad locations, and helping under-represented U.S.
institutions offer and promote study-abroad opportunities for their students.
In August 2002, Secretary of State Colin Powell said, “People-to-people
diplomacy, created through international education and exchanges, is critical to our
national interests.” While the U.S. is beginning to realize more and more the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
importance of international exchanges, many other countries have long recognized
the inherent value of study abroad for quality education (Falk & Kanach, 2000).
Europe - particularly in the last decade or so - has created progressive policies and
programs through which student mobility has flourished and, in turn, has spawned a
“multilingual, culturally and politically knowledgeable” citizenry (p. 164).
It, therefore, follows that the implications of study abroad for U.S. national
security are dramatic. If the future leaders, educators, and business men and women
of the United States are to understand their role in the world, or if they are to remain
competitive, they must be educated at the global level and achieve a certain level of
international experience. The Commission on International Education of the
American Council on Education recognizes that “without international competence,
the nation’s standard of living is threatened and its competitive difficulties will
increase... [U]nless today’s students develop the competence to function effectively
in a global environment, they are unlikely to succeed in the 21st Century” (p.l).
Simply stated: “America is ‘getting known’ by far more foreign students than other
nations are ‘getting known’ by American students going abroad. The ‘other’ knows
us far better than we know ‘them’” (Bowen, 2000, p.72).
Clearly, the leaders and scholars of our nation acknowledge the value of
overseas studies, and yet - even with the most extensive system of higher education
- the overwhelming majority of American students still do not participate in study
abroad. According to the NAFSA Strategic Task Force on Education Abroad’s report
(2003a), “The time for lip service ended on September 11, 2001. Since that day, our
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
nation has pursued a series of national security imperatives with single-minded
intensity. Study abroad must be counted among them” (p. 16).
Many students face barriers that prevent them from spending time overseas,
including curricular demands, financial limitations, a lack of faculty participation,
and the failure to address the needs of a rising number of nontraditional students
(Lane, 2003). Some lack access to overseas studies programs altogether. This is
unacceptable, particularly at a time when our nation cannot afford to remain
complacent to the fact that many Americans lack understanding of the world outside
of the United States.
Study abroad is by far the most effective method of bringing Americans into
real and intimate contact with different countries, peoples, and cultures. Those who
will lead the nation tomorrow must become globally literate today. In its statement
on international education policy, NAFSA: Association of International Educators
(2003b) states:
If American students are to be able to function effectively in the world into
which they will graduate, it must become the routine - not the exception - for
them to study abroad in high quality programs. For that to happen, the United
States requires a policy to promote global learning, which recognizes that
providing Americans with opportunities to acquire the skills, attitudes, and
perceptions that allow them to be globally and cross-culturally competent is
central to U.S. security and economic interests in the twenty-first century
(para. 21).
Interpersonal outcomes o f study abroad. Reflecting the increased awareness
of the importance of international education is the growing body of literature
published on the outcomes of study abroad for college students. Research findings
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
tend to be consistent in showing a host of positive interpersonal outcomes: Student
sojourners develop foreign language proficiency and improved communication skills
(Bachner, 2000); they benefit from increased feelings of autonomy, independence,
maturity, and higher levels of self-reliance (Carlson, Burn, Useem, & Yachimowicz,
1990; Kauffmann, Martin, Weaver, & Weaver, 1992; Laubscher, 1994); and often
report enhanced self-esteem, confidence, and positive changes in self-concept upon
return to the U.S. (Hensley & Sell, 1979; Kauffmann et al.).
In addition to identity development and personal growth, literature has shown
effects of study abroad that are quite relevant in discussions of security. Study
abroad participants also demonstrate increased internationalist orientation; greater
concern for and cognizance of international, political, and current affairs; as well as
less “domestically oriented” attitudes (Carlson et al., 1990; Carlson & Widaman,
1988; Kauffmann et al., 1992). They demonstrate enhanced interest in, awareness of,
and respect and tolerance for other peoples, languages, traditions, and cultures
(Carlson & Widaman); adaptability skills and improved cognitive and problem
solving skills (Juhasz & Walker, 1988); a growth in leadership capacity and sense of
civic responsibility, sensitivity and awareness of global issues; as well as an overall
reluctance to perpetuate negative stereotypes and distortions of other cultures, which
could have the potential to influence and improve the country’s foreign policy and
relations (Bachner, 2000). In short, educational exchanges “immediately bring the
student into unavoidable contact with the core of the culture and forces the student to
confront the very essence of differences and similarities between cultures” (Mickel,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
2000, p. 71), making study abroad perhaps the single most powerful tool to create an
internationally cognizant and globally-competent citizenry, while promoting the
positive changes in the knowledge, attitudes, and behavior of individuals to
eventually establish a more informed, cooperative, and peaceful world.
Study Abroad: Statistics
Participation in Study Abroad. In the initial shock of the September 11
attacks, international educators were unsure of what to expect from study abroad
enrollments. Would the attacks severely discourage students from seeking overseas
experience? Would uncertainty about terrorism and the vicissitude of global events
create fear of travel? Would the economic slump that followed make it difficult for
students to study abroad?
Surveys conducted in the months following showed that while a small
percentage of parents and students expressed personal reservations about study
abroad, there remained overall strong support from the public, students, faculty, and
professionals for study abroad. In spite of economic and security concerns,
international experience continued to be a priority for many Americans.
Evidence of this support can be seen in the most recent Open Doors reports
of study abroad statistics released by the Institute of International Education (HE).
HE (2003a) reports that a record total of 160,920 U.S. university-level students
received credit for study abroad in the 2001/02 academic year, an increase of 4.4
percent from the previous year. Although growth has slowed compared to the
previous year’s 7.4 percent leap in study abroad enrollments, this year’s increases are
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
still substantial and show enthusiasm for study abroad. Moreover, these figures,
when viewed with past levels of study abroad participation, reveal tremendous
growth in recent years. The number of students studying abroad in 2001/02 has more
than doubled since 1991/1992 (from 71,154 to 160,920, an increase of 126%).
Reports suggest that even greater growth is likely, as students increasingly
recognize the importance of international experience. An on-line survey conducted
by HE (2003a) investigated enrollments in Fall 2003 compared to Fall 2002. Fifty
percent of campuses responding (116 of 235) reported an increase in the number of
students going overseas- of which 19% reported slight increases, 20% reported
moderate increases, and 11% reported substantial increases of over 30%. Eighteen
percent reported no noticeable change, while 31 % reported a drop in study abroad
enrollment - of which only 4% described the change as a substantial decline (over
30%) in students participating in overseas studies. Study abroad professionals on
campuses cited the economy, tuition increases, and parental concern for safety as the
main reasons for declines.
Study abroad destinations and length o f stay. Europe continues to be the
leading destination for U.S. students studying abroad in 2001/02; however, an
increasing number of students are traveling to other regions. In fact, enrollment rates
in less traditional destinations have seen extraordinary growth in the last 15 years.
HE (2003a) reports that 63% of the total students receiving credit for study abroad -
100,668 students, 4% higher than the previous year - chose to study in Europe.
Similarly, Latin America also saw a 4% growth (to 23,300 students) and continues to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
attract an increasing number of students: the percentage of all study abroad
participants traveling to Latin America was 15% this year, more than double the 7%
surveyed in 1985. Considerable growth was seen in other regions as well: Oceania
and Asia each soared 18% (to 10,952 and 10,901 students, respectively), Africa rose
2% to 4,633, and North American (Canada and Bermuda) enrollments expanded by
13% to 1,251 students. The Middle East hosted significantly fewer U.S. students,
down 21% to 1,310.
Country-specific data also revealed some interesting changes this year. The
United Kingdom remained the most popular destination for U.S students, although
enrollment declined by 1% (30,143 students). Spain overtook Italy by a nominal
margin as the second-leading host country - both saw roughly 7% increases (to
17,176 students in Spain and 17,169 students in Italy). France and Australia
continued to attract a growing number of Americans (12,274 students, up 3% and
9,456 students, up 17%, respectively). Mexico followed with 3% fewer students than
previous year (8,078 students in 2001/02).
Among host countries that saw the most substantial growth in American
students are: Singapore (231, up 97%), El Salvador (145, up 86%), Thailand (836, up
69%), Senegal (211, up 51%), Peru (522, up 47%), Cuba (1,279, up 41%), China
(3,911, up 33%), South Africa (1,456, up 32%), Czech Republic (1,659, up 30%),
Belgium, (867, up 30%), Japan (3,168, up 21%), Brazil (1,064, up 40%), and Korea
(631, up 21%).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
IIE’s Open Doors (2003a) also indicates another interesting trend: the rising
number of study abroad participants is largely fueled by students enrolling in short
term programs (often less than eight weeks). In fact, over half of undergraduate and
masters degree study abroad participants choose to participate in summer, January
term, internship, or other short-term programs, rather than semester or academic year
programs. Ninety-one percent of all participants in 2001/02 spent one semester or
less studying abroad.
More work to be done
Numbers o f participants. NAFSA’s Strategic Task Force on Education
Abroad (2003) reports that the number of U.S. students going abroad has “doubled in
less than a decade and tripled over the past 15 years,” yet current gains in overall
study abroad enrollment should not be taken for granted. Continuous - indeed,
increased - efforts must be made to ensure that international education for all
students is a priority on university campuses. That the absolute numbers of students
participating in overseas studies is gradually increasing is very promising; however,
these figures are far from where they should be. In November 2000, the U.S.
Department of Education released Learning Without Limits: An Agenda fo r the
Office o f Postsecondary Education. The document emphasized the urgent need for
“revitalizing international education” and called attention to some alarming statistics.
Every year less than one percent of American students in postsecondary education
participate in study abroad. Additionally, less than 10% of those who study abroad
stay overseas for longer than one semester. Each year, surveys find that at least 20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
percent of the quarter-million incoming freshmen intend to study overseas some
time; however, only one percent of the 8 million full-time and 5 million part-time
undergraduates at 3,400 U.S. colleges and universities do study abroad (Strategic
Task Force on Education Abroad). Only three percent of undergraduate students
participate in study abroad before graduating (Engberg & Green, 2002). Although
the range of majors represented abroad and the range of host countries have seen
recent increases, participants are still highly concentrated in the humanities and
social science with little ethnic or economic diversity (ACE, 2000). Clearly, there is
still much work to be done in promoting study abroad.
Underrepresented groups. There is a great disproportion in student
participants’ major fields of study. According to HE (2003a), the majority of students
who studied abroad in 2001/02 majored in social science (22%), business and
management (18%), or humanities (14%). Far fewer students studied fine or applied
arts (9%), foreign languages (9%), physical sciences (8%), education (4%), health
sciences (3%), engineering (3%), and math or computer science (2%). An effort
should be made to provide increased access to study abroad for students in
underrepresented fields, such as the sciences, engineering, and mathematics. One
study of short-term study abroad programs found that gains in activities of “global
awareness” were more pronounced for study abroad participants majoring in natural
science, professional, and pre-professional fields than those majoring in the
humanities and social science (Chieffo & Griffiths, 2003). Professional and science
majors - who typically report much lower frequencies of discussing, reading, or
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
watching intemationally-themed material because of either personal choice or
curricular demands - have the potential to benefit significantly in international
interest and awareness through study abroad.
Nontraditional students, for example those attending community colleges, are
also underrepresented in study abroad. Issues of time and money make it difficult for
many such students to take part in programs. Professionals, such as Madaleine
Green, vice president of the American Council on Education, and Victor Johnson,
the associate executive director for public policy at NAFSA, seem to agree that
shorter programs to countries closer to the U.S. would be viable substitutions for
semester- or year-long programs (Lane, 2003). What is important is providing the
students with the opportunities for exposure to other cultures and countries. Johnson
emphasizes the importance of a partnership between the federal government, which
would provide resources and support, and the schools, to promote and administer
affordable study abroad programs, specifically to nontraditional students.
Support fo r study abroad
According to NAFSA’s White Paper for the President-Elect’ s Team (2000),
in order for U.S. students to effectively function in the world, study abroad in high
quality programs “must become the routine - not the exception.” Paralleling the
increased recognition of the importance of study abroad on the governmental level is
the ever-growing support for study abroad on the level of the general public. The
American Council on Education (ACE) Opinion Poll (2002) shows that despite fears
of college and university leaders that participation in study abroad would have been
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
tremendously affected by September 11, student interest did not diminish. In fact,
public support for study abroad increased: 79 percent of respondents agree that
students should have some form of overseas studies experience during college, with
roughly 40 percent strongly agreeing. Compared to the results of the 2000 survey (75
percent agreed on the importance of study abroad, with more than one-third strongly
agreeing), the figures seem to indicate that public support for study abroad has
increased both overall and in intensity. Moreover, fifty percent of college faculty
agree (nearly 30 percent strongly agree) that all undergraduates should have some
study abroad experience, while 12 percent report being less likely to advise students
to study abroad after September 11.
Similar to the strong public, student, and faculty support for international
education reported by ACE, the Institute of International Education (HE, 2002)
reports that support from educational professionals also remains very strong: of the
600 international education professionals surveyed, 97 percent rated international
exchange (including study abroad) as more important or equally important on their
campuses since September 11. Additionally, HE reports that 31 percent of
respondents see no noticeable change in the number of applications or requests for
information about studying abroad during the 2002-2003 terms/year. Forty-two
percent report an increase in the number of students applying for 2002-2003: 17
percent see some increase (11-30%) and 5 percent see substantial increase (greater
than 30%). Only sixteen percent report a decline in study abroad applications. While
HE makes clear that “the survey did not seek to establish a causal relationship
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
between the terrorist acts and interest in study abroad.. these figures indicate that
September 11 did not produce a great decline in study abroad interest. Rather, study
abroad is now more popular among students than ever before.
According to ACE (2002), the support from family members, however,
remains “somewhat conditional.” While public support seems to have grown since
September 11, respondents are more hesitant when asked whether they would
encourage a family member to study abroad. More than 40 percent are less likely (20
percent are much less likely) to encourage a family member to participate in study
abroad. O f these, women are more reluctant (50 percent) than men (38 percent).
Students also reveal some slight hesitation, but continue to strongly support
study abroad in general (ACE 2002). Sixty percent of undergraduates surveyed agree
that all students should have study abroad experience in college; however, 25 percent
admit that since September 11, they are less likely to study abroad, 60 percent are
just as likely, while only 10 percent report being more likely to study abroad.
Students’ motivations for studying abroad have also shifted in the last several
years. McKeown (2003) sought to determine what differences in reasoning, if any,
existed between students who decided to study abroad before September 11, 2001
and those who decided to study abroad after September 11, 2001. He found that both
groups of students responded similarly with 70 percent agreement or more to four
statements about their motivations for studying abroad: “I wanted to travel”, “I
thought it would be fun”, “I wanted to learn about other cultures”, and “I wanted an
adventure.” Interestingly, tests for statistical significance revealed that three
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
statements elicited higher agreement from the post-9/11 group than from the pre-9/11
group. After September 11, students more often reported becoming interested in
overseas studies because they “wanted to learn another language” (from 22.73% in
the pre-9/11 group to 41.56% in the post-9/11 group), because “it was good for my
major” (from 38.64% to 57.14%) and because they “thought it would be good for my
career” (from 56.82% to 74.03% (Z=T.95, P=.051). McKeown found no significant
differences between the two groups’ concerns about travel, being away from the
home campus, or overall comfort level, suggesting that the September 11 attacks had
no discernable effect on students’ concerns about the safety of post-9/11 study
abroad. Students are, however, becoming more aware of the importance of
international experience and language learning on their future.
Recommendations fo r change
Even with impressive gains in enrollment figures over the last two decades,
the U.S. must increase the number of students who study abroad, diversify the
destinations, and improve accessibility for interested students. There must be a
national effort - from the federal government to individual institutions of higher
education - to improve American student mobility.
Role o f the federal government. Support from the President and Congress is
vital for study abroad. The importance of overseas studies and research for American
students has been touted by numerous leaders, commissions, and committees at the
national level. It is time now for action and for initiatives to clearly communicate to
the country that study abroad is a necessary tool for improving U.S. foreign relations
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
and national security. As noted by NAFSA’s Strategic Task Force on Education
Abroad (2003), “Flistory has demonstrated that we renew and strengthen America
with bold initiatives: the GI Bill, the Marshall Plan, the NDEA, and the Morill Act,
signed by President Abraham Lincoln to create our great land grant universities....
Such a bold initiative is needed now” (p. 11).
In order to expand study abroad participation significantly, the federal
government must establish a national policy on international education that would
formally recognize the critical nature of study abroad and design a national strategy
for promoting involvement. This would include the creation of a fellowship program
to support more students to study overseas and develop regional and international
expertise, particularly in countries that have traditionally been less likely
destinations.
Adequate funding must be secured for existing fellowships and programs,
such as the National Security Education Program (NSEP) David L. Boren
Scholarship, which emphasizes language learning through sponsoring study in
countries considered important for national security, and the Gilman Scholarship
Program, which provides support for low-income and first-generation students.
Enhanced federal funding for the various Fulbright Grant programs and for Title VI
of the Eligher Education Act would also boost overseas studies and research
participation.
The Strategic Task Force on Education Abroad (2003) also recommends that
the President and Congress “[l]ook for creative ways to use existing federal grant and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
loan programs to encourage study abroad, possibly by canceling loans, lowering
interest rates, or delaying repayment for those who pursue study abroad in certain
languages and areas” (p. 11). Additionally, the federal government could use Pell
Grants, college work-study funds, and other federal financial aid to help facilitate
study abroad.
Role o f state governments. Because state economies are inextricably bound to
internationalization and because 11 of the top 15 institutions that send students
overseas are public universities (HE, 2003a), it is also in the best interest of state
governments - governors, state legislatures, and boards of regents - to adopt strong
state and higher education policies on study abroad. The Strategic Task Force on
Education Abroad (2003) cites examples of innovative programs that help promote
overseas studies, including the Regents Study Abroad Scholarship in Georgia and the
Texas international education fee.
Role o f colleges and universities. Support for study abroad must be present at
all personnel levels of the college or university, including institution presidents,
faculty across all disciplines, and staff and administration support. Institutions of
higher education must make a concerted effort to dismantle barriers to participation,
allowing all students in all degree programs to have the option of studying abroad.
Overseas studies should be encouraged for students across majors and degree
programs and should be required for students in certain fields (e.g., foreign
languages, international relations, area studies, etc.).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
Institutions must integrate study abroad options into four-year undergraduate
programs, allowing students to fulfill degree requirements overseas without delaying
graduation. Furthermore, alternatives should be available for nontraditional students.
Shorter duration programs to destinations closer to the U.S. would be viable
substitutions for semester- or year-long programs.
Hiring diverse, multilingual faculty interested in internationalization would
certainly aid in the promotion of study abroad. Moreover, faculty may be utilized in
designing, participating in, teaching, and advising study abroad programs.
Role o f the private sector. NAFSA’s Strategic Task Force on Education
Abroad (2003) discusses the influence of the private sector on study abroad.
Corporate America recognizes the importance of having an internationally competent
workforce; however, businesses’ recruitment practices tend to convey a message
“that causes students to devalue study abroad in favor of completing a full
curriculum of required courses at home” (p. 15). By truly expressing interest in
international experience, corporations would encourage students to value overseas
education. Also, collaborations between corporations and higher education
institutions, such as the Coca-Cola Foundation, American Institute for Foreign
Study, and University System of Georgia’s partnership that created the Regents
Study Abroad Scholarships, would certainly enhance access to study abroad.
Furthermore, the availability of internships abroad could easily be accommodated
through multinational corporations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
CHAPTER 4: International Students
In December 2002 six Middle Eastern male international students studying in
Colorado were arrested by the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS). The
charge? The INS reported that the men were not suspected of any violation, other
than enrolling in fewer than 12 hours of college credit (“University Plans
Workshop,” 2002). Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and
the adoption of recent immigration policies, such incidents have become not
uncommon and will have a profound and lasting impact on U.S. national security and
foreign relations.
Johnson (2003) further elaborates on one of these six cases: Despite being in
full legal status, a University of Colorado at Boulder student was arrested for
dropping his semester registration below a full course load. Under certain
circumstances, and with prior approval from an advisor, international students may
legally enroll in less than full-time studies for a semester. This stipulation was
apparently unknown to the government official in the Denver district office of the
INS, and the student was detained for 48 hours. Even after the student’s release, it
took weeks of pressure from his advisor to have officials refund the student’s $5,000
bond and retract his court summons.
Paden and Singer (2003) cite yet another perturbing example of
“Washington’s destructive new visa policies” involving international scholars. Ejaz
Haider, editor of a prominent Pakistani newspaper, was invited to attend a
conference on U.S.-Pakistan relations. On January 28, 2003, Haider, who had
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
previously visited the U.S. six times, was arrested by Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) officers outside the Brookings Institution, where he also served as a
guest scholar. He was jailed under charges of purportedly failing to “properly
register his presence in the country” when he missed a deadline to check in with the
INS. Having already registered upon arrival, Haider contended that officials at both
the State Department and INS had told him it was not necessary to check back in
with officials.
After hours of questioning, the journalist was released following State
Department intervention; however, the damage had been done. Haider declared that
he would never return to America “as long as such policies continue.” He was
quoted in The Washington Post as saying, “This is not the United States I used to
come to” (Paden & Singer, 2003, p. 8).
U.S. Immigration Policy and Changes since September 11
Before September 11, immigration policies for international students were
already rigorous. According to NAFSA (2003a), “Student visas are not - and never
have been - easy to get,” and in fiscal year 2001, 28 percent of student visa
applications were denied, with even higher rates for certain countries (p. 10).
Further complicating the visa situation for international students is the fact
that U.S. immigration laws created in the 1950s, when international student mobility
was less than a tenth of what it is now, have long become outdated. Section 214(b) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) states that, “Every alien shall be
presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
officer, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant
status...” (U.S. Department of State “Visa Denials”). In other words, those applying
for visas must prove that they do not intend to emigrate to the U.S., which becomes
particularly troublesome for students, “who are typically not yet sufficiently well
established in their societies to be able to demonstrate a likelihood of return”
(NAFSA, 2003a, p. 16). Compared to other English-speaking countries, which
authorize the use of 90-day tourist visas for international students participating in
short-term study programs, American visa regulations seem excessively stringent.
Since September 11 and the creation of the Department of Homeland
Security, immigration policies and enforcement for students have become even more
strict, occasionally resulting in high profile cases, such as those previously cited. At
best, these instances convey American paranoia to international students, scholars,
and prospective students. Ostensibly, they - coupled with visa delays and denials -
more likely communicate xenophobia and the United States’ clear disregard for the
assets which international students bring to American campuses.
According to a growing number of experts, some immigration and visa
policies for international students, particularly those for non-immigrants from
Muslim countries, have “cast a net too wide to effectively enhance security,” thereby
“fostering resentment and anger against the United States... [and] run[ning] the risk
of undermining diplomatic efforts by the U.S. government to build cooperative and
amicable international relations, particularly with Muslim and Arab countries”
(American Immigration Law Foundation, 2003, para. 1-3). What is more, while the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
situation is especially harrowing in the case of students and scholars from Arab and
Muslim countries, these messages are communicated to a much larger audience.
Visitors from all over the world, even those from countries in the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) with research grants funded by American institutions,
face visa and immigration challenges. Equally discrepant are the struggles of foreign
scholars and students interested in academic programs which “advance specific U.S.
foreign-policy objectives, like nuclear nonproliferation” (Johnson, 2003).
Naturally, the United States must protect itself from terrorist threats, and
some precautions must be taken to control the nation’s borders. Yet an overly
burdensome visa process with tight restrictions and perpetual delays, a lack of
understanding and organized communication on the part of immigration and customs
officials, and overzealous (occasionally mistaken) enforcement of policies threaten
the U.S.’s ability to build positive and productive relationships with international
students and scholars. This is a particularly precarious situation for American higher
education to be in, especially since international students currently comprise
approximately half of doctoral students in the sciences in the United States (Paden &
Singer, 2003). The deleterious indifference with which the United States approaches
our potential “reservoir of goodwill” will have profound effects on U.S. foreign
relations.
International students and scholars are perhaps the most overlooked and
underrated asset of U.S. diplomacy, and the impact of an intemationally-unfriendly
university system cannot be disregarded. Quite the contrary, in the face of growing
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
global competition for the international student market, the United States must do its
best to recruit students from around the world to come study here.
Statistics on International Students
Enrollment statistics. To understand the role of international students on U.S.
campuses, it is important to look at the numbers of foreigners studying in the United
States. Each year, the Institute of International Education (HE) publishes its Open
Doors report of statistics on international student enrollment in the U.S.
Although international educators had feared that September 11 would
negatively impact international student applications to and enrollments on U.S.
campuses, HE (2002) surprisingly found that, at the time, international student
enrollment was “steady or rising.” Nearly two-thirds of ACE’s (2002) survey of
international education professionals had seen increases or no noticeable change in
the number of international students applying to study at U.S. institutions.
In its latest report, however, IIE’s Open Doors (2003a) announced some
alarming statistics. During the 2002/2003 academic year, the number of foreign
students enrolled in U.S. institutions of higher education showed only a relatively
minor increase of 0.6 percent from the previous year, bringing the total to 586,323.
This increase of less than 1 percent represents the lowest level of growth since
1995/1996, and follows five years of steady expansion of international student
enrollment. Furthermore, during the two consecutive years preceding the 2003
report, Open Doors reported 6.4% increases (each year) in the number of
international students in U.S. institutions of higher education. This constituted the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
largest increase in the past twenty years and nearly a 30% increase in enrollments
during the eight years since 1993 (HE, 2002).
A number of warning signs ominously foreshadow yet even greater losses.
While the Institute of International Education has not yet released foreign student
enrollment data for 2003-2004 academic year, tell-tale statistics reported from
several institutions show significant decline in numbers. The Chronicle o f Higher
Education cites two recent surveys which found that “at least half of all U.S. colleges
have seen graduate-student applications from overseas drop since last fall” (Arnone,
2004, para. 4). Moreover, international student applications to take the Graduate
Record Examinations (GRE) have fallen by one-third since last fall, the Educational
Testing Service (ETS) reported. This dramatic downturn in GRE testing is extremely
disconcerting, as it signals a growing reluctance to apply to study in the U.S.
(Arnone). That is, knowing that immigration difficulties await, international students
are deciding not to apply to programs in the United States.
A number of factors have also begun to erode student enrollments in
intensive English language programs. The 51,179 international students enrolled in
English programs in 2002 were a 40 percent decrease from the 85,238 who attended
courses in the U.S. just two years prior (HE, 2003c). The greatest drops were seen in
enrollments from Saudi Arabia (69.2 percent decrease) and several Latin American
countries (Argentina: 73.5 percent, Mexico: 66.5 percent, Brazil: 60.7 percent).
These statistics clearly show that while the September 11 attacks may not
have directly dissuaded international students from coming the United States,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
subsequent reactions to those attacks have had tremendous impact on foreign student
applications to U.S. universities. There are a number of possible reasons for the
plunge in numbers of international students. In the aforementioned Latin American
countries, for example, economic and political factors have severely affected the
number of outbound students, while the drop in Middle Eastern enrollments may
involve a more complicated catalyst (Kyna, 2002). The CNN article “International
Student Enrollment Slows in U.S.” (2003) suggests that these and other international
students are “shying away from the United States because of tough immigration
rules” (para. 1). Educators seem to agree. O f the 276 educators surveyed by IIE’s
Open Doors (2003b), most respondents (59 percent) cited stringent new security and
visa application processes as the primary deterrent for international students - often
affirming that anticipation o f problems with the new visa application process may
turn away more potential international than actual visa application procedures. Some
(21 percent) attributed this to financial difficulties, while others noted increased
competition from other host countries.
Over the past two decades international student enrollment has increased by
74 percent (HE, 2003a). In only seven of the last twenty years has international
student enrollment risen less than 1 percent. These sudden drops in growth were the
result of a number of global factors, such as political unrest, economic declines,
training needs, and in-country education capacity. Unlike these past periods of low
growth, the current plunge in foreign enrollment was prompted not by external
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
circumstances, but by change in U.S. policy. Unless measures are immediately taken,
we can expect to see even greater losses in international student enrollment.
Institutions o f choice. The American Council on Education (2000) has
produced comprehensive statistical reports involving international students. In 1999,
approximately 567,000 educational visas were issued. The vast majority of these
(558,000) were FI Visas for students in academic studies, and 9,500 M l Visas were
issued for short-term vocational training. ACE reports that over 40 percent of all
international students attended research institutions: 13.5 percent at the doctoral
level, 18.6 percent at master’s/comprehensive institutions, 5.3 percent at liberal arts
colleges, 5.5 percent attended specialized institutions, and an impressive 16.7 percent
were at associate institutions (community colleges). According to ACE, 20 percent
of international students studied business and management, 14.1 percent were in
engineering, followed by 11.1 percent in mathematics and computer science, 10.3
percent in fields such as communications and law, and 8.1 percent were in fields of
social sciences.
While current data on international students in community colleges are not
yet available, a predicted overall decline in enrollments will certainly affect these
instutions. It is important to note that in the years prior to the onset of new Homeland
Security policies, there was tremendous growth in international student enrollment in
U.S. community colleges. In 2001/2002, there were 98,813 international students in
U.S. community colleges - making up approximately one-fifth of total international
student enrollments and representing a 61 percent increase since 1993 (HE, 2002). In
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
the two consecutive years prior to publication of IIE’s statistics, the number of
international students in associate institutions rose by 7 percent each year. Further
analysis of the attractiveness of community colleges may provide additional insight
into how to cultivate higher international student enrollments in institutions
throughout the U.S.
Home country. An analysis of regional demographics from the HE: Open
Doors report (2003) shows that over half (51 percent) of all international students in
the U.S. are from Asia - down from 56 percent the previous year (HE, 2002). Europe
and Latin America come in a far second and third, with 13 percent and 12 percent of
enrollments, respectively. With 7 percent of the students in the U.S., Africa overtook
the Middle East, which followed with 6 percent of student enrollment. The combined
total number of students from Middle Eastern countries dropped to 34,803 from
38,545 the previous year - representing a 10 percent decrease in one year.
Cummings (2001) notes that following Asia, the Middle East was the second largest
supplier of international students to the U.S. throughout the 1980s. The percentage of
Asian students progressively grew, and numbers of both European and Latin
American students surpassed those from the Middle East.
Looking specifically at individual countries, Open Doors reports the flow of
students from India jumped 12 percent to 74,603 students, making India the leading
country of origin for international students for two consecutive years (HE, 2003).
Last year, India saw an amazing 22 percent increase in student enrollment,
superceding even China, the previous top sender (HE, 2002). This year, China
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
remains in second place, with 64,757 students, an increase of 2 percent (HE, 2003).
With the anticipated decline in international student enrollments next fall, however,
the U.S. can expect a significant decrease in Indian and Chinese international
students. The Educational Testing Service’s statistics of applications to take the
Graduate Record Examination show a plunge in numbers of graduate students from
India and China (Arnone, 2004).
The third-leading country of origin this year was the Republic of Korea, with
51,519 students in the U.S., trailed by Japan - the top sender of students from
1995/1996 to 1998/1999 - with 45,960 students. Taiwan, Canada, Mexico (which
increased by 2 percent to 12,801 students), Turkey, Indonesia, and Thailand follow
as fifth through tenth place. Kenya also made a significant increase, rising 11 percent
to 7,862 students. Open Doors (HE, 2003) reports that: “O f the top 20 sending
countries, thirteen countries experienced a decrease in enrollment - with significant
decreases coming from Indonesia (down 10% to 10,432), Thailand (down 14% to
9,982), and Malaysia (down 11% to 6,595).” (para. 3)
Cummings (2001) contends that the flow of international students to the U.S.
is substantially influenced by such factors as the levels of trade, investment, and
technical assistance from the U.S. to a country. It is no wonder then that the
proportion of Middle Eastern international students in the U.S. has declined in the
last decade. Since September 11 trends towards limiting accessibility for students
from this key region through denials and delays have had a profound effect on
student enrollment. Evidence of this may be seen in current enrollments of Middle
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
Eastern students. HE: Open Doors (2003) reports major decreases from Middle
Eastern countries, particularly Saudi Arabia (4,175 students) and Kuwait (2,212
students), each of which fell by 25 percent, and the United Arab Emirates (1,792
students), which dropped 15 percent.
Public Attitudes Towards International Students
In looking at the policies affecting international students and scholars since
September 11, it may be useful to examine the attitudes of the American public
towards international students and their place on U.S. campuses. The American
Council on Education (2002) conducted a study, which reported strong public
support for the presence of international students in U.S. colleges and universities
and agreement that foreign students enrich the learning experience for American
students. This support, however, was “somewhat conditional.” While 25 percent of
respondents said they are more likely to support increases in the numbers of
international students, 42 percent reported being less likely to support expanding the
international student presence. The 2002 survey of American students provided
similar results: almost 90 percent of students agreed that international students
contribute to learning on campus, and nearly one-third also reported being more
likely to converse with international students since September 11. Twenty percent,
however, reported that they were less likely to support an increase in the number of
international students on campus. ACE concluded that these results showed,
curiously, that “for many students and faculty, support for the diversity that
international students and scholars bring to campus has not translated into support
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
for increasing the number of international students and scholars on their own
campuses” (p. 7).
Importance o f International Students
International students play a critical role that relates to U.S. national security
on several levels. The social and political benefits of having foreign students have
been alluded to, and these - along with institutional benefits - will be discussed
further in this section. It is necessary to also appreciate the economic significance of
international student exchange.
Revenue. The American Council on Education (2003 a) and the Institute of
International Education: Open Doors (2002) estimate that even while international
students make up over 4 percent of the United States’ total population of students in
higher education, they and their dependents contributed $12.3 billion to the country’s
economy through tuition, fees, living expenses, books and supplies, health insurance,
transportation, and related costs, helping to make U.S. higher education the country’s
fifth largest service sector export, according to Department of Commerce data.
It is particularly important to note the tremendous revenue brought into the
national, state, and local economies by international students, as well as the sources
of funds supporting their studies in the U.S. According to HE (2002), over 70 percent
of undergraduate international students pay full tuition - by no means a negligible
sum in maintaining institutions’ “financial health”. While nearly 19 percent of
international students indicated their U.S. college or university as their primary
source of funding, a significant amount of funding comes from outside of the U.S.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
Four and a half percent of international students cited their home university or
country’s government as their primary source of funds, while 67.1 percent - over
two-thirds - reported funding their education in the U.S. primarily through personal
or family funds.
Competition from other countries. For years, the United States has been able
to enjoy its position as the intuitive destination for international students; however,
the nation’s market dominance has quickly begun to unravel. The U.S.’s reputation
and status as the first choice destination of international students is now seriously
threatened and can no longer be taken for granted. According to NAFSA (2003a), the
United States has already lost almost ten percent of its share of the international
student market (from 39.2 to 30.2 percent) between the years of 1982 and 1995 - the
last year that HE analyzed international market data. Despite a marked increase in
absolute numbers of international students coming to study in the U.S. over the last
twenty years, the United States’ market share is steadily declining.
Unlike the U.S., which has largely ignored and failed to respond to the
growing competitiveness of the market, countries such as the United Kingdom,
Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, have recognized the rewards of hosting foreign
students. Attracting these students has become a national priority in these countries,
and they have adopted more aggressive strategies of recruitment. Australia, France,
and Japan, for example, have set numerical benchmarks as targets for measuring
progress in international education. Not surprisingly, even in countries where the
primary language is not English - most notably Germany, Japan, and France - we
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
see concerted efforts to attract students, including the development of programs in
English (Schneider, 2000).
In 1999 the United Kingdom made a formal national commitment to increase
its market share of international students; the Brand Report, released in that year,
called for initiatives to “shape a national higher/further education ‘identity’ and to
market that identity...” (Schneider, 2000, p.3). As part of this strategy to improve
outreach, the United Kingdom has allocated additional funds to attracting students -
five million pounds for a three-year initiative in the U.K., to be exact - and has
begun utilizing the British Council staff to train immigration officials and assist with
the student visa process (Schneider).
Australia has also shored up recruitment efforts, including the creation of
convenient and student-friendly “one-stop shopping” online resources to facilitate
study in Australia. Schneider (2000) notes that an invitation to foreign students to
study in Australia is the first image on the Australian Department of Immigration and
Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) website. The country’s efforts (aided by the U.S. post-
9/11 visa restrictions) have certainly paid off, as international students increasingly
flock to Australia. The Chronicle o f Higher Education (Bollag, 2004) reports that in
2003 academic year, roughly 167,000 foreign students studied in Australia, an
impressive 16.5 percent higher than the previous year. Of these, roughly 32,000
students were from China (a 20 percent increase from the previous year), comprising
the largest group of international students in Australia. Furthermore, the number of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
students from India and South Korea in Australia jumped by 27 percent and 19
percent, respectively. Compare these statistics to the United States’ 0.6 percent
increase in total foreign student enrollment, two percent increase in students from
China, 12 percent increase from India, and five percent increase from South Korea,
and it becomes glaringly obvious that the U.S. is losing its market dominance.
Unless changes in American immigration are made, further loss of students
will be inevitable. One such post-9/11 security program was National Security Entry-
Exit Registration System (NSEERS). The program required men, including guest
students and scholars, from 25 countries (mostly Arab and Muslim) to register with
the U.S. federal government upon entrance to the U.S. and periodically during their
stay. In December 2003, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security decided to
suspend these requirements, which had received much criticism from Muslim and
Arab groups; however, the damage had already been done and many problems
continue to dissuade foreign students from studying in the U.S. (Arnone, 2003). The
growing numbers of anecdotes of visa delays, immigration detentions, and student
arrests since September 11 send messages of xenophobia and inhospitableness in the
United States, further pushing potential visiting students towards other, more
student-friendly options.
Institutional and Social Benefits. In light of the prodigious revenue that
international students provide U.S. higher education, their role as cultural resources
and a critical element of campus internationalization may sometimes be overlooked.
By studying in the U.S., these students have the potential to serve as ambassadors of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
their countries, contributing diversity and meaningful educational benefits to U.S.
campuses. They are often “the first opportunity that many Americans have for close
and extensive contacts with foreigners,” making them an important component for
campus internationalization and educating U.S. students (Johnson, 2003, para. 3).
Furthermore, foreign students “fill perennially under-enrolled science courses that
colleges would otherwise find difficult to offer.” Johnson contends that “American
graduate education could not function without foreign students,” because
international graduate students are becoming increasingly indispensable as teachers
and researchers on U.S. campuses, especially in science classrooms and laboratories
(para. 3).
While the number of foreign students in U.S. colleges and universities is
expected to sharply decline in the next year, enrollment has in recent years reached
record levels. Institutions must make a concentrated effort to help integrate the
international students by facilitating interaction with domestic students. The presence
of international students may help to enrich the education and cross-cultural
competence of American students; however, this may only reach its full educational
potential if domestic and international students interact in- and outside of the
classroom.
A number of institutions have also begun utilizing international students in
educating their local communities. One such noteworthy effort to bring international
education to communities surrounding higher education institutions takes place at
Appalachian State University in North Carolina. There, international students and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
scholars hold workshops for K-12 teacher development, provide cultural lessons in
local classrooms, and host Model United Nations Assemblies for high school
students (Williamsen, 2003).
Political benefits. Hubert Vedrine, France’s Minister of Foreign Affairs,
admits that the power of the United States stems from our ability to
.. .inspire the dreams and desires of others, thanks to the mastery of global
images through film and television and because, for these same reasons, large
numbers of students from other countries come to the United States to finish
their studies (Nye, 2002, p. 9).
Yet, events of the past several years have revealed “.. .our nation’s inability,
despite its profound mastery of world media and marketing techniques, to get its own
message out effectively to hundreds of millions of Muslims across Asia, the Near
East, and North Africa” (Collins & Davidson, 2002, p. 52). It is exactly for this
reason that the U.S. must welcome international students.
Through their presence on U.S. college or university campuses, international
students inherently serve as ambassadors from their home countries, educating
American students informally through social interactions, as well as formally in
classrooms as teaching assistants. The role of international students in promoting
security in the U.S. and internationally is often overlooked, particularly with the
current administration’s emphasis on hard power. As Joseph Nye (2002) writes, “We
must also remember the growing role of soft power in this global information age. It
matters that half a million foreign students want to study in the United States each
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
year... Our values are significant sources of soft power” (p. 140). There are great
incentives to expose international students to American values and culture.
In terms of cultural diplomacy, international students actually serve a dual
role. In addition to representing their home countries while in the U.S., they also act
as cultural diplomats of the United States to their countries when they return home.
Joseph Nye (2002) notes the salience of American culture and values as soft power:
The values our government champions in its behavior at home (for example,
democracy), in international institutions (listening to others), and in foreign
policy (promoting peace and human rights) also affect the preference of
others. We can attract (or repel) others by the influence of our example” (p.
11).
Students trained in the U.S. gain in-depth exposure to American society,
values, and policies, and may develop a greater understanding of market economies
or of our multicultural democracy. More often than not, they cultivate strong
personal ties with American friends, as well as ties to the nation. Clearly, to be able
to host and educate international students is “to have an opportunity to shape the
future leaders who will guide the political and economic development of their
countries” and ultimately to invest in the security of the U.S. (NAFSA, 2003b).
Conversely, limiting access to U.S. colleges and universities for international
students - particularly students from those key regions where cultural diplomacy is
most sorely needed - jeopardizes foreign relations. Johnson (2003) states, “There is
today a clear and present danger that some of the well-intended actions that the
United States is taking in response to those events will make it more difficult, not
less, to build a safer world” (para.l).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
As a consequence, there has been a growing clamor of bipartisan support for
scholarly, professional, and student exchanges - particularly for those that bring
influential (or likely-to-become-influential) foreign citizens to be trained in the
United States. Students who attend colleges and universities in the U.S. are among
the best and brightest from their countries, and they are potential leaders - globally
and in their fields of study. Reed (1998) reports, for example, that in China,
individuals returning from overseas education more rapidly advanced in their
professions, particularly in areas of research and administration. What is more,
history has shown that many past international students, after leaving the U.S. for
their home country, have become prominent leaders or policy-makers.
Gliozzo (2002) points out that 46 current and 165 former heads of
government and chiefs of state in foreign countries, as well as over 40 Nobel Prize
honorees, have had some education in the United States. The U.S. Department of
State “Foreign Student Yesterday, World Leaders Today” website lists 172 world
leaders who had received at least part of their education in the United States,
including: Kofi Annan, U.N. Secretary General; Gloria Arroyo, President of the
Philippines; King Abdullah, King of Jordan; Jacques Chirac, President of France;
Abel Pacheco, President of Costa Rica; Prince Saud Faisal, Minister of Foreign
Affairs in Saudi Arabia; and Vicente Fox, President of Mexico. Additionally, if one
considers all of the educators, scientists, business people, and government officials
who have studied in the United States, this constitutes an even larger “reservoir of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
goodwill” for our country. U.S. national security and foreign policy stand to profit
significantly from training successive generations of international leaders.
Recommendations fo r change
Acknowledging the critical role international students play U.S. national
security - for economic, educational, and political reasons - it is imperative that the
U.S. government reexamine our immigration policies and enforcement and strive to
promote U.S. higher education abroad. Concerns about terrorists entering the U.S.
under the auspices of international student status are indeed valid. Yet, as NAFSA
(2003a) points out, “that danger exists with respect to all nonimmigrant visitors, of
which students constitute only a miniscule two percent” (p. 5). Immediate security
concerns require that we screen potential students; however, long-term national
interests dictate that the presence of international students on U.S. campuses cannot
be jeopardized.
In August 2002, Secretary of State Colin Powell said:
I see the benefits of international education every day. ... In my daily
activities I encounter world leaders - from Kofi Arman to Hamid Karzai -
who participated in an exchange program or studied here or abroad. ...
People-to-people diplomacy, created through international education and
exchanges, is critical to our national interests.
Recruitment and support. The United States must develop a national policy
formally recognizing the importance of international students for U.S. national
interest and then articulate a comprehensive strategic plan for recruitment of
international students. NAFSA: Association of International Educators recommends
the development of a formal mission and mandate to promote U.S. higher education
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
overseas through collaborations among the U.S. Departments of State, Commerce,
and Education (NAFSA, 2003a). Additional funding should be provided to the 450
overseas education advising centers of the Department of State, which currently
operate on a “shoestring budget of some $3 million a year” to “help to leverage $12
billion of foreign student spending in the U.S. economy by serving as the initial
gateway for people inquiring about study in the United States” (p. 13). Recruitment
would also be more effective and efficient following revamping of the organizational
structures of those offices in the Department of Commerce responsible for attracting
international students. A role must also be defined for the Department of Education,
similar to the positions of Ministries of Education in other countries.
Part of recruitment involves a marketing strategy that would communicate a
“clear, consistent message about U.S. higher education... that the United States can
provide a high-quality educational opportunity for everyone, even if they have
limited financial means” (NAFSA, 2003a, p. 23). A user-friendly and comprehensive
on-line resource should also be created to help interested students navigate and
understand the complex system of U.S. higher education.
Immigration barriers and visa screening. American legislation and
immigration policy must be updated to fit the needs of the 21st century. Indisputably,
the U.S. government must maintain some regulation of the flow of immigrants and
visitors; however, in the post-September 11 era of terror alerts and dirty bomb scares,
“it is too easy to carry that consensus to its illogical conclusion: The more barriers,
the better” (NAFSA, 2003a, p. 15). In reality, if international exchanges between the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
U.S. and other countries are to succeed and grow, excessive visa and immigration
barriers must be adjusted. The damage done by such policies will be long-standing.
Furthermore, policies implemented after September 11 disproportionately
impact students and visitors from Arab and Muslim countries and threaten the future
of exchanges with this region of the world. The U.S. government’s highly restrictive
regulations and overzealous enforcement of these policies convey a message of
xenophobia to international students and scholars. Incidents, such as the arrests of
visiting students and scholars, communicate to these future leaders and policy
makers (and potential allies and supporters of American values) that they are not
welcome in the U.S. As Paden and Singer (2003) note, “A huge source of goodwill is
thus being squandered, at precisely the time when the United States needs it most”
(p. 9). The denial of exchange opportunities to students and scholars from key
countries, where lack of cultural diplomacy and isolation contribute to terrorism, will
have profound effects on U.S. relations with this region. Indeed, that would be
nothing less than short-sighted. Those students, who we educate now, may be those
leaders with whom we later negotiate foreign policy issues and build partnerships
and alliances.
It is also imperative that visa issuance and screening for non-threatening
populations must be made easier, thus allowing consular administrators to more
effectively allocate their time and energy to potentially problematic cases. NAFSA
(2003a) suggests improving funding for the State Department’s consular affairs,
creating partnerships with the higher education community, and utilizing the State
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
Department’s overseas education advising centers in the visa screening process.
Furthermore, implementation of a “rational student monitoring system” and
strengthening interagency cooperation and communication among all offices that
work with international students and scholars would help prevent potentially
embarrassing and damaging incidents.
Lowering the cost o f study in the U.S. While U.S. colleges and universities
are recognized abroad as providing the highest quality education, the great cost of
institutions in America is a deterrent for many potential guest students. It is,
therefore, important that innovative measures be taken to defray some of the costs.
Some form of financial aid, provided at the national and/or state level through the
government, colleges and universities, foreign governments, and the private sector,
should be made available to international students through the expansion of private
loans, tuition exchange programs, and scholarship programs. NAFSA (2003a)
suggests that while most financial aid recommendations would “entail minimal or no
cost to the public treasury... a strong case can be made for publicly funded
scholarship programs targeted at countries or regions where they would serve a
strong U.S. foreign policy interest” (p. 21). Funds, such as those from the U.S.
Agency for International Development, should support countries or regions (e.g.,
Africa) that simply cannot afford the cost of higher education in the U.S.
Incorporating international students. Finally, once international students are
on U.S. campuses, every effort must be made to integrate them into life on campus
and to promote interaction (in and out of the classroom) with domestic students and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
the local community. A number of institutions have models of programs that
facilitate such interaction, for example, utilizing international students in educating
the local communities through teacher workshops and cultural lessons in local
classrooms (Williamsen, 2003).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
CHAPTER 5: Conclusions
Since the end of the Cold War, the nature of national security has undergone
dramatic changes. During the four decade standoff between the United States and the
Soviet Union, the threat of nuclear annihilation led to a Realist approach to security
and the build up of military hard power. With the conclusion of the Cold War, the
nature of national security has changed to include a broader range of threats and
concerns. Consequently, the United States’ strategies for maintaining security must
also evolve.
The attacks of September 11 and other modern concerns of American interest
show that military strength is no longer sufficient to guarantee security. While
necessary for maintaining global stability, military strength alone will only have a
limited effect on many of the modem threats to national and international security.
This is especially true in many parts of the world (i.e., the Middle East, Asia, Africa,
Latin America), where the effects of globalization can either contribute greatly to
economic advancement and the spread of democracy, or buffet nations and lead to
growing anti-Americanism. According to Joseph Nye (2002):
Power in the twenty-first century will rest on a mix of hard and soft
resources. No country is better endowed than the United States in all three
dimensions - military, economic, and soft power. Our greatest mistake in
such a world would be to fall into one-dimensional analysis and to believe
that investing in military power alone will ensure our strength (p. 12).
The current situation of international relations demands that we strengthen
and utilize nonmilitary, soft power approaches, which are critical in today’s
interdependent world. The pace of global competition is quickening, and the future
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
of America’s economic strength lies in our ability to understand and communicate
with the rest of the world. Moreover, the most effective (yet neglected) strategies for
promoting positive relations between the United States and other countries lie within
the cultural diplomacy promoted through educational exchange.
There is much work to be done to combat America’s image problem and our
frightening collective ignorance of world affairs. Acknowledgement of the
importance of international experience continues to grow, and with it, the demand
for international education also rises. In the interest of national security, a concerted,
national effort must be made on all fronts, on the part of the federal, state, and local
governments and institutions of higher education, to create the “scholarly
infrastructure” of international education. Policymakers on all levels must make
international education a priority: they must articulate policies that reflect the urgent
need for a globally literate population and for hosting successive generations of
international leaders, and they must provide appropriate resources and support for
achieving such goals. Limited budgets make it difficult for Congress to prioritize
funding; however, the U.S. must invest in long-term strategies before the nation
reaches another crisis for which it is unprepared.
Preparation for global citizenship must begin at an early age. Yet while it is
important for primary and secondary education to help foster international awareness
in our children, colleges and universities remain the most essential and practical
route for internationalization. The U.S. higher education system produces the
policymakers, educators, and leaders who most acutely require international
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
knowledge. Furthermore, the strength of the U.S. colleges and universities attracts
hundreds of thousands of international scholars and students each year, making these
institutions the ideal arena for cultural diplomacy. Through internationalized
curricula, language learning, and promoting overseas studies by U.S. students, the
United States will be more able to navigate life in the international context.
Additionally, the nation must reexamine its immigration policies for international
students and scholars, making it easier for (indeed, recruiting) international students
to come study in the U.S.
America urgently needs to make changes in the way it prepares its
citizens for an increasingly interconnected world. We can no longer afford to
remain ignorant and insular, particularly at a time when the nation faces war on
two fronts: the administration’s hard power War on Terror and the ongoing, soft
power “War for Hearts and Minds.” Thus, the wisdom of former Senator J.
William Fulbright seems to best summarize the importance of internationalized
education:
Education is a slow-moving but powerful force. It may not be fast enough
or strong enough to save us from catastrophe, but it is the strongest force
available for that purpose, and its proper place, therefore, is not at the
periphery but at the center of international relations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alagappa, M. (1998). Rethinking Security: A Critical Review and Appraisal of the
Debate. In M. Alagappa (Ed.), Asian Security Practice: Material and
Ideational Influences. Stanford University Press: Stanford, California.
American Council on Education (2004). Bush budget shortchanges higher education.
Retrieved March 1, 2004 from ACE Web site: http://www.acenet.edu/hena/
readArticle.cfm?articleID=466
American Council on Education (2003a). INS: Student small percentage of visa total.
Higher Education and National Affairs, 50 (18), Article 100801fib. Retrieved
July 9, 2003, from http://www.acenet.edu/resources/HigherEdFacts/
facts_in_brief/2001/10 08_01 fib. cfm
American Council on Education (2003b). International student enrollment growth
declines, study finds. Retrieved July 1, 2003 from ACE Web site:
http://www.acenet.edu/hena/readArticle.cfm?articleID=200
American Council on Education (2002). One Year Later: Attitudes about
International Education Since September 11. Retrieved July 1, 2003 from
ACE Web site: http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/pdf/2002_one-year-later.pdf
American Council on Education (2000). Preliminary Status Report 2000:
Internationalization o f US Higher Education. Retrieved July 1, 2003 from
ACE Web site: http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/pdf/2000-intl-report.pdf
American Immigration Law Foundation (2003). Foreign policy fallout: Assessing the
risks o f Post-September 11 immigration policies. Retrieved July 17, 2003,
from American Immigration Law Foundation Web site: http://www.ailf.org/
ipc/policy_reports_2003_fallout.asp
Arnone, M. (2004, March 12). Security at home creates insecurity abroad. The
Chronicle o f Higher Education. Retrieved March, 31, 2004 from Chronicle of
Higher Education Web site: http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v50/i27/
27a02101.htm
Bachner, D. (2000). Study Abroad: A Summary. AAC&UPeer Review, 3(1), p. 8-12.
Bollag, B. (2004, March 19). Australia sees surge in foreign students. The Chronicle
o f Higher Education. Retrieved March, 31, 2004 from Chronicle of Higher
Education Web site: http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v50/i28/28a04001.htm
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
Bowen, R.W. (2000). Realizing global education: An immodest proposal. Journal o f
Studies in International Education, 4 (2), 69-76.
Bush, G.W. (2004, February 2). Budget o f the United States government: Fiscal year
2005. Retrieved May 27, 2004 from White House Web site:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/index.html
Buzan, B., Wasver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A new framework for
analysis. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Carlson, J., Bum, B., Useem, J., & Yachimowicz, D. (1990). Study Abroad: The
experience o f American undergraduates. Greenwood Press: New York.
Carlson, J. & Widaman, K. (1988). The effects of study abroad during college on
attitudes towards other cultures. International Journal o f Intercultural
Relations, 12 (1), 1-17.
Chieffo, L. and Griffiths, L. (2003). What’s a month worth? Student perceptions of
what they learned abroad. International Educator, 12 (4), 26-31.
Clinton, W. (2000, April 19). Memorandum fo r the heads o f executive departments
and agencies. Retrieved July 14, 2003 from NAFSA: Association of
International Educators Web site:
http://www.nafsa.org/content/PublicPolicy/USIntlEdPolicy/041900.htm
Collins, N., & Davidson, D. (2002). From the margin to the mainstream: Innovative
approaches to internationalizing education for a new century. Change: The
Magazine o f Higher Learning, 34 (5), 50-58.
Cronin, R.P. (2001). Asian Economies: the Dynamics of Progress. In R.L. Kugler &
E.L. Frost (Eds.), The Global Century: Globalization and National Security,
Volume II. Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press.
Cummings, W. (2001). Current challenges o f international education. Washington,
DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED464523)
Cummings, W. (2000). Transnationalism and Transnational Competence. In J.N.
Hawkins & W.K. Cummings (Eds.), Transnational Competence: Rethinking
the US-Japan Educational Relationship. State University of New York Press:
NY.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
Cyberspace attacks threaten national security, CIA chief says. (1996, June 25). CNN.
Retrieved July 23, 2003 from CNN Web site: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/
9606/25/comp.security/
Engberg, D.E., & Green, M.F. (2002). Promising practices: Spotlighting excellence
in comprehensive internationalization. Washington DC: American Council
on Education.
Falk, R. & Kanach, N.A. (2000). Globalization and Study Abroad: An Illusion of
Paradox. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal o f Study Abroad, 6, pp.
155-168.
Flanagan, S.J. (2001). Meeting the Challenges of the Global Century. In R.L. Kugler
& E.L. Frost (Eds.), The Global Century: Globalization and National
Security, Volume II. Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press.
Florini, A.M., & Simmons, P.J. (1998). North America. In P.B. Stares (1998), The
new security agenda: A global survey, (pp. 23-74). New York, NY: Japan
Center for International Exchange.
Fulbright, J.W. (1981). On foreign language and international studies and federal
legislation [Electronic version]. Association o f Departments o f Foreign
Languages Bulletin, 3, 1-3.
Gliozzo, C. (2002). An agenda for international education. IIENetworker, Fall 2002,
16-19.
Graseck, S. (1993/ Teaching foreign policy in the post-Cold War era. Bloomington,
IN: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED363569).
Hayward, F.M., & Siaya, L.M. (2001). Public experience, attitudes, and knowledge:
A report on two national surveys about international education. Washington
DC: ACE.
Hensley, T.R., & Sell, D.K. (1979). A study abroad program: An examination of
impacts on student activities. Teaching Political Science, 6, 387-411.
Herron, C.A. (1985). Foreign language and international studies high schools.
Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED276307)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
Hines, M.E. (2003). Foreign language curriculum concerns in times of conflict. The
Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 70 (I), 15-21.
Hirsch, M. (2002). Bush and the World. Foreign Affairs, 81 (5), 18-43.
House Budget Committee Democratic Staff (2004, March 2). House Budget
Committee Democratic Staff analysis: Administration’ s $25 billion request
fo r Iraq and Afghanistan operations will cover only a fraction o f fiscal year
2005 costs. Retrieved May 27, 2004 from U.S. House of Representatives
Web site: http://www.house.gov/budget_democrats/analyses/war_cost.pdf
Institute of International Education (2003a). Open Doors 2003. Retrieved December
12, 2003, from HE: Open Doors Web site: http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/
Institute of International Education (2003b). Foreign student enrollment growth
slows in fall 2003, According to HE Survey. Retrieved December 12, 2003,
from HE: Open Doors Web site: http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/
Institute of International Education (2003c). Intensive English programs 2003.
Retrieved April 27, 2004, from HE: Open Doors Web site:
http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/
Institute of International Education (2002/ Open Doors 2002. Retrieved July 13,
2003, from HE: Open Doors Web site: http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/
International student enrollment slows in U.S. (2003, November 3). CNN. Retrieved
December 12, 2003 from CNN Web site: http://www.cnn.com/2003/
EDU CATION/11 /03 /foreign, students, ap/
Johnson, V. (2003, April 11). The perils of homeland security: When we hinder
foreign students and scholars, we endanger our national security. The
Chronicle o f Higher Education, p. B7. Retrieved July, 9, 2003 from
Chronicle of Higher Education Web site: http://chronicle.com/free/v49/
i31/3 lb00701.htm
Juhasz, A., & Walker, A. (1988). The impact of study abroad on university students’
self-esteem and self-efficacy. College Student Journal, 22 (4), 329-341.
Kauffmann, N.L., Martin, J.N., Weaver, H.D, & Weaver, J. (1992). Students Abroad:
Strangers at Home. Intercultural Press: Yarmouth, ME.
Kyna, R. (2002). Global engangement: U.S. educational exchanges one year after.
International Educator, 11 (4), 18-23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
Lane, K. (2003, December 18). Report, educators call for more study abroad
programs. Black Issues in Higher Education, 20 (22), 11-12.
Laubscher, M. (1994). Encounters with Difference: Student Perceptions o f the Role
o f out-of-class Experiences in Education Abroad. Greenwood Press:
Westport, Connecticut.
Masuyama, K. (2000). Foreign language education. In J.N. Hawkins & W.K.
Cummings (Eds.), Transnational Competence: Rethinking the US-Japan
Educational Relationship, (pp. 41-55). New York: State University of New
York Press.
McKeown, J. (2003). The effects of September 11 on study abroad student interest
and concern: An exploratory study. International Education, 32 (2), 85-95.
Mickel, Stanley L. (2000). Asian Language Study in Liberal Arts Colleges. In S.
Barnett & V.J. Symons (Eds.), Asia in the Undergraduate Curriculum: A
case fo r Asian studies in the Liberal Arts Education. New York: M.E.
Sharpe.
NAFSA. (2003a). In Am erica’ s interest: Welcoming international students: Report
o f the Strategic Task Force on International Student Access. Retrieved July,
9, 2003, from NAFSA: Association of International Educators Web site:
http://www.nafsa.org/content/PublicPolicy/stf/InAmericasInterestWelcoming
International Students .pdf
NAFSA. (2003b). Toward an international education policy for the United States:
International education in an age o f globalism and terrorism. Retrieved July,
9, 2003, from NAFSA: Association of International Educators Web site:
http://www.nafsa.org/content/PublicPolicy/USIntlEdPolicy/NIEP2003update
FINAL.pdf
NAFSA. (2000). Toward an international education policy fo r the United States: A
white paper fo r the President-elect’ s transition team. Retrieved July 9, 2003
from NAFSA: Association of International Educators Web site:
http://www.nafsa.org/content/PublicPolicy/USIntlEdPolicy/NAFSAAlliance
whitepaper.pdf 2000, December 12
National Geographic (2002). National Geographic-Roper 2002 global geographic
literacy survey. Retrieved May 19, 2004 from National Geographic Web site:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/geosurvey/
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
National Virtual Translation Center (No date). Our mission. Retrieved May 27, 2004
from NVTC Web site: http://www.nvtc.gov/ourmission.htm
New Sasser version may be circulating. (2004, May 10). CNN. Retrieved May 19,
2004 from CNN Web site: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/intemet/
05/10/computer. worm.ap/index.html
Nye, J. (2002). The Paradox o f American Power: Why the World’ s only Superpower
can’ t go it Alone. New York: Oxford University Press
Parisi, J.J. (2001, May 1). 18th Annual Congress-Bundestag Seminar Report.
Retrieved December 8, 2002 from the United States Association of Former
Members of Congress Web site: http://www.usafmc.org/
default. asp?pagenumber=22.
Paden, J.N., & Singer, P.W. (2003). America slams the door (on its foot):
Washington’s destructive new visa policies. Foreign Affairs, 82 (3), 8-14.
Peterson, P.G. (2002). Public Diplomacy and the War on Terrorism. Foreign Affairs,
81 (5), 74-94.
Powell, C. (2002, August). Statement on International Education Week 2002.
Retrieved December 8, 2002 from United States Department of State Web
site: http://exchanges.state.gov/iew2002/statements/powell.htm
Pufahl, I., Rhodes, N.C., & Christian, D. (2001). What we can learn from foreign
language teaching in other countries. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse
on Languages and Linguistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
EDO-FL-01-06)
Reed, Linda A. (1998). Education in the People's Republic o f China and US-China
educational exchanges. National Association for Foreign Student Affairs:
Washington DC.
Rodgers, P. (2000). Losing Control: Global Security in the Twenty-first Century.
Pluto Press: London, England.
Sanders, T., & Stewart, V. (2003). International knowledge: Let’s close the gap.
Education Week, 22(38), 44.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
Schneider, M. (2000). Others ’ open doors: How other nations attract international
students: Implications fo r US educational exchange. Retrieved July 15, 2003,
from Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Web site: http://exchanges.state.gov/iep/execsummary.pdf
Schoorman, D. (1999). The pedagogical implications of diverse conceptualizations
of internationalization: A US-based case study. Journal o f Studies in
International Education, 3(2), 19-46.
Simon, P. (2001, October 23). Beef up the country's foreign language skills. The
Washington Post. Retrieved March 1, 2003 from Washington Post Web site:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-
dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A36489-2001 Oct22
Stares, P.B. (Ed.). (1998). The new security agenda: A global survey. New York,
NY: Japan Center for International Exchange.
Steinbrunner, J.D. (2000). Principles o f global security. Washington DC: Brooking
Institution Press.
Strategic Task Force on Education Abroad (2003). Securing Am erica’ s future:
Global education fo r a global age. Retrieved December 12, 2003 from
NAFSA: Association of International Educators Web site:
http://www.nafsa.org/content/PublicPolicy/stf/STFEAreport.pdf
Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security of the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence on Counterterrorism (2001). Counterterrorism
intelligence capabilities and performance prior to 9-11: A report to the
Speaker o f the House o f Representatives and the Minority Leader. Retrieved
July 1, 2003 from Findlaw Web site: http://news.fmdlaw.com/hdocs/docs/
terrorism/hsintl71702thsrpt.pdf
Symonides, J., & Volodin, V. (1995). Concept and New Dimensions of Security:
Introductory Remarks. Non-Military Aspects o f International Security: Peace
and Conflict Issues. UNESCO Publishing: Paris, France, pp.12-14.
Trafficking victims in U.S. may be at 17,000 a year. (2004, May 18). CNN.
Retrieved May 19, 2004 from CNN Web site: http://www.cnn.com/2004/
LAW/05/18/human.trafficking.ap/index.html
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
Ullman, R. (1983). Redefining Security, International Security, 8(1), 129-153.
United States Department of Education (2000, November). Learning Without Limits:
An Agenda fo r the Office o f Postsecondary Education. Retrieved July 9, 2003
from U.S. Department of Education Web site: http://www.ed.gov/offices/
OPE/AgenProj/report/ AgendaProjectReport.pdf
United States Department of State (n.d.). Foreign student yesterday world leaders
today. Retrieved July 15, 2003, from Bureau of Educational and Cultural
Affairs, U.S. Department of State Web site: http://exchanges.state.gov/
education/educationusa/leaders.htm
United States Department of State (n.d.). Visa denials. Retrieved May 30, 2004 from
Department of State Web site: http://travel.state.gov/visadenials.html
University plans workshop after INS arrests. (2002, December 14). CNN. Retrieved
July 14, 2003 from CNN Web site: http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/
12/29/ins.student.arrests.ap/
Walt, Stephen M. (1991). The Renaissance of Security Studies, International Studies
Quarterly, 55(2).
Ward, D. (2003, April 23). Testimony on F Y 2003 appropriations fo r the
Departments o f Labor, HHS and Education. Retrieved May 20, 2004 from
NAFSA: Association of International Educators Web site:
http://www.nafsa.org/content/publicpolicy/NAFSAontheIssues/H_Testimony
_FY_03_Appro.htm
Williamsen, M. (2002). Campus case studies: Appalachian State University. In D.E.
Engberg & M.F. Green (2002), Promising practices: Spotlighting excellence
in comprehensive internationalization (pp. 21-29). Washington DC: ACE.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Disparity of power: The United States engagement with Korea

PDF

The success and failure of the Arusha Declaration and Education for Self-Reliance in Tanzania

PDF

The social and cultural impact of life in the United States on overseas Japanese children

PDF

Educational opportunism as the traditional policy of the South Caucasian international schools

PDF

Internationalization of higher education: A case study of a private United States research university

PDF

Los Angeles and the debate about international students: Why we should care and what we should do

PDF

Redefining the myth of "model minorities". The gradual emergence of Asian students in vocational programs at community colleges: A phenomenon in higher education

PDF

Ethnic mobilization and United States national interest: Cuban, Irish, and Jewish lobbies and American foreign policy

PDF

Survey of employers in the field of aging: Implications for gerontological education

PDF

The Hapa Student Community: The creation of a multiracial student organization and its impact on identity

PDF

The academic needs and satisfaction of Russian-speaking students in the Los Angeles City College

PDF

The Ukrainization of primary and secondary education: Advances and challenges

PDF

Cultural adjustment of Japanese international students

PDF

Augusto Cesar Sandino's political thought and its impact on the Sandinista National Liberation Front

PDF

Childbirth customs as women's culture: A jurisprudential argument for protection under international and American legal norms

PDF

Austronesian voyaging from Taiwan: Cultivating Amis folk songs on the international stage

PDF

Higher education reforms in Belarus: Initial goals and results in the context of globalization and internationalization of higher education

PDF

Engaging Latino families parents in their children's educations

PDF

The role of culture as a social construct in learning Korean as a heritage language

PDF

A longitudinal analysis of word decoding and reading comprehension in a bilingual population

Asset Metadata

Creator Hong, Hai (author)

Core Title International education: Implications for United States national security

School Graduate School

Degree Master of Science

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, bilingual and multicultural,education, higher,OAI-PMH Harvest,political science, international law and relations

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-321554

Unique identifier UC11337105

Identifier 1424244.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-321554 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 1424244.pdf

Dmrecord 321554

Document Type Thesis

Rights Hong, Hai

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA