The more I look at Title VI and HR 3077, the more leery I am of the BFC taking a position on the bill. We don't want to be in the position of endorsing politicized funding procedures-- as the status quo may well be--- just because the politicized decisionmakers are university professors instead of elected officials, or because the funding is private funding from Saudi Arabia instead of public funding from Washington D.C. Unless you are confident that you know which side is right, you should be cautious about voting for this resolution.
The most useful articles I've found in the past few days are:
Diane Jones, director of the Office of Government Affairs at Princeton University (December 2003). On what the bill actually says.
Kramer facts on placement of Title VI centers, with an emphasis on how the program is not generating much foreign language expertise or many government employees.
"Learning the Language: Title VI is in Need of Reform" Kenneth D. Whitehead (1980's administrator of Title VI) (January 14, 2004). Good on administrative procedures.
The NYU Title VI center's involvement in a boycott of universities in Israel
Stanley Kurtz (2004) on African Studies, shunning of Wisconsin.
The 2002 article from The Chronicle of Higher Education on African Studies.
Ford Foundation report on African Studies.
Relevant websites of those against H.R. 3077 are:
"National Security Education Program: Who's Setting the agenda?" by David Wiley (old-1994?-- but it shows the attitude and is relevant to the boycott claims of Kurtz).
ACE Talking Points Refuting Stanley Kurtz's Attack On HEA-Title VI Area Centers
Motion of the Association of African Studies Programs, March 31, 1993
African Studies Association Ethical Guidelines:
A comprehensive collection of journalism on the topic is at: this list of links on HR 3077.
Opponents are trying to portray HR 3077 as an attempt to suppress leftwing views in universities. Look at the details, and you will see that that is not what is going on. Rather, proponents of H.R. 3077 argue that the current funding reviewers, the leading scholars in the field, want to use government money for their own scholarly interests rather than for what the government wants. Sometimes those scholars are biased against U.S. foreign policy in a way strong enough for one to suspect they would not fund scholars with opposite views, and they discourage students from working for the government, both of which make it odd for the government to entrust them with unmonitored authority in deciding which scholars get funds and which do not.
When the leading scholarly associations have a longstanding policy of
discouraging students from accepting scholarship money from the defense
department (see note 1 below), why does
it make sense to allow
the people who run those
associations to decide which universities do and don't get Title VI
funds, which are supposed to help create expertise useful for U.S.
foreign policy? After all, this isn't NSF or NEH money, meant purely to advance
scholarly knowledge.
But HR 3077 is actually extremely mild. All it calls for is an advisory
board, with no power over funding, only the power to criticize
decisions.
Apparently, there used to be an advisory board for Title VI (see note
2 below). Did it
suppress academic freedom? Not that anybody is saying now.
On the other hand, there are claims that in some areas, academic freedom is being
suppressed by Title VI Centers themselves-- or, more precisely, by important faculty
at the
centers. These include shunning of the University of Wisconsin for accepting defense
department scholarships and a call to boycott universities in Israel.
I cannot resist including one excerpt by an opponent of HR 3077 that if true, proves
that the Near East Studies centers, at least, are biased. From the
ACE
talking points against Stanley Kurtz:
Note 1. From Motion
of the Association of African Studies Programs, March 31, 1993
Kurtz's characterizations of U.S. Middle East scholars at centers receiving federal
funding as "anti-American" and as "those most determined to undermine American foreign
policy" are undocumented and completely false. He does not offer a single example among
such scholars, which is not surprising, because there are none.
There must, of course be some good U.S. Middle East scholars who are
anti-American and hostile to U.S. foreign policy. Thus, if ACE is correct and the
Title VI centers have excluded those scholars, those centers must be heavily
politicized in
the *pro*-American direction. This is just as unscholarly as politicization
in the opposite direction, and would confirm the need for an advisory board to curb what
ACE is claiming is the
monolithic pro-State-Department, pro-Israel position of the Title VI centers.
We, the members of the Association of African Studies Programs (AASP) at
our 1993 Spring Annual Meeting, unanimously join the African Studies
Association, Middle East Studies Assocation, the Latin American Studies
Association, the South Asian Council of the SSRC, the Association of
Concerned Africa Scholars, the Association of Asian Studies, the Boards
of the Social Science Research Council and American Council of Learned
Societies, and other scholars in seeking to separate foreign language
and area studies in the United States from military, intelligence, and
other security agency priorities and programs. (back to text)
Note 2. From Learning the
Language: Title VI is in Need of Reform by Kenneth D. Whitehead
(January 14, 2004):
One of the most important tools at my disposal was a board. No, the idea
of a Title VI board isn't new, and long ago there was such a board. I
know: I was its ex officio executive director for years. The old board
conducted surveys that effectively monitored the functioning of the
Title VI program. It also helped set priorities for language study, and
made recommendations on award criteria for grants. I found the board an
invaluable tool in helping me to honor congressional intent. It was a
mistake to disband it, and establishing a new one is a necessity.
(back to text)