Title VI

[Sharon Knox]

Quoting Alina Israeli:

>I suggest that professionals should decide this issue, just as they
>should in the case of the arts and the military.

This case is not exactly analogous to peer review in the arts,
because it is not funding language studies for its own sake
(the advancement of culture), but primarily for the specific
goal of producing  excellent and reliable translators, interpreters,
operatives, analysts, etc.  Thus the professionals involved in
allocation and selection might include representatives from the
relevant agencies (who are themselves talented linguists and
area specialists), as well as academicians.

I note too that Fulbright program has a supervisory board similar
to the one proposed for Title VI.



Quoting Stuart Goldberg:


> One might note that the Bush administration has displayed a rather
> narrow view of what constitute acceptable points of view on America's
> place in the world.

The same can be said of the proponents of post-Colonialism.

> Education demands dialogue,

Indeed! The contention of those calling for review of Title VI centers
is that the proponents of post-Colonialism, the dominant paradigm in area
studies, do not allow for dissent; and that because "The core
premise of post-colonial theory is that it is immoral for a scholar to
put his knowledge of foreign languages and cultures at the service
of American power," those institutes which subscribe to this theory
are fundamentally unable to supply personnel necessary for national security.
[Quotation from Howard Kurtz's Congressional testimony; see below]

> Since when has national defence become exclusively military?

The fundamental personnel of national defense (military and civilian),
are translators, interpreters,analysts and intelligence operatives.
If universities aren't generating enough of them, then the theoretical
discussions become moot.  Sure, the journalists and academics who
take up the questions of what constitutes the national defense
are important, but their relevance is more oblique.

>Should we want the Bush administration - OR ANY OTHER PRESIDENTIAL
>ADMINISTRATION -- and its appointees OVERSEEING the education of the
>next generation of internationally savy Americans, Americans who will
>hopefully have an inordinate impact on the shaping of American foreign
>policy in the next century? I don't think so.

The government (and at this point it's a congressional, not an executive,
discussion) isn't attempting to dictate, Soviet style, what scholars say.
If it were the case that Title VI were the only source of funding for
language / area studies nationwide, then their involvement would be
threatening indeed.  But in this case it is only a portion of funding,
allocated for a specific mandate, and questions have been raised as
to whether that mandate is being met adequately.  People are still free
to say whatever they want, and to find funding from other sources.


---

Here I append selections of the Congressional testimony of Howard Kurtz.


"The ruling intellectual paradigm in academic area studies (especially Middle
Eastern studies) is called "post-colonial theory.". . . In [Orientalism] Said
equated professors who support American foreign policy with the 19th-century
European intellectuals who propped up racist colonial empires. The core premise
of post-colonial theory is that it is immoral for a scholar to put his
knowledge of foreign languages and cultures at the service of American power.
...
"Let me state clearly, however, that I am not arguing that authors like Edward
Said ought to be banned from Title-VI-funded courses. My concern is that Title
VI-funded centers too seldom balance readings from Edward Said and his like-
minded colleagues with readings from authors who support American foreign
policy. Princeton historian and best-selling author Bernard Lewis, Harvard
University political scientist, Samuel P. Huntington, and Johns Hopkins
professor Fouad Ajami, all support American foreign policy, and all have very
different explanations than Edward Said and his colleagues of "why they hate
us." Yet these authors are generally excluded, or simply condemned, in
contemporary programs of Middle East studies.
...
"Of course, the reason NYU's Title VI-funded center is uniformly critical of
American foreign policy is that NYU's Middle East-studies faculty is itself
ideologically unbalanced. Naturally, it is right and proper that projects
funded by Title VI are governed according to standards of free speech and
academic freedom. Free speech, however, is not an entitlement to a government
subsidy. And unless steps are taken to balance university faculties with
members who both support and oppose American foreign policy, the very purpose
of free speech and academic freedom will have been defeated.
..
"The vigorous and open debate that is supposed to flourish at our colleges and
universities cannot exist without faculty members who can speak for divergent
points of view. Yet, by rewarding politically one-sided programs with gigantic
funding increases, Congress is actually removing any incentive for deans and
provosts to bring in faculty members with diverse perspectives. At this point,
Title VI-funding increases are only stifling free debate.
..
In the long run, it would be best for the country if we had a thriving set of
area-studies programs that were well balanced on policy views, and well funded
under Title VI. A major reformation of the American academy's area-studies
programs is necessary to bring about such a result. That reform will never
occur unless Congress signals deans and provosts that there is a serious
problem with the current system. The only way to do so is by a significant cut,
pending reforms, in funding to Title VI.

In the meantime, Congress can insure that our defense and intelligence agencies
have access to well-trained linguists by redirecting the twenty million dollar
post-9/11 increase in Title VI funding to the Defense Language Institute. The
Defense Language Institute would then be in a position to fund scholarships for
college graduates to do advanced language training, leading to full time jobs
in our defense and intelligence agencies. Under the umbrella of the Defense
Language Institute, students with a desire to serve their country would have no
fear of retaliation or ostracism from professors who view cooperation with the
American government as immoral.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------