In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Occasions such as this fiftieth anniversary are times to remind ourselves of the roots and aspirations of the transformative legislation that we refer to as Title VI. The funding that began as a result of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) in the 1950s has made a significant contribution to scholarship and to national security as it became TitleVI of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and operated in tandem with the Fulbright-Hays programs. At the same time, there have been challenges to the very existence of the funding. My approach in reviewing this historic period is based to a large extent on my own experiences as a student and professor of political science and public affairs, as an African Studies director, and as a dean and vice president for international affairs. For some, national security is a basic one-dimensional phenomenon or, at best, a somewhat simplistic concept with a blurred connection between national defense and foreign policy. I believe that in the international context there are layers of complexity that have too often been ignored. For a long time, national security and geography were one and the same. Separated by oceans, with travel across them so much slower than today, the United States had no need either for a large standing army or for a national security plan that could be invoked at a moment’s notice. World War II, the Cold War, and Sputnik changed all this. C H A P T E R 1 6 Preparing for the Future: Title VI and Its Challenges Patrick O’Meara 331 The origin of support for U.S. international competence and authority began after World War II in the early days of the Cold War, when the Ford and Rockefeller foundations along with the Carnegie Corporation, funded university initiatives in area and language studies in the face of perceived threats from the Soviet Union, China, and newly emerging nations around the world. The Soviet Union’s successful launch of the Sputnik satellite brought Congress into the educational effort, one part of which was to ensure that the U.S. educational system would prepare future academic and government leaders with international skills. The U.S. Congress passed the NDEA in August 1958, and President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed it into law on September 2, 1958. The implementation of Title VI legislation became a mission of the Department of Education, not the Department of Defense. This original paradigm established core educational precepts—language proficiency and multicultural understanding— as a basis for national security and the nation’s international presence. At the same time, the implementation provided freedom for students and scholars to explore topics without intellectual or disciplinary constraints. Some of the resulting research and scholarship was indeed of narrow, if not rarefied, significance. Other research directly addressed major issues and set out strategic dimensions that still underlie U.S. foreign policy. In retrospect, even what might have appeared “rarefied ” has sprung into relevance. Social, cultural, and linguistic studies in Afghanistan might have appeared an indulgence forty years ago, but they are guiding major diplomatic and military actions now. The Title VI paradigm has stood the test of time. The programs that exist because of fifty years of federal funding for Title VI have taught generations of U.S. citizens how to be effective educators and public officials and how to adapt their skills in a changing world. When I reflect on the preparation of Title VI applications of the 1960s and 1970s, I realize how deeply and dynamically the scope of Title VI has changed. In the early days, the lines were clear. Title VI was focused on a few fixed objectives—to sustain, enhance, and consolidate the study of the world’s languages and cultures. Applicants were not asked to consider outreach to the community or the involvement of professional schools in the international issues of the day. As the number of players on the world stage grew and as the variety of issues recognized to have a global impact increased, however, so Title VI programs extended their original mission to new constituencies and new kinds of issues. In the reauthorization in 1980, a new Part B of Title VI was instituted for matching grants for business and international education programs. In 1988, legislation amended Part B to included Centers for International Business Education and Research (CIBER). The establishment of the CIBER program was prescient. Many at the time questioned whether support for...

Share