Page images

In public health and preventive medicine Alabama, Idaho, North Carolina, Maryland, Connecticut, Arkansas and Michigan with Guatemala, Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil and British Honduras have initiated health programs ranging from dental and medical supplies to water purification and professional services.

In agriculture and cooperatives : Vermont, Oklahoma, Utah, Florida, Texas and New Jersey have teamed with areas of Honduras, Mexico, Bolivia, Colombia, Brazil and Peru to form functional cooperatives, provide technical assistance to increase food production, and supply equipment, livestock, seed and soil conditioners.

And so it goes in almost every field of human endeavor: in business and industry, cultural exchange, housing, labor relations and credit unions, the private sectors of North America and Latin America have literally rolled up their sleeves to offer some very desperately needed helping hands.

These programs were accomplished through the Partners of the Alliance with a vital boost from a tiny budget and a handful of dedicated A.I.D. members. I am compelled to diverge momentarily to congratulate James H. Boren, originator and director of the Partners programs, and his most capable associates.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know the amount of private participation by other international organizations. But when you consider the many fraternal, civic, religious and professional groups which encourage and support international programs, the total must be staggering to imagine.

I cannot speak for the other programs. But having been deeply involved in the Partners program as a State chairman, and as co-chairman of the Business and Industry Committee, Inter-American Conferences of the Partners programs, I can say that a program such as outlined in Senate Bill 1779 is vital for the future of the Partners of the Alliance.

At the Third Inter-American Conference in Lima, Peru earlier this month, one of the few resolutions adopted (and unanimously) by representatives of 36 states and 16 Latin American countries involved the enthusiastic support of Senate Bill 1779, and congratulated U.S. Senator Yarborough as its author.

The funding of private non-profit organizations through such grants as described in the Bill would assure the continuing and expanding operation of the Partners programs. It could save similar programs which may be slowly sinking through lack of such support.

Mr. Chairman, Senate Bill 1779 calls for the establishment of an international health, education and labor program under which the Foundation shall provide open support for private non-governmental activities in these and related fields, designed to promote a better knowledge of the U.S. among the peoples of the world; to increase friendship and understanding and to strengthen the capacity of other peoples of the world to develop and maintain free, independent societies in their own nations.

I feel strongly that passage of this bill is long overdue. I feel equally strong that continued delay of passage could be responsible for the expiration of important private citizen efforts in the field of international relations.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I wish Senator Javits had stayed to hear your comments, from the standpoint of a businessman, as to the complete answer to his questions. I will call his attention to those answers, because we work closely together on the full Labor and Public Welfare Committee. Your comments about the need here of moving rapidly, because of the danger of certain programs expiring, is very timely, and I will tell my colleagues—there are five of us on this committee, Senator Javits and Senator Prouty from the minority side, Senator Morse, Senator Pell, and myself on the majority side-as to the need of urgency on this matter before this Congress expires.

Thank you very much for your contribution here.
Mr. GOLIN. You are welcome.

Senator Y ARBOROUGH. We will call next Mr. Edward Schwartz, president, U.S. National Student Association of Washington.

Come around, please, Mr. Schwartz. Good morning, Mr. Schwartz.


Mr. SCHWARTZ. Good morning.
Senator YARBOROUGH. You have a prepared statement.
Mr. SCHWARTZ. Yes, I do.
Senator YARBOROUGH. Proceed in your own way.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. First I want to thank this subcommittee for inviting me to speak here this morning. Our legal status as a tax-exempt organization makes it impossible for us to volunteer testimony of this kind, so we always welcome an invitation from any agency of the Government to provide what information we can on matters of public concern.

Second, I wish to emphasize that my testimony will focus particularly on the prospects and problems which the foundation proposed in this bill would create for students, and for the National Student Association. There are certainly several constituencies which such a foundation could and would serve, and I am confident that you will hear from their representatives during the course of these hearings. Yet the student perspective is somewhat unique, I suggest, and I think it important to provide it.

I will be direct-since the CIA crisis last year, the National Student Association has not sent one staff member abroad for any reason. We have withdrawn our membership in the International Student Conference, an international confederation of pro-Western and neutralist student unions through which many of NSA's international projects were directed. We maintain no official overseas representatives, as we did in the past. Indeed, our only venture internationally since February 1967, has been the sponsorship of a delegation of three students to Asia last summer, funded by the State Department.

Why has this new "isolationism” developed? Is it because NSA now fears to go abroad, out of guilt at our past CIA connections? The answer is “No.” Many student unions abroad were far more sympathetic to NSA last year than were many students in this country. Is it because NSA has been unable to find funds to support the kind of activities in which we engaged in the past? The answer, again, is "No." There are foundations which have offered to support student travel to conferences, along similar directions as our international program developed. We were not interested.

The answer lies in a conflict between what we believe to be useful work for students to undertake internationally, and what funding sources believe to be useful work. It lies as well in a consideration of the kinds of provisions which must be included to guarantee the independence of any program from illegitimate intrusion, by Government or by a private foundation. I will deal with each of these questions-first, the nature of the programs; second, the need for independence.

The National Student Association's interventions internationally going back to 1947, stemmed primarily from political considerations. Veterans returning from World War IỈ had become familiar with the growing relationships between national student unions in Europe and the underdeveloped world, as well as the efforts of the Communist forces around the world to seize control of international student structures. Their concern in forming NSA was to provide a vehicle for


[ocr errors]

representing the U.S. student in these international forums, and to provide a progressive, democratic alternative to the challenge posed by the Communist student unions.

The history of international student politics in the fifties and the early sixties revolved around this theme. In the early fifties the international student world split into two structures--the International Student Conference, generally pro-West; and the International Union of Students, dominated by the Communist unions. NSA, of course, played an important part in the International Student Conference, or ISČ, providing it with officers, support, and active participation. The Central Intelligence Agency, through conduit foundations, supported both NSA and the ISC through this period.

Beginning in 1964, however, many within NSA began to challenge the nature of this international involvement. Even without direct knowledge of CIA funding, delegates to our Congress began to question the relevance of sending a few staff members overseas to vote on resolutions which seemed to have little or no impact on the United States or anywhere else, in order to fight battles of the cold war which were becoming increasingly less important to students. The thaw had begun. Students to the Peace Corps were undertaking direct work in underdeveloped countries. Apart from a few programs, NSA's activity seemed to be trivial, seemed to be out of step with shifting international derelopments.

This challenge grew in dimension at the next two National Student Congresses. The secrecy of the international commission was added to the list of grievances one could never determine accurate financial statements about their trips. Instances in which delegates to conferences overseas deviated from NSA policy statements became known to the constituents. By 1966, there was a widespread demand for a complete overhaul of the international commission, and, of course, by 1967, with the CIA disclosures, the overhaul was effected.

I recite this history to indicate that student criticism of NSA's international program long preceded the CIA disclosures and stemmed as much from the nature of the programs as it did from suspicious about their operational procedures. There was strong support for bilateral exchange between countries, particularly those involving an exchange of students interested in specific problems; cultural exchanges; assistance to students in trouble with their governments for progressive activity-such as occurred in South Africa; and for programs of international education in this country. There was little, if any support, however, for sending students to conferences which did little more than pass resolutions.

Today, we find many funding sources interested in enabling NSA to send students to resolution-passing conferences. We find no funding source interested in supporting international educational and cultural activities involving students-at least not through NSA.

What kinds of programs would be of interest to the students with whom we associate--the student government and activist leaders of 330 member campuses? I will cite five.

First, there would be programs of direct assistance to student unions abroad, particularly as they involve foreign student travel in the United States. In 1957, NSA brought several Algerian students to the United States for study following the Algerian War. Some of these students are still here, completing their graduate work. Not only was such of assistance to the students involved, their presence on American campuses became a resource to the institutions which admitted them. Similar efforts, particularly if joined with programs which would encourage the foreign student to become an active force on his American campus, would win wide student support. The program originally was supported by the CIA, later, openly by the State Department. The proposed foundation could support it as well.

Second, there could be exchange programs involving students of similar skills and talents visiting universities in other countries. Last year, for example, NSA brought 10 Bolivian student leaders to the United States to discuss problems of educational reform with students on five American campuses. The group was bright—their presence was a stimulant to the campuses involved. I would like to think that they gained from the venture as well. We had hoped to send an American student delegation to Bolivia, but the CIA crisis interceded. Such programs might well be resumed by the proposed foundation.

Third, there could be cultural delegations. NSA has sent both jazz and folk groups abroad, and we have assisted tours of foreign cultural groups to American campuses. Both American and foreign students have appreciated the projects. An exciting foreign cultural group can draw a large audience in the United States. The opportunity for an American student jazz ensemble to travel is not taken lightly. The value of such ventures should be self-evident; the foundation could support many of them.

Fourth, the foundation might assist projects designed to involve foreign students more fully in the life of the American campus. It is astonishing, for example, how few international relations courses in the United States use foreign students on campus to present their country's positions on critical issues--even when foreign students are enrolled in the course. There is need for much groundwork here, particularly since the whole area of international relations curriculum needs considerable improvement.

Another kind of project along similar lines involves encouraging foreign students to become active in American student programs. Last year, NSA submitted a proposal to several foundations along the lines of a reverse Peace Corps-a program to involve foreign students in community action projects in the United States. Despite a distinguished advisory board, headed by Vice President Humphrey, we were unable to obtain support. The proposed foundation could make such a project one of its priorities.

Finally, the foundation might assist general good-will missions between American students and other countries of the world. Here, however, I must suggest strongly that such good-will missions contain within them mechanisms for publicity in both countries involved. We have had the experience of sending two or three students to another country whose activities were never known by the mass of American students, let alone the public. If ever we were to undertake such a venture again, we would be sure to encourage magazine articles,


speaking engagements, even television appearances so that our student representatives could become a resource to those who sent them, as well as to those who received them.

These, then, are five possible programatic designs which might be supported by the foundation. All have been suggested, even run, by the National Student Association, as part of its international efforts. All have been supported by students. They were, to use the contemporary term, relevant-providing contact between American young people, and young people in other countries, which reflected mutual experiences and interests. The contacts themselves involved more than just a few people from either country.

Having outlined our programatic concerns, I must deal with our structural concerns as well—the need for independence. This, too, is of critical importance, not simply because of the CIA episode, but because of the delicate relationship between today's student and the U.S. Government.

Here, again, I will be direct. At least three major universitiesColumbia, the University of Michigan, and Wayne State Universitywithdrew from NSA this year, in part, because of our willingness to accept funds from the Government for projects deemed in the interests of our constituency. The projects in volved work in student course and teacher evaluation, student mental health, and campus tutoring programs funded by the Office of Education, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the Office of Economic Opportunity. That made little difference, however. There are many students today who feel that a student group which accepts money from the Government, ipso facto, sacrifices its independence. At a time when students protest the draft, the war in Vietnam, and the Government's inaction on the problems of the cities, such a sacrifice is deemed a cardinal sin.

If such criticism is levied against Government programs domestically, it would be even more severe against international programs supported by the Government. Student protest in the past 2 years, after all, has focused on international questions; the entire foreign policy of the United States is under attack on many distinguished campuses.

Consequently, the independence of the board of directors would be critical to winning student support for this foundation. There would be many--regardless of the makeup of the board--who would never trust it, or at least not for a long time. I am pleased at the way in which the proposed foundation would be governed, at least as it is outlined in the bill. I can say from personal experience, however, that if the National Student Association ever were to seek a grant from it, our own board would give both the proposal and the program its serious and closest attention. We would hope that congressional scrutiny with the intent of preserving the foundation's independence would be considered seriously.

The second matter relating to the independence involves the question of security clearances. Last summer NSA interviewed applicants for a student delegation to Asia, funded by the State Department. Late in the year, a number of us on the domestic side of NSA

« PreviousContinue »