2013 ANNUAL MEETING Baltimore May 9, 8:00-10:00 pm Fells Point

Changing Funding Patterns in International and Area Studies

Amy Newhall, Moderator Executive Director Middle East Studies Association of North America

Rosemary G. Feal Executive Director Modern Language Association of America

Lynda Park Executive Director Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies

Since World War II, universities, foundations, scholars, and the federal government have worked together to build an infrastructure for developing deep expertise in cultures and societies around the world. The federal pillar of this structure is erod- ing. Budgetary cutbacks are one dimension of this erosion, but also apparent is a shift in emphasis from graduate and postdoctoral study toward undergraduate and secondary education.

The change is especially apparent in the operations of the Department of Educa- tion, which administers part of the Fulbright Program and Title VI, which supports National Resource Centers at universities around the country.

The panel will consider the implications of this development especially for area studies and language instruction and look ahead toward the renewal of the Higher Education Act that authorizes these activities. Changing Funding Patterns in International and Area Studies

Amy W. Newhall earned her B.A. in art history from the University of Cali- fornia, Berkeley, her M.A. in Arabic studies from the American University in Cairo, and her Ph.D. in fine arts from . She has served as executive director of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA) since July 2002. MESA is a member of the Coalition for International Education, which works to educate legislators and the public about the impor- tance of federal support for foreign language and area studies. She concurrently holds the position of associate professor in the School of Middle Eastern and North African Studies at the where she teaches courses in the art and architecture of the Islamic world and Middle Eastern humanities. Her research interests focus on the politics of patronage in the Mamluk empire but most recently she has published on academic independence and freedom issues. For over 20 years she has served on the Board of Directors of the Uni- versity of Arizona’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies, a federally designated National Resource Center continuously funded by HEA Title VI grants since 1976. She has been active in efforts in support of that legislation since 1995.

Since 2002, Rosemary G. Feal has served as executive director of the Modern Language Association of America. She administers the business affairs, programs, and governance of the association; is general editor of the associa- tion’s publishing and research programs and editor of two MLA publications; and serves as an ex officio member of all committees and commissions of the association. She is on leave from her position as professor of Spanish at the University at Buffalo, State University of New York, where she was chair of the Department of Modern Languages and Literatures. From 1987 to 1998 she was a member of the faculty at the University of Rochester. A member and a past vice president of the Board of Directors of the National Humanities Alliance, she also served on the Board of Directors of the American Council of Learned Societies. Coeditor of the SUNY Series in Latin American Iberian Thought and Culture, Feal is also an associate editor of the Afro-Hispanic Review and former senior consulting editor of the Latin American Literary Review. Her book pub- lications include Isabel Allende Today (coeditor; 2002); Painting on the Page: Interartistic Approaches to Modern Hispanic Texts (coauthor; 1995); and Novel Lives: The Fictional Autobiographies of Guillermo Cabrera Infante and Mario Vargas Llosa (author; 1986). Feal was a 2011–12 American Council on Educa- tion Fellow at the Five Colleges, Incorporated. She earned a Ph.D. in Spanish from the University at Buffalo, State University of New York, and a B.A from Allegheny College. Feal also completed the Bachillerato en Letras at the Insti- tuto Belga Guatemalteco (Guatemala) and studied abroad in France and Spain. Lynda Park has been the executive director of the Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies (ASEEES) since 2010. Prior to ASEEES, she was the associate director of the University of Illinois European Union Center from 2008-2010 and the Russian, East European, and Eurasian Center from 1998-2008. During her tenure at Illinois, she wrote successful Title VI grants for the EU Center and the Russian, East European, and Eurasian Center, both of which are VI-funded National Resource Centers. She has also written and implemented successful Fulbright-Hays GPA grants, U.S. Department of State Title VIII grants, and the European Commission grants. She serves as the ASEEES representative in the Coalition for International Education and the State Department’s Title VIII Advisory Committee. She has a B.A. in history and Russian from Rice University and is ABD in the Interdisciplinary Doctoral Program in Anthropology and History at the . Her research examines the activities of the Imperial Russian Geographic Society in Siberia in the nineteenth century and the relationship between scientific knowl- edge production and empire-building. She conducted archival research in St. Petersburg and field and archival work in Irkutsk, Russia. COALITION FOR INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION Promoting U.S. Global Competence

September 14, 2012

The Honorable Arne Duncan The Honorable Jeffrey Zients Secretary Acting Director U.S. Department of Education Office of Management and Budget 400 Maryland Avenue, SW 725 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20202 Washington, DC 20503

Dear Secretary Duncan and Acting Director Zients,

As you consider the President's FY 2014 education budget priorities, the undersigned organizations of the Coalition for International Education call your attention to an urgent education issue that will affect the nation’s security and economic vitality for generations to come: Restoring the Department of Education’s International Education and Foreign Language Studies programs of the Higher Education Act, Title VI and Fulbright-Hays.

The Coalition consists of more than 30 national higher education organizations representing the nation’s 3,300 colleges and universities, and more than 18 million students.

As you know, these programs sustained a sudden and dramatic $50 million or 40% cut in the FY 2011 Continuing Resolution from their FY 2010 level of $126 million. This cut was followed by an additional $1.6 million reduction in FY 2012, pushing back total funding more than a decade to $74 million. In spite of fiscal constraints, the Administration’s FY 2013 budget proposal to restore $1.7 million to Title VI and level-fund Fulbright-Hays for a total of $75.5 million was a step in the right direction. We also support the Senate Appropriations Committee’s FY 2013 bill, which adopted the Administration’s proposal in this respect.

We believe that FY 2014 budget presents an opportunity for the Administration to renew its commitment to these modestly funded programs, now representing a mere 0.1% of the Department’s discretionary budget. We strongly urge that the FY 2014 Administration’s request begin with a partial but robust restoration of funding to $109.96 million: $100.25 million for Title VI and $9.71 million for Fulbright-Hays.

The timing of our recommendation is critical. The FY 2014 budget will fund the next 4-year competitions for the Title VI world area, language and international business centers, which have been cut severely. The four center programs, together with other Title VI/Fulbright-Hays programs, serve as the foundation for our nation’s international and foreign language education system. Our suggested increase would allow full restoration of the Title VI center programs and the Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language program, as well as partial

Contact: Miriam A. Kazanjian • E-Mail: [email protected] Web: www.usglobalcompetence.org

Secretary Arne Duncan and Acting Director Jeffrey Zients International Education and Foreign Language Studies September 14, 2012 Page 2 of 3

restoration for several complementary programs. Without restoration, the number of centers in the U.S. will decline significantly, thereby reducing the reach of Title VI.

Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs are the federal government’s most comprehensive for improving our international and foreign language capabilities throughout the educational pipeline. Unlike other federal agency programs, Title VI and Fulbright-Hays support education and research on all world areas, multiple disciplines and over 200 languages, and at all levels of education, thereby ensuring the nation’s capacity to respond to new and unanticipated global challenges. Other federal programs, such as DOD’s National Security Education Program (NSEP) and the Department of Commerce’s National Export Initiative (NEI) each has a targeted focus that depends on the infrastructure and educational resources that Title VI and Fulbright- Hays programs develop and sustain. For example, 18 out of 22 NSEP grants are located at institutions of higher education also having Title VI centers in the same world areas. The Department of Commerce works with Title VI centers to help expand the global knowledge base of U.S. companies and managers for increasing exports.

Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs have a 50-year plus history of results. Just in the decade following 9/11, Congressional enhancements enabled Title VI grantees to increase foreign language and area training capacity by roughly 90% in targeted areas of national need. Priority language enrollments increased by over 54,000, and international business enrollments by over 200,000. Total placements in major employment sectors increased by over 60%. From ambassadors to university presidents, to Presidential advisors and Cabinet officials, Title VI beneficiaries also serve in a wide variety of positions in education, business, government, and NGOs such as the—

 Congressional Research Service (CRS) Specialist in International Security, providing analytical support to Members and staff to help frame national security debates, and the lead CRS expert on strategy and military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq;  National Security Council Director for Russia and Central Asia;  CIA operative who played a critical role in the battle at Qala-I Janghi Prison during the early stages of the Afghanistan war;  USAID/Bureau for Food Security Deputy Assistant Administrator, providing oversees technical and regional expertise for improving food security and reducing persistent rural poverty;  Microsoft Learning Product Manager who uses international business skills (market access, communication, analysis, strategy) and language/cultural competencies in both emerging and developed markets;  Medical doctor who established an NGO in Guatemala providing indigenous populations healthcare in their own Mayan language, and at home uses Spanish in treating non- English speaking immigrants in local Boston hospitals;  Assistant Professor of Political Science (African studies) at Morehouse College; and  Minneapolis middle school Arabic teacher.

Continuation of the cuts for three years is severely eroding a solid infrastructure built over many decades, as federal funding reductions will not be replaced with non-federal funds on a permanent basis. Prolonging the losses will damage our long-term national security and global economic capabilities by reducing—and in some cases eliminating—the production of our next generation of international experts and of a globally competent workforce, just when the nation faces severe shortfalls.

Secretary Arne Duncan and Acting Director Jeffrey Zients International Education and Foreign Language Studies September 14, 2012 Page 3 of 3

Now is an opportune time to renew the Department’s commitment to these programs. We appreciate your leadership in restoring this modest Department of Education investment that is so vital to America’s wellbeing. Thank you for your consideration of our views.

Submitted by the following organizations:

African Studies Association Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange American Association of Community Colleges American Association of State Colleges and Universities American Councils for International Education: ACTR/ACCELS American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages American Council on Education American Political Science Association American University of Beirut Association of American Universities Association of International Education Administrators Association of Public and Land-grant Universities Association for Asian Studies Association for International Business Education and Research Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies Consortium of Social Science Associations Council of American Overseas Research Centers Council of Directors of National Foreign Language Resource Centers Council of Directors of National Resource Centers Council of Graduate Schools The Forum on Education Abroad Joint National Committee for Languages Latin American Studies Association Middle East Studies Association Modern Language Association NAFSA: Association of International Educators National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities National Humanities Alliance North American Small Business International Trade Educators Association Social Science Research Council cc: Deputy Secretary Tony Miller Undersecretary Martha Kanter Acting Assistant Secretary David Bergeron Assistant Secretary Carmel Martin Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary Sylvia Crowder Director of International Affairs Maureen McLaughlin OMB Deputy Associate Director Kathryn Stack Assistant to the President for Education Roberto Rodriguez, WH DPC Senior Advisor for Education Zakiya Smith, WH DPC

MLA Statement on Language Learning and National Policy

The Executive Council approved the following statement at its May 2012 meeting.

The MLA regards the learning of languages other than English as vital to an understanding of the world; such learning serves as a portal to the literatures, cultures, historical perspectives, and human experiences that constitute the human record. Pragmatically, we believe in the value of becoming part of a global conversation in which knowledge of English is often not enough, and the security and future of our country depend on accurately understanding other cultures through their linguistic and cultural practices.

We believe this view should be uncontroversial; anyone interested in the long-term vitality and security of the United States should recognize that it will be detrimental for Americans to remain overwhelmingly monolingual and ill informed about other parts of this increasingly interdependent world. We are therefore deeply alarmed by the drastic and disproportionate budget cuts in recent years to programs that fund advanced language study. We believe that advanced language study is important for the same reasons many policy makers, advisers, and elected officials do: Americans need to be literate about the languages and cultures of the United States’ major trading partners, and Americans need to be literate in the so-called strategic languages important to national security. But we note that national policy can be and has been considered in more expansive terms: the Fulbright International Education Exchange Program was created in 1946 explicitly to “increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries,” and since then 310,000 Fulbright scholars have served as unofficial American ambassadors, practicing person-to-person diplomacy around the globe.

We also believe that language learning should be supported for additional reasons: because there is a wealth of heritage languages spoken in American families and communities, because one learns more about one’s native language in the course of learning a foreign language, and because recent research suggests that language learning enhances critical brain functions throughout an individual’s life. For all these reasons, the MLA views the study of languages and literatures as central to American education at every level.

http://www.mla.org/governance/executive_council/executive_council_ac/ec_us_language_policy CNRC Survey Results—Impact of Title VI NRC Budget Cuts in AY 2012-13 April 28, 2013 Anne H. Betteridge, University of Arizona

Introduction In November 2012 the Council of National Resource Center Directors conducted a survey of National Resource Centers (NRCs) in all world areas to gauge the effects of continued Title VI budget cuts on center activities. The survey was sent electronically to all 127 NRCs. Eight-seven centers (68.5%) responded. The current survey was implemented during the academic year when centers had a clear understanding of the effects of the cut and of university administration responses to it. Not all respondents answered all questions; numbers and percentages of responses received are included with data about responses to each question. Not all questions were relevant to all centers. Please note that FY 2012 budget cut effects are in addition to those reported in 2011. As in a similar survey in 2011, we also requested data about present and future prospects for supplementary institutional and other funding. Respondents were also asked to provide comments and specific detail on the effects of the budget cuts. New questions were added to gain additional information on NRC activities serving underrepresented groups, and NRC graduates in government service, higher education, and the private profit and nonprofit sectors.

Patterns Although the 2012-13 budget cut was at the same level as the previous year (46.53%), the effects of budget cuts were more severe in the 2012-13 academic year than in 2011-12 at many NRCs. In 2011-12 many center budgets were cushioned by grant rollover funds, some savings or endowment funds, and some university bridge funding. These sources of support are diminishing, and in some cases exhausted. Mellon Foundation three-year (2012-13 through 2013-14) grants offered relief at a number of universities with multiple NRCs; respondents noted that the Mellon funding does not support staff or outreach programs. State budget constraints and reduced university budgets exacerbated the situation for many NRCs.

Budget cuts caused cancellation of some classes and reductions in others. LCTL classes were cancelled at 28.2% (22) of 78 reporting institutions. Area and international studies classes were cancelled at one-third of responding centers. These totaled 110 classes, affecting 1676 students. In addition, funding was reduced for 245 courses at 71 institutions, limiting class size and course frequency, and affecting another 2303 students.

The cuts were particularly devastating to outreach programs; curriculum development; library acquisitions; professional development activities; evaluation; and collaborative activities at state, regional, national and international levels. Collectively, 62 responding centers noted that 15,971 K- 12 teachers and 303,820 K-12 students would be negatively impacted by the 2012-13 budget cuts. Many centers reported reduced outreach to government agencies and the military.

Seventy-six centers reported postponement or, more often, cancellation of hires of Less Commonly Taught Language (LCTL) and area and international studies faculty. At 84.3% of the 51 centers reporting reduced funding for LCTL hires, universities provided no supplementary funding to facilitate hires. Figures were almost identical for area studies hires.

Sixty-five centers reported decreased production of innovative teaching materials for 39 LCTLs. Universities provided no supplementary funding for LCTL teaching materials projects at 83.1% (54) of responding NRCs.

Continued staff reductions have reduced NRC ability to conduct outreach and to implement programs. Outreach coordinator funding was reduced at 40.3% (31) of 77 centers. Non-outreach staff funding decreased at 59% (46) of 78 reporting centers.

Evaluation budgets were reduced at 77.9% (60) of 77 responding centers.

Survey results demonstrated the extensive work NRCs do in sharing LCTL and area and international studies resources and knowledge with institutions that serve underrepresented groups. At the same time, budget cuts adversely affected NRC outreach for and collaborations with underrepresented populations at 59.7% (46) of 77 reporting centers.

Supplementary university funding will not last long term. Asked if their institution has filled the overall gap in funding resulting from the cumulative Title VI/FH cuts thus far, 2.5% (2) of 79 respondents replied yes; 69.6% (55) reported partial support, and 27.8% (22) replied no. An overwhelming 94.6% (53) of 56 centers with supplementary funding wrote that it is not sustainable. “Support has been promised only until we get through the NRC funding cycle.”

Non-university supplementary support is short term. Asked if they were able to obtain outside sources of funds to fill the gap, 3.8% (3) of 79 respondents replied yes, 45.6% (36) secured partial funding, 50.6% (40) replied no. Seventy percent of the centers that secured outside funding do not expect it to continue.

The effects of continued cuts will become more serious in 2013-14 due to additional cuts, reduced university support, and reduced state and outside supplementary funding. As one respondent put it, “Temporary reductions are becoming permanent. Phased out programs we had hoped to restore are not being restored.” Another commented, “Some areas where cuts were avoided in AY2012-13 through use of these [bridge] funds will be in serious danger of being eliminated entirely if the budget cuts are not reversed in AY2013-14.”

Respondents stressed the crucial importance of leveraging made possible by Title VI funding. One center reported that,“The overall effect of the cuts has been to distance parts of the University from the NRC mission. The non-traditional fields of international study, such as the STEM and professional fields, are in danger of being once again separated from international study. Title VI activities are what binds the international studies together at this university.”

Conclusion Continued budget cuts to NRCs are weakening and beginning to erode the national infrastructure for international language and area and international studies teaching, outreach, and research. Restricted NRC outreach is already limiting access to international studies education. One respondent cautioned against the assumption that “if universities are able to preserve their language and area expertise going forward, they will in the future make it available to the same beneficiaries targeted by the TVI program as they have in the past. There is a very good possibility that access will increasingly be limited to those who can pay for it.”

Supplementary funding, where it exists, is partial and short-term. The situation is particularly dire at many public universities, dealing greatly reduced state budgets. Private universities have also experienced budget reductions, which they pass on to centers. Universities see TVI programs as a partnership; reduced TVI funding lessens the likelihood of university investment in international studies. If cuts persist, respondents see a bleak future for foreign language and area and international studies at all educational levels in the United States.