By Colleen Cavanaugh, BA Political Communication, ’22
Molly Bettie’s article “Ambassadors unaware: the Fulbright Program and American public diplomacy” explores a continuous historical tension between the value of the Fulbright Program as an American information activity versus a purely educational-cultural pursuit. The title of the article harkens back to an essay written by a Fulbright grantee who described herself as an “ambassador unaware,” which highlights the complicated role the participants in the government funded academic program play. Grantees are expected to fulfill their own research goals, while also acting as de facto diplomats who are expected to be representatives of their home country. Members of the program are never briefed or trained on how to facilitate the cultural exchange expected of them. Bettie describes it as a form of private international relations, making it hard for research to effectively and holistically measure the impacts of this exchange.
This is where the central negotiation between information and educational-cultural perspectives arises. The information perspective views the Fulbright Program as part of public diplomacy in which participants become another form of media with a target audience. This approach stems from the belief that a tax funded program should reap a common benefit. The educational-cultural side of the argument views the exchanges that take place as inherently valuable and believes they should remain free of governmental influence. This preservation of academic integrity was favored by the program’s founder Senator J. William Fulbright as well.
Bettie goes on to provide three examples illustrative of this consistent tension. After World War II and into the Cold War, Senator Fulbright was wary of the Fulbright Program being conflated with propagandistic efforts, vehemently opposing its potential placement under the USIA. Later, in 1975 during the Cold War thaw, the Stanton Report reevaluated the organization of overseas bureaucracies and proposed a combination of the information and cultural aspects, given their apparent overlap in the field. However, this was not established, as the Carter administration reorganized and established the International Communication Agency. Finally, in 1999 the USIA was dismantled, and the Fulbright Program was moved under the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs in the Department of State.
Through this long and winding history, one can see the various internal and institutional complications implicated in how the Fulbright Program should operate. It begs the question: Is there room for both informational and educational-cultural involvement? It is reasonable to suggest a balance between the two. The informational factor gives the program a purpose distinct from that of private education and warrants government funding. The educational-cultural basis lends neutrality and legitimacy. Bettie concludes the two can work in a mutually beneficial way. While I do not find this idea particularly problematic, I contend that the Fulbright Program should be separate from information activities and kept under the educational-cultural umbrella as much as possible. Though I understand this is nearly impossible under the current bureaucratic system, I agree with Senator Fulbright’s initial intentions. Individual grantees are not signing up to be ambassadors, and it is misguided to think that academic work is not valuable enough for its own sake. Yes, grantees will be facilitators of cultural exchange between their host and home countries, but this does not mean they should be required to adhere to the public diplomacy vision or aims of the United States. Attaching strings to educational programs seems like a slippery slope that could border on censorship. Bettie states that our overseas counterparts also support the educational-cultural approach, and their input should be respected. The initial fears of this exchange being seen as propaganda are well-founded, so when possible, the Fulbright Program should consider education and exchange on an interpersonal level, rather than a governmental level, of greatest import.
References – Bettie, Molly. “Ambassadors unaware: the Fulbright Program and American public diplomacy.” Journal of Transatlantic Studies, vol. 13, no. 4, 2015, pp. 358-372.
Colleen Cavanaugh is a student in the SMPA 3350 Public Diplomacy class taught by Public Diplomacy Fellow Emilia A. Puma. She is a junior in the School of Media and Public Affairs majoring in Political Communications.
The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.
