"Most of the things they point out are those that we have discussed many times. In many cases, they are things we already have acted upon or made plans for" (Honolulu Advertiser, Dec. 12, 1961).

Furthermore, on December 14 I stated for the record during the hearings of the House Subcommittee on State Department Organization and Foreign Operations: (speaking engagements are) "only one indication of the really splendid and wonderful loyalty and cooperation of this (EWC) student group. They have recognized our ideal; they have shared with us the responsibility of trying to achieve it and they have gone out of their way to cooperate and to work with us, and for this I have nothing but gratitude.”

Having made these things clear, I must point out that the method used for the presentation of your suggestions to the press and to me has caused sincere concern among a number of your fellow grantees and has created much criticism and adverse reaction in the community (as reflected in today's issue of Ka Leo, the university student newspaper, and in an editorial in today's Star-Bulletin, and also conveyed to me by a statement signed by 87 of your colleagues).

My own primary interest at the moment is to seek means by which these several incidents can be converted to constructive ends for the general welfare of all of our grantees in the best interests of the overall objectives of the Center and for this community and country as sponsors of this project. I should like to enlist your assistance in further developing a community of good will on the campus and in Hawaii, and in seeking among all grantees and our staff not agreement on ideas but mutual respect and understanding.

To this end I decided on December 11 that I should like to meet with representatives of the entire student body of grantees, but deliberately delayed the meeting until the conclusion of the hearings in order that no one would assume that I had sought either to suppress criticism or to use momentary public attention to inflate out of perspective common and human problems which I believe you as grantees have the maturity to deal with in a responsible manner, and for which the Center has provided extensive mechanisms for consideration. I hope that such a meeting can be arranged before Christmas.

As an additional part of the background for such a meeting, in response to a request from the chairman of the House subcommittee, and in order to establish an area of better understanding with all of you, I offer these further comments and observations about the suggestions contained in your memorandum :

I. ACADEMIC PROBLEMS

We are, of course, all agreed that superior academic programs must be provided in carrying out the objectives of the Center. The Center has taken steps which will lead to the establishment of a number of joint study programs, which will make use of the cooperation and assistance of numerous other universities in providing supplemental, special, and complementary study programs and has long been engaged in preliminary negotiations which will make it possible to utilize the resources of many institutions all over the United States and Asia. Priorities have been established and published in respect to academic fields which are now receiving major financial and professional support. However, it is not consistent with the purposes of the Center, the resources available in Hawaii, in its people, and in the Center's own special programs to convert the East-West Center into a staging area for the main purpose of orienting students who intend to undertake studies elsewhere. There are at the present time over 20,000 students from Asia in the United States in several hundred different institutions. Many of these people are brought to this country under support provided by the Fulbright and Smith-Mundt programs and by various foundations and governments. It is neither the function nor the intention of the Center to serve as a substitute for such programs. Its objectives are not identical with other programs and its operations are devised in order to carry out the special nature of its objective to develop mutual understanding. We are aware of the extremely difficult problems of communication throughout Asia and the United States in respect to the nature of these objectives and the academic programs for which we offer scholarships. We are making numerous modifications in the kinds of communications we send out which we hope will make sufficiently clear the function of the Center and its interests in order that students seeking programs not within our purview will of their own accord make application elsewhere.

I cannot quite understand your suggestions that a more flexible study tour policy should be followed in the light of the rather extraordinary flexibility

with which study tours have thus far been planned in respect to itinerary, duration, type of study, and the nature of the institutions in which study may be undertaken. One of our grantees, a student in poultry science from Indonesia, spent 5 weeks in study and research at the Davis campus of the University of California, 2 weeks in genetics research at Massachusetts State College in Amherst, attended the National Poultry Science Association meetings in Pennsylvania, visited United Nations and other institutions in New York, spent a week in Washington, D.C., and concluded his trip with a brief period of study at Iowa State College. Plans are well along for a study program on the mainland of the United States in as many as a dozen States and in Puerto Rico for another of our grantees to visit appellate and supreme courts. An American grantee is at the present time completing a study tour in several Asian countries as planned by the grantee herself, and we are assisting another grantee in plans for 6 months of intensive Chinese and legal study in Hong Kong and Taiwan. I believe that these are clear indications of the efforts which the Center is making to provide study tours which are of greatest benefit to the students involved, and which are in fact devised in the light of each student's special needs. I know of no other scholarship or grant of this nature which makes possible such extensive flexibility.

The East-West Center has been seeking satisfactory arrangements for the accommodation of East-West Center grantees in U.S. mainland and Asian universities. We are doing so through voluntary participation and are seeking such cooperation and support through direct association with key individuals in many such institutions. In November, for example, we sent one of the professors from the University of Hawaii, a Yale Ph.D., to discuss cooperative possibilities with the graduate dean at Yale, and as a result Yale is willing to take two highly recommended and highly qualified grantees in September for study programs related to studies here. Stanford University, after direct consultation with our director of student programs a few weeks ago in Palo Alto, will do the same. This university has also offered cooperation in housing any of our American grantees on study tours in Japan through the use of the new Stanford Center in Tokyo.

Neither the Center nor the State Department can coerce other institutions in such cooperative enterprises, nor would either wish to do so. I am confident that useful relationships of great benefit to students of the Center can be built with patience and persistence.

I appreciate your concern for the possible dilution of educational resources in seminars, language classes, laboratories, and other academic programs where both grantees and University of Hawaii students share such resources. However, I suggest that you have overlooked the counterpart of this concern, that there are also great benefits to be gained by such a sharing of resources consistent with our major objective. Our aim is not simply to train students from abroad or from the United States, but to develop programs in which they exchange ideas and information and have opportunities to learn something about one another and about the learning process itself. To segregate grantees would seriously impede the achievement of our basic objective and be contrary to our purposes. Furthermore, the University of Hawaii and its faculty members do have much to offer in the way of knowledge, imagination, and deep interest. I believe that in spite of some differences in objectives, interests, and age, the same may be said for the students of the university. The best evidence of all of this lies in the fact that it was, after all, the people of this university who conceived, established, and developed the programs for the East-West Center. This alone is of sufficient indication that a great impetus toward mutual understanding between Asia and the Pacific and the United States exists in this community. This is a resource far too great in value to cast aside. It provides the foundation for the entire concept of the Center.

The presence of students who have language difficulties and who must make cultural adjustments in turn creates problems for the University of Hawaii faculty and student body. These are problems to which they have been willing to devote their serious attention, and I believe that if all of us can accept some of the inconveniences we will gain most of the advantages. You must remember that people in this university and community have made sacrifices above and beyond their normal obligations because of their devotion to this idea. You can do no less.

I quite agree that the environment provided by the present university library (which was planned primarily for undergraduate students) is inadequate for serious graduate study, and I am sure that this view is shared by the librarian, the

administration of the university, and by most members of the university faculty. The East-West Center has long ago acknowledged the need for further acquisitions and has received funds from Congress which are being expended for this purpose. We have also sought from the Congress funds for an additional library structure better geared to the research and work of more advanced scholars, and shall proceed diligently to acquire the necessary support for such a construction program. It is important also to note that the university itself is seeking funds in the next session of the State legislature for additional library facilities.

I should like to point to one example of our own determination to develop the resources of our library. Our operational budget for the current fiscal year for the Center was cut in the last session of the Congress by about 25 percent. In preparing the expenditure plan to accommodate this reduction, we preserved the amounts that we had budgeted for the increase of library collections so that the actual reduction in such funds was from $117,000 to $116,200. This was at the cost of additional heavy burdens in time and quantity of work upon the administrative and operational staff of the Center.

II. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS

I believe that all of us have emphatically stated and acted upon a belief in the exercise of freedom of choice and the expression of individual responsibility. Your most important freedom of choice was exercised in accepting our grant. The housing and food program was devised within our limits of facilities as an experiment in the effectiveness and opportunity for cultural interchange between persons of divergent cultural backgrounds working in close day-to-day living and study situations. This required the setting of certain common rules and procedures and the establishment of certain areas of participation. When any student accepts the privilege and opportunities provided by his grant from the Center, as he must in any other grant from any other institution, he must also abide by the inherent procedures and limitations of the institution or the program. We have been holding extensive staff meetings for many months to consider problems, questions, complaints and suggestions in respect to housing and feeding. We have modified meal plans, changed menus, and given senior students opportunity to choose the system under which they would be assigned to dormitories. We have hired a food specialist to assist in making food adjustments. We support a staff of unusual size to provide continued counseling on housing and other personal affairs.

The Center was planned and based upon a community of students and scholars in which close association would be expected. Congresswoman Bolton said at a luncheon she had with some of our students, "To break bread together is a sacrament which unites us in spirit." The idea which lies behind this is the idea upon which we based our housing and food arrangements. While it may be necessary to make modications from time to time, as evident in the thought we have been giving to the eventual construction of some apartment accommodations for students with dependents, this basic plan is integral to the idea of the Center, and I wish to inform you that although exceptions and changes will be seriously considered, I will not recommend abandoning this plan today. I am fully aware of difficulties and friction, but I believe they must be recognized by all as irritations rather than insurmountable obstacles. They provide, in fact, a great opportunity for individual growth in understanding.

III. ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS

The East-West Center is indeed a project in the national interest. It was so conceived and the nine basic objectives which were prepared by us in the university in developing the original plan for the Center have always served as our goal and guide. From the moment of its inception, the Center has employed and sought counsel from numerous individuals of wide national and international experience and reputation. It has, moreover, brought to this campus as permanent employees individuals of high stature. While I concur that other such outstanding individuals should be recruited to serve on the staff of the Center, I do not accept your implication that those people who have given such inordinate amounts of their own time, energy and ability in establishing and operating the Center to date have been inadequate to their task. Quite the contrary I know of no other university where so much has been accomplished by local people to prepare such complex and extensive programs so well, nor do I know of

others in which so many personal and local interests have been set aside so willingly and ably for such international ideals.

No one questions the need for an advisory council, but to select such a body is a delicate affair, to be approached with care for all implications. I have felt that no incoming chancellor should be confronted with advisers not of his own choosing. I am confident that Dr. Spoehr will act as rapidly in this regard as he can, with due allowances for time to make wise choices.

Your suggestions that the Department of State should exercise more guidance over the Center raises serious questions on which we have taken strong positions. Governmental agencies and representatives are properly concerned that the Center carry out its objectives, but we are opposed to direct governmental control over educational programs and operations. The Carnegie Corp. in its annual report for 1960 stated that, "The university can be effective only when it is being true to itself. *** Foreign universities and governments value the freedom, integrity and objectivity of the American university, and its lack of subservience to official policy. These are assets we should not throw away." Consistent with this view, we have moved to establish effective liaison with the Department of State and enjoy today a cooperative and understanding relationship with the Department which will, I believe, enable both the Center and the Department to carry out their responsibilities most effectively.

As for your concern over the fact that administrative functions are carried out by people having dual responsibilities, I must note that such people are employed by the university as well as the Center, and, more important, that in this country all people carry multiple responsibilities. This is the strength of democracy. I believe in the long run that students will gain rather than lose from this arrangement. Admittedly, there are some administrative difficulties and awkward situations as a result, but these are compensated for by definite advantages.

In respect to your concluding note about bringing international personalities here to meet with Center students, I agree that much can be done. I am sure that the numbers of such people will increase over the years. I would suggest that you may not be altogether familiar with the history of such distinguished visits to Hawaii, for we have had many opportunities to meet such people over the years. I assure you that the Center will do all it can to make opportunities for more such meetings, and especially for Center grantees.

In conclusion, I am pleased that you recognized so quickly the American right to speak freely to the representatives of our Government. You presented a thoughtful and well-written list of suggestions. Your reliance on the press for the conduct of relationships between yourselves and those of us who seek to administer the programs was discourteous and unwise and has impaired community support and acceptance which have been carefully and patiently built up over a number of years. This relationship is reparable, and I have confidence that you will with equal patience amend the situation.

I note finally that an education and mutual understanding cannot be taken as gifts, but only earned. In this quest, I ask of each of you only what I ask of myself, that we may each do better.

MURRAY TURNBULL, Acting Chancellor.

CHAMINADE COLLEGE OF HONOLULU,

Honolulu, Hawaii, December 13, 1961.

Hon. WAYNE L. HAYS,

U.S. Representative from Ohio,
Honolulu, Hawaii.

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE HAYS: Several times I have expressed an opinion on the East-West Center for Cultural and Technical Exchange. On the occasion of the congressional hearings in Hawaii, I would like to submit for your consideration my views on the purposes of the Center and the means for implementing these purposes.

I believe that our present Vice President, then Senator Johnson of Texas, expressed the basic purpose of the Center in an address to his colleagues, which is recorded in volume 105, No. 94, of the Congressional Record:

"I am today introducing a bill, along with Delegate Burns, of Hawaii, in the other House, which we believe will achieve this result. It is the foundation for what I envision as an intellectual bridge, joining together the best of the East and the West.

"The purpose of this act is simple: To promote better relations and understanding between the United States and the nations of Asia and the Pacific by establishing an institution of higher learning to be known as the Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange between East and West, in Hawa

"Here, able scholars and authorities in the humanities, language, science, medicine, agriculture, and jurisprudence-from the East and from the Westmight gather. Here, in turn, representative students of the East and West would be afforded outstanding instruction on both the undergraduate and the graduate levels.

"To students from the West, the great scholars of Asia would impart their teachings. And, in the same manner, professors from the Western World would lay their knowledge before students from the East.

"In Hawaii-astride the trade routes of the Pacific, and boasting a blending of many cultures-language barriers would erode.

"From this intellectual association, people would gain deeper understanding and new respect for each other. All mankind would benefit."

Although Senator Johnson referred to the University of Hawaii in that address, he did not find in the university the reason for locating the Center in Hawaii. He specified the geographic position of the State of Hawaii and the peculiar composition of her population as the reasons for locating this great intellectual experiment here.

To realize the purposes stated by Senator Johnson, the Center must give a primacy to cultural exchange. It is only on this high level of human achievement that exchange can take place. Many of the peoples of the Pacific Basin can actually give us as much as we can give them in the area of culture. In such an exchange those who receive also give and thus retain the dignity of active participants.

With the exception of Japan, no other country in the Pacific Basin can engage in a technical exchange. Most of the students coming to the Center for technical training would not be able to give in return.

There is need, nevertheless, for a degree of technical development and industrialization in the developing countries before they can implement our democratic ideals. Thus, there is an intimate relation between cultural exchange and the advance in technology today.

Cultural exchange, however, occurs more frequently in informal encounters with representatives of the various cultures and through the cultural media than in the formal situation of the lecture hall. The State of Hawaii is living proof to all the students at the Center that persons of many cultures can live together and appreciate one another.

For this reason the community and its cultural resources must form an integral part of the Center's program. Community participation cannot be left to haphazard and be considered merely an adjunct to the basic program.

To effect this community participation it would seem that the administration of the Center should be separated from the University of Hawaii. The adminis tration could then contract with the University of Hawaii, mainland colleges and universities, other institutions of higher learning in Hawaii, the Community Theater, the Bishop Museum, the Art Academy, the Honolulu Symphony, etc., for the necessary services. The major contract could still be had with the university.

I feel strongly on these points since I believe that the fate of higher education in Hawaii, both public and private, and our cultural institutions is intimately linked with the rise or fall of the new Center.

Sincerely yours,

Very Rev. ROBERT R. MACKEY, S.M.,

President.