An upcoming bill has professors nervous that censorship may become the new norm in international studies programs.

House Resolution 3077, the International Studies Higher Education bill, would allow Congress to create an advisory board that would make recommendations based on the content and curriculum of university international studies and foreign languages programs that receive federal funding. While defenders of the bill say that the board would purely advise and not interfere, professors in affected departments say the board would be dangerous to academia.

"This committee that they propose to form would function as an oversight committee to look into what you are reading, what is your curriculum, what are the contents of the lectures you're receiving, what books are you using," says SF State international relations professor Dwight Simpson. "That"s called censorship."

With Congress out of session, and the bill in the Senate for review, any changes in international studies programs will not be immediate. "These bills (that would reauthorize the Higher Education Act) under the HEA are still on the floor and probably won't pass until after November 2004 elections," said Mary Cunningham, the legislative director for the United States Students Association, which advocates for schools throughout the United States.

The HEA strengthens the educational resources of colleges and universities and provides financial assistance to students in postsecondary and higher education. Every five years the HEA is reauthorized which allows amendments to be made to it.

In a statement from the author of the bill and chairman of the subcommittee on Selection Education and Education and the Workforce, Pete Hoekstra says: "As we continue to reauthorize the HEA and strengthen and improve the state of higher education in America, we cannot neglect these important programs for international studies. The bill would increase coordination between these important international and foreign languages studies programs to better meet America's national and international security needs. In addition, this bill clarifies existing accountability requirements and adds new oversight of the programs in order to ensure appropriate use of taxpayer funds."

HR 3077 passed the bipartisan House Education and the Workforce Committee with a voice vote. Bay Area representatives were hesitant to comment because they had not yet reviewed it.

Conservative columnist Stanley Kurtz spoke in support of the bill to the committee in June, saying he felt that non-liberal points of view were being excluded from university teachings. "I think the academy has become too one-sided," he says. "Professors tend to share a left-leaning cultural and political perspective, and there are few representatives of more moderate or conservative points of view. This is bad for everyone because it inhibits real debate and interchange." HR 3077, he says, will encourage more diversity in academics.

With the board serving as more of an advising committee than a decision-making body, its influence would be limited to making recommendations as to the direction in which international studies programs go.

According to a press release from the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the sole purpose and function of this board is to advise the Department of Education and the Congress on issues of international education. The board will make recommendations and serve as a resource to those who actually oversee the programs at the federal level. It also defines the scope of the board as advisory only in nature, and in fact the bill includes an express prohibition that ensures the advisory board cannot direct programs, instructional methods or curriculum.

Midori McKeon, chair of the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures writes in an e-mail: "Like many people in academia, especially those in the fields of area studies, foreign languages, history, ethnic studies, and international relations, I have concerns about provisions in HR 3077, particularly those pertaining to the creation of an International Education Advisory Board.

"The proposed board's powerful charge `to annually review, monitor, apprise, and evaluate" the activities of Title VI federal grant recipient programs and `to increase accountability by providing advice, counsel, and recommendations to Congress on international education issues for higher education" could introduce a level of governmental review that infringes upon the prerogatives traditionally granted to institutions of higher education. I do understand the government's paramount concern about national security. I believe, however, academic freedom is a crucial element in international education and education in general for nurturing mature, well-informed, open-minded individuals who can contribute in various ways to conflict resolution and the betterment of human society."

"Board members will be appointed on a bipartisan basis by both the executive branch and the legislative branch," says Rep. Ruben Hinojosa, D-Texas, the ranking Democrat on the House committee. "The board"s function is to provide recommendations. It has no oversight responsibilities. The board is strictly prohibited from interfering with curriculum."

Hinojosa supports the bill, he says, because "it reaffirmed the nation's commitment to international education." He feels that the bill is especially timely given current world events. "We are part of a global economy, and our fortunes are directly tied to the fortunes of other nations," he says. "As our challenges in Iraq demonstrate, lack of understanding of other people's culture and language can have deadly consequences. All of our young people from elementary to university must be exposed to the world at large."

Hinojosa's view of the bill is that it will broaden learning, not narrow or dictate it. Kurtz agrees with that assessment. "In both my Congressional testimony and in my piece, Reforming the Campus, I explicitly stated that it would be wrong to exclude radical critics of American foreign policy from the academy," he says. "This legislation excludes no points of view. But it does encourage the inclusion of many points of view."

Simpson, however, doesn't see the bill as so benevolent. In reference to Kurtz's House testimony, he says Kurtz "went on in very great length" about "imbalance" and "prejudice" in international affairs curricula. "He wants that corrected," Simpson says. "That's so very reminiscent of Joseph McCarthy that it makes me think, `Oh my God, is he back?""

Kurtz dismisses accusations of McCarthyism--Simpson's isn't the first--by turning
the indictment around. "If anyone is practicing McCarthyism, it is the followers of postcolonial studies who stigmatize their opponents as bigoted`Orientalists' as a justification for excluding them from the academy," he says. "Certainly the academy would be remiss if it included no critics of our government's policies. But it would be equally remiss if it included no supporters. Unfortunately, we are very close to the latter situation right now."

The bill is still being debated, and no date has been set for a vote. There is still plenty of time for people like Kurtz and Simpson to make their voices heard.

"I would encourage faculty to stay engaged in the process so that the final legislation strengthens international education," Rep. Hinojosa says. "If an advisory board were to be included in the final legislation, I would urge faculty to be involved with the board. All of us will need to remain engaged in the process to ensure that the board will fulfill its mission of providing recommendations to strengthen and improve international education programs."

Whether the bill will be beneficial, baleful, or benign remains to be seen, but Simpson has his suspicions of the motives for it. "They want support for U.S. policy," he says. "They want some committee in Washington to say,`Teach, but within these guidelines.' Whoa! Be careful."