This summer 500 Africans are studying business, leadership, and public management on American campuses as part of a new State Department program.
The Obama administration has hailed the effort, which is part of the larger Young African Leaders Initiative, as a fresh take on public diplomacy. But the fellowship program—or really the strategy behind it—has generated a debate about the future of U.S.-sponsored exchanges and whether a venerable program, the Fulbright, will suffer as a result.
Under President Obama’s proposed budget for the 2015 fiscal year, exchange programs operated by the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs would receive a slight increase—1.6 percent. The African-leadership program would receive $20-million, and a similar program focused on Southeast Asia would receive $10-million. The Fulbright Program, however, would be cut by $30.5-million, representing a 13-percent reduction from its current allocation of $234.7-million.
Fulbright alumni and others have decried the potential cut in the department’s flagship exchange, calling it shortsighted, a potential blow to international research, and a negative message to the foreign governments that contribute money to the program.
But less discussed is what contributed to the proposal: The administration’s shift in thinking about how exchange programs should operate in a more volatile world.
While saying Fulbright remains the “cornerstone” of its work, Evan Ryan, the State Department’s assistant secretary of state for educational and cultural affairs, told The Chronicle that the new programs represented an important change in strategy.
“The real impetus for these programs is to make sure that exchanges are really tied to foreign policy and foreign-policy goals, making sure that they can be responsive to where we are in terms of what we’re trying to accomplish,” she said.
In addition to the leadership-development work, she cited a proposed fund that would allow the department to quickly set up visits by academics from a country, like Ukraine, in a political or social crisis.
An Outdated Program?
The fellowship for young Africans is the centerpiece of the new thinking. Its goal is to develop a network of civic, nonprofit, and business leaders who in part will be a bulwark against Islamic extremism and political instability across the continent.
In many ways, the program is the opposite of Fulbright, or at least of the well-known Fulbright scholar program, in which American and foreign participants spend up to a year abroad teaching or conducting research.
For the leadership program, the overseas stay is short (six weeks for most participants), is focused on developing a single region of the world, and is not technically an exchange because it only brings Africans to the United States and no Americans go abroad as part of it.
The recent debate reflects concerns about whether the Fulbright program, which was established at the height of the Cold War, has adapted to the 21st century. In recent years, the program has experimented with short-term and more-flexible exchanges and with using technology to facilitate interaction between participants—elements that are integral to the new programs.
For her part, Ms. Ryan does not see the Fulbright as outdated. “I believe strongly in the Fulbright, but I also think we can pivot and be nimble,” she said. The fact that almost 50,000 people applied to the Africa program, she said, is validation that “this is a good path for exchanges.”
Others aren’t so sure.
Stephen Reilly, executive director of the Fulbright Association, a nonprofit group that works to promote the program and connect alumni with one another and with service opportunities, argues that trying to engineer exchanges that “serve our near-term political needs” will probably lack the lasting impact the Fulbright has had.
“Those programs have merit,” said Mr. Reilly, “but I don’t think they should come at the expense of Fulbright funding.”
Mr. Reilly and others do say that the Fulbright program has to get better at showing its tangible benefits to the public and lawmakers in a time of austerity.
“It’s very, very difficult to prove that so-called Fulbright effect, and yet I do believe it’s there,” said Marc Lynch, a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.
To be sure, whether the Fulbright program will actually get cut remains to be seen. Members of the House and the Senate on both sides of the aisle have indicated they will fight the proposed cuts in the program.
But regardless of how this year’s budget battle ends, the debate over how exchanges should operate will very likely continue.
“By diversifying our talents and diversifying our tool box,” said Ms. Ryan, “we can have greater impact.”
