 | Between the United States and Germany 1945-1954 |
| | Between the United States and Germany 1945-1954 |
Since 1951, preliminary discussions had been held by HICOG officials and representatives of the German Foreign Office and the Ministry of the Interior concerning "a coordinated binational exchange program." The actual inauguration of such a program under the Fulbright Act, following the Bonn Convention which replaced the Occupation Statute, can be rightfully considered as the first implemental act symbolizing the advent of full normalization of relations between the United States and Germany.
The Fulbright agreement with Germany, or, as it is known by its official title, the "Agreement between the Governments of the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany for Financing Certain Educational Exchange Programs," was signed on July 18, 1952 by U.S. High Commissioner John J. McCloy for the Government of the United States of America and by Chancellor Konrad Adenauer for the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany.(1) It preceded the restoration of Germany to the status of sovereignty. There was no reference, implied or otherwise, to reorientation or democratization. It restored binationalisin in the fullest sense in the field of educational and cultural relations between the two countries.
The worldwide binational Fulbright program had originated with the passage of Public Law 584 by the U.S. Congress in 1946, introduced by Senator J. William Fulbright. The purpose of the Act was to strengthen mutual knowledge and understanding between countries, prerequisites for a peaceful world, through the financing of studies, research, instruction, and other educational activities between the United States and participating countries. By 1952, the major countries of Western Europe had signed Fulbright agreements and were engaged in such exchange activities. The program, by bringing the war-torn countries back into the mainstream of international educational and scientific life, had established itself as a symbol of mutual cooperation. Educational exchanges under the Fulbright Act were in operation between the United States and 24 other countries of the world, including 10 countries in Western Europe. The terms of the, various Fulbright agreements, and the policies and procedures established to carry them out, were essentially the same for all programs of binational Commissions wherever they were established.
As was the case with earlier binational Fulbright agreements, the agreement with Germany permitted the U.S. Government to draw on foreign currencies or credits acquired as a payment for surplus property disposals, to finance the program. Its purpose, as specifically enunciated in its preamble, was "to promote further mutual understanding between the peoples of the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany by a wider exchange of knowledge and professional talents through educational contacts." Citizens of the United States were eligible for full funding of transportation, tuition, maintenance, and other expenses related to scholastic activities in schools and institutions of higher learning located in the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany, as were Germans having their permanent residence in the Federal Republic of Germany and/or the Western Sectors of Berlin who chose to engage in educational activities in U.S. schools or institutions of higher learning. German nationals having their permanent residence in the Federal Republic of Germany and/or the Western Sectors of Berlin who desired to attend U.S. schools and institutions of higher learning in the continental United States, Hawaii, Alaska (including the Aleutian Islands), Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, were provided with transportation only, as long as their attendance did not deprive U.S. citizens of an opportunity to attend such schools and institutions. Since only foreign currencies were available under the program, the dollar expenses in the United States were to be provided from U.S. Government and private sources.
The principle of binationalism was inherent also in the administration of the Fulbright program. A binational commission in Germany, known as "United States Educational Commission in the Federal Republic of Germany," henceforth referred to as the USEC/G or the "Commission," was given the responsibility "to facilitate the administration" of the program in Germany. The Commission was composed of ten members, five of whom were U.S. citizens and five German nationals having their permanent residence in the Federal Republic of Germany and/or in the Western Sectors of Berlin.(2)
In common with all of the Fulbright agreements, the principal officer in charge of the U.S. Diplomatic Mission to the Federal Republic of Germany, i.e., at first the High Commissioner and subsequently the Ambassador, was the Honorary Chairman of the Commission in Germany. He had the right to cast the deciding vote in the event of a tie and also to appoint the regular Chairman of the. Commission. The Commission was responsible for engaging an Executive Secretary to carry out its administrative responsibilities. Both the regular Chairman and the Executive Secretary, at the beginning, were American citizens. Among the principal responsibilities of the Commission was the preparation of the annual program and its submission to the Department, the nomination of German candidates for grants, and the placement and the rendering of other related services for U.S. recipients of grants to Germany.
In the United States, a Presidentially-appointed Board of Foreign Scholarships, composed of 10 (now 12) distinguished representatives of cultural and educational life, had been created by the Fulbright Act to supervise the program and to make the final selection of individuals and institutions to be assisted. It also had the responsibility for approving the annual program submitted by the Commission. The Board was assisted by three principal cooperating agencies, financed by the Department, for announcing opportunities and screening applications in the United States and for arranging placement of foreign recipients of grants in U.S. institutions, and related services: the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils, representing the four national research councils in the United States (American Council of Learned Societies, National Research Council, Social Science Research Council, and the American Council on Education) for advanced scholars and professors; the Institute of International Education for students; and the U.S. Office of Education for school teachers. The Department of State through its International Educational Exchange Service served as the Secretariat for the Board.
The Secretary of State was responsible for administering the overall program to assure compliance with the terms of the Act as authorized by Congress, with responsibility for approval of the annual budget "pursuant to such regulations as he may prescribe." The United States funded the annual program by requesting the Federal Republic of Germany to make available payments against its dollar indebtedness. Sums of German currency equivalent to $5 million were to be made available. An amount not to exceed $1 million could be placed at the disposal of the Commission for any single calendar year. This sum was to be supplemented by dollar amounts (in 1953: $507,000) taken from the regular appropriation for the exchange program of HICOG to defray expenses incurred by German Fulbright grantees in the United States.(3) At first the U.S. Government bore the brunt of the cost---a characteristic of the Fulbright program worldwide. With the rapid recovery of their economy, German authorities began to view the imbalance in funding as a drawback that deprived the agreement of full binationalism. Yet, it was only in 1962, when the agreement was renewed, that the financial contributions of both parties were equalized. After that Germany recognized the Fulbright program as a "'truly binational undertaking."(4)
Although by definition Fulbright agreements were cultural undertakings whose binationalism was based on the principle of full reciprocity,(5) the climate of the early fifties introduced a mildly political note in the deliberation of the new German Fulbright Commission. Binationalism and reciprocity notwithstanding, the new U.S. High Commissioner, Walter W. Donnelly, reminded the Commission at its first session on September 29, 1952 that the Fulbright program in Germany had a mandate over and above that carried by other programs of its kind. Being a most effective means of promoting international understanding and cooperation, he hoped that, as the executor of the Fulbright program, the Commission would succeed in helping "remove many misunderstandings which may still exist between Germany and America."(6) His German counterpart, State Secretary Walter Hallstein, struck a similar but somewhat less guarded note. He classified the initiative associated with the name Fulbright as "only one stage" in the larger effort of the American Government and the American people "to achieve a closer rapprochement between our two peoples."(7) Hallstein and his colleagues placed the accent on youth. Giving full credit to American generosity in opening their country to thousands of young Germans, Hallstein saw the great merit of the Fulbright program in the corresponding effort to acquaint young Americans with the conditions, the culture, and the people of Germany. "Cultural exchange," Hallstein concluded, "is quite simply not a one-way street."(8)
Another factor that German officials were quick to realize was that the Fulbright program offered German authorities and citizens, sooner than in the case of other exchanges, a higher degree of participation in various stages of planning and execution. They accepted this new responsibility eagerly. Their enthusiasm did not wane in the coming years but kept on growing as did their financial contributions. Today the German contribution to the financing of the binational Fulbright program exceeds by far that of the United States.(9)
The Fulbright program started as a supplementary effort. As Sam H. Linch, Cultural Attaché of HICOG and the Commission's first chairman, pointed out at the first session of the Commission, "the program will augment and be in addition to the regular exchange of persons program carried out by the U.S. High Commissioner," which he noted would, in fact, send about 2,000 German leaders, trainees, and teenagers to the United States in the coming year (1953).(10)
The Fulbright program absorbed the essentially academic categories of exchange previously handled under the auspices of the regular exchange program of HICOG; namely, university and college professors, lecturers, research scholars, school teachers, and graduate students.(11) German and American participants were about equal in number, a major and significant change from the character of the regular HICOG administered program, giving an added accent to the two-way character of the program.
During 1953, the first year of the operation of the program, for instance, the. total number of German exchangees was 235, that of American exchangees 239. Of the German groups the largest single category was graduate students (178), followed by professors and lecturers (33), and teachers (8). In addition, 16 Germans participated in special study projects, along with participants from other European countries, such as the annual Salzburg Seminar in American Studies in Austria, administered by a private group in the United States in close cooperation with Harvard; and the program at the Bologna Center, in Italy, a school of advanced political study administered jointly by Johns Hopkins University and the University of Bologna. Each of these centers received financial support through grants-in-aid from the U.S. Department of State. The participants were financed by the respective Fulbright Commissions.
The corresponding figures within the total American group were 192 students, 19 professors and lecturers, 16 research scholars (a category that in the German listings of grants was. frequently combined with professors and lecturers), and 12 teachers. In the following year totals showed slight increases in most categories, notably among American students, but after 1954 remained by and large on the same level. By 1955 the number of German participants had reached an annual total of 732 (351 students, 108 professors and lecturers, and 66 teachers and 29 participants in special study projects), and that of their American counterparts 827, including renewal grants (594 students, 71 professors, 56 research scholars, and 76 teachers), (see Appendix III). Thus the program as planned by the Commission included a larger number of grants to Americans than to Germans. However, as noted earlier, the imbalance was more than amply compensated for by the regular HICOG exchange program with its preponderance of German participants, mostly in the category of German leaders.
The Fulbright agreement introduced subtle but significant changes in the exchange program in general---that is, in approach, emphasis, and administration. With students, scholars, teachers and professors removed from the regular HICOG exchange program, these groups were no longer committed to engage, individually or collectively, in studies serving "reorientation" purposes. True to the program's objective "to promote further mutual understanding ... by a wider exchange of knowledge and professional talents," the goals pursued by each participant were scholastic and on the whole highly individualized, which applied to German no less than to American participants. Except in the most general terms and contrary to the reorientation exchange program, the Fulbright program was wholly nonpolitical as regards selection of candidates and fields of study. According to a report submitted in 1952 to USEC/G by the "Committee to Survey Educationally Needed Facilities in Germany,"(12) the "entire exchange of knowledge" was to be furthered through the Fulbright program. The Committee acknowledged that German students and scholars going to the United States for purposes of training were to represent "all recognized areas of advanced study and research." However, the special relationship between the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany which in 1952 was still an occupied country, could not be entirely overlooked. With a view to the special needs and deficiencies prevailing in postwar Germany, the Committee recommended that special emphasis be placed on the following fields: social sciences, including political science with emphasis on empirical research methods rather than pure theory; problems of human relations as reflected in such fields as education; psychology and psychiatry; community planning; medicine and public health; architecture; humanities; natural sciences; engineering in all its facets; labor and management problems; American studies; and economics.(13) Nearly every one of these subjects was related to problem areas critical to the German national reconstruction effort. Expertise in these fields was at a premium, with German facilities for training still recovering from traditional weaknesses and the effects of political indoctrination.
When the binational Fulbright exchanges began in 1947, the Board of Foreign Scholarships placed total emphasis on open competition as the method for securing grantees. This was partly the result of the American belief in an equal chance for all, and partly reflected the wish of the Board to gain wider experience before focusing the program on projects. In 1950 and 1951 the Board began to place stronger emphasis on projects, and on the direct recruitment of high quality U.S. professors and lecturers to implement such projects. Part of the new emphasis stressed the development of American studies. Thus, when the Fulbright program with Germany was activated in January of 1953, exchange opportunities were organized under several projects, each project representing a cluster of grants to Germans and Americans in a specific field of activity. Contrary to the earlier projects developed by OMGUS and HICOG, the Fulbright projects constituted broad academic areas, encompassing a number of disciplines where demands and interests were most pronounced and where the resources of one country could effectively supplement those of the other. Six major project areas were identified: (I) University Exchanges in the Humanities; (II) University Exchanges in the Social Sciences; (III) American Studies in German Universities; (IV) University Exchanges in Mathematics and the Natural Sciences; (V) University Exchanges in Music and Art; and (VI) Teacher Exchange Program. There were two additional categories: Special Projects (such as the German Youth Specialist Program) and the Inter-Foundation Lectureship Program.(14) The order in which the projects were listed seems to have been intended to reflect a scale of priority for meeting needs and interests in order of urgency. The "consequences," as the Fulbright Commission later pointed out in its first 10-year report,(15) were "reciprocal appreciation of the achievements of German and American academic endeavor and enrichment of scholarship on both sides of the Atlantic."
As regards their importance and beneficial effect for either country, the 10-year report of the Commission suggested that Project I: "Humanities" had proved a most timely response to a growing interest in the United States in "Germanics" or German literature. Curiously, no reference was made to the impact, if any, on the development of liberal arts studies (studium generale) at German universities. Project II: "Social Sciences," on the other hand, was described as a real boon to German efforts to broaden the scope of university disciplinary curriculum and professional horizons, particularly through empiric research and through the study of political science and international relations. For obvious reasons, the beneficiaries of Project III: "American Studies" were German students and scholars, especially those who intended to use later their newly acquired knowledge of American history and literature for teaching purposes. Project IV: "Mathematics and the Natural Sciences" appears to have been the most reciprocal one as regards participation and benefit. Because of Germany's rich tradition in "Music and Art," Project V was very popular, although by no means exclusively so, with American students. Project VI: "Teacher Exchange" was conceived almost from the beginning as largely a 50-50 reciprocal proposition with German and American school teachers replacing each other, principally in language teaching but occasionally in literature and social studies classes.(16)
"Amerika Studien" or American Studies deserve special mention because they constituted perhaps the most important and most truly innovative feature of the Fulbright program. Their purpose, in support of U.S. overall policy, and in response to a widespread interest in the United States, was to afford German students an opportunity to learn more about American culture and civilization and thus to strengthen cultural ties between the two countries.(17) The reasons for U.S. interest in fostering in-depth study of America were obvious and compelling. The American image in Germany was riddled with clichés. Never quite free of controversy, it had been viciously distorted by Nazi (and later Communist) propaganda and vestiges were abundant. In contrast thereto, Hollywood had glamorized the American scene to a degree that was often suspect. The presence of occupation authorities and of military personnel had done little to correct the picture or to improve relations. Cultural contacts had remained minimal. At the same time, there was considerable and growing curiosity among Germans in nearly all social strata about America and things American. There was, in fact, a keenly felt need to learn about the United States in a more systematic fashion. German educational institutions, from high schools to universities, partly in response to U.S. suggestions, partly on their own initiative, began to introduce American studies in their curricula.(18) "America Institutes" sprang up at various universities, although in most cases "Amerikanistik" was not recognized as a major obligatory subject but merely as a so-called "Zusatzfach," i.e., an optional subject.(19) The time for an American initiative thus seemed propitious. Implicitly, in the immediate post-Nazi period, emphasis on American studies was another way of teaching democracy by live example, thereby reinforcing the reorientation thrust of the regular exchange program.
American studies, broadly defined, received probably more attention and support from the Commission than any other single Fulbright project. Special seminars were planned in 1954 to afford German students, teachers, and research scholars an opportunity to become acquainted with American literature, history, sociology, education, fine arts, political and social sciences, and the teaching of English as a second language, by means of a series of lectures and discussions. Moreover, to a degree of sophistication not previously attempted in Germany, American studies were now being adapted to the scholastic preferences and needs of German universities. The first Fulbright program proposal, for 1953-1954, stipulated, for instance, that American visiting lecturers in American studies should be specialists in modern American history. The role of the United States in world affairs, no less than its dominant position in international relations, was considered to be of particular interest to German students.
American sociology as taught in American universities was generally unknown in Germany. And although prewar Germany had a rich tradition in sociology, there was now a critical lag compared with other disciplines. This suggested an acute need for stimulating modern methods of sociological research and the use of statistics.
With due respect to German accomplishments in pedagogics and psychology, the traditional stress on theory in these disciplines seemed to require some balance by greater emphasis on empirical methods and modern trends of research in both fields. Lectures were, for example, to highlight the child-centered curriculum as opposed to traditional subject centered concepts. An approach of this nature was expected to meet the interest of German teachers who were eager to exchange ideas and experiences with their American colleagues in an effort to develop new goals in German education.
Social sciences, and in particular political science, as developed in the United States, were regarded as academic disciplines most pertinent as vehicles for demonstrating democracy in action and training new cadres of leadership.
In the field of architecture, the Commission felt that modem American achievements might serve as models to German architects in replacing and restoring public buildings and private dwellings. American influence in this regard had only recently begun to assert itself in Germany. Courses in the design of schools, hospitals, and theaters were especially welcome. So were courses on the use of new building materials permitting greater efficiency and economy with emphasis on low-cost housing and more functional design.
Finally, the teaching of English emerged as a subject of surpassing significance, principally for three reasons: first, although some American lecturers taught in German, knowledge of English was vital to full comprehension of the variety of subject matters included in the American studies program; second, while German teachers were quite proficient in English grammar, phonetics, and literature, their speaking knowledge was often deficient; and third, in the Federal Republic at least, English was fast replacing French as the most popular foreign language. Thus English became an obligatory subject in all secondary schools, including the classical gymnasium.
The program proposal for 1953-1954 as approved by the Commission with its heavy emphasis on American studies responded in part to the policy of the Board of Foreign Scholarships to focus the Fulbright programs around project concepts. The promotion of American studies in German universities, attracting the interest of the German academician in the form of scholarly study projects, raised reorientation to a more sophisticated level. This undoubtedly was the intent of the Commission. Yet, wishing to avoid charges that it was focusing the major part of the program on American studies, the Commission pointed out that the rest of the program was reserved for studies in any recognized academic field for which adequate facilities existed.(20) Special reference was made to the fine arts, science, and mathematics. The Commission, in fact, expressed certain reservations concerning the degree of emphasis placed on American studies in the program. It averred that it had by no means been its purpose to insist that universities and other educational institutions in Germany accept American studies as a part of their regular program---although some (e.g., Munich) had done so. It was merely responding to the expressed interest of German and American educators who were voluntarily engaged in such studies.(21) Yet, actually, the Commission made every conceivable effort to encourage German universities to develop programs in American literature, history, education, economics, and sociology. It gave priority to the applications of those who had chosen American studies as their field of participation and who, as it happened, constituted the largest single group among American senior grantees. American interest proved a welcome boost to the project, but German support was sometimes lacking. In 1955, for example, the Commission saw itself compelled to abandon plans of a seminar for American studies because of what it described to be "administrative difficulties and lack of financial support from German sources."(22) The American studies program as such, however, continued on an undiminished scale.
The "Fulbrighters" introduced a new kind of Americans to Germany. Germans had come to know the American "expert," the American artist and, above all, the American GI. The American image produced by them was, if not distorted, at least controversial. Personal contact, moreover, had remained limited. The Fulbright program now brought forth the American scholar and the American student, both of whom were to become part of the German academic scene. Conversely, German scholars and students were to be introduced to the American academic system and campus life. American high school teachers were to take the place of their German counterparts and, vice versa, German high school teachers would substitute for their colleagues.
The basic assumption was that academic standards and practices in both countries were sufficiently equivalent or at least similar to permit such exchanges without major complications. The assumption proved to be fallacious, particularly in the case of students. The Commission soon discovered that, in general, German students were slightly older and had a stronger academic background than American students in the same age group. German members of the Commission pointed out that German and American curricula simply did not correspond in level and that an American high school graduate with 4 years of college training had just about reached the level of a German high school graduate (Abiturient) with 2 years of university training, "since American students," as German experts pointed out, "go to college two years before the Germans go."(23) Furthermore study methods varied. Many German students accustomed to the independent pursuit of their studies, found the discipline of American colleges, such as compulsory attendance of classes, stifling. American students, on the other hand, used to the stricter routine of their colleges, felt lost on German campuses and often strayed away from their studies with the result that their performance was difficult to evaluate.(24)
The problems faced by university faculty and school teachers were more technical. School vacation and work schedules in the two countries did not coincide and hence led to troublesome delays in the selection of participants. German scholars in responsible administrative, positions found it difficult to be, absent for a, period of 9 months in face of the acute shortage of teaching personnel. The younger teachers were reluctant to commit themselves for fear of losing their prospects for employment or their place on faculties---an understandable but not wholly realistic apprehension in view of the urgent need for well-trained teachers. Some of the more prominent German scholars found the small stipend of $9 per day inadequate. American teachers had similar complaints. German salaries and stipends which in the beginning were paid in nonconvertible German Marks were below the level of American remunerations. All of the American participants, especially students, felt the pinch of an extremely tight housing situation and of living conditions which in the early fifties were still far from normal and often substandard by comparison with conditions in the United States.
There were other problems, especially at the beginning. Exchange candidates complained about delays in the selection process. Some American professors were disappointed to find that the subjects they taught were not compulsory (no "Examensfach") and that class attendance was therefore neither required nor indeed observed by students. Some, not in adequate command of German, came up hard against the language barrier. Social contact with German colleagues or fellow students was rare. The tendency on the part of American students to stick together complicated the situation, which may have been in part a reaction to the traditional reserve and status consciousness of German faculty members and of their habit of keeping students at a distance.
In the case of American professors, similar difficulties of adjustment were sometimes compounded by the inability on the part of the Commission to obtain advance approval of the American candidate by the German dean or "Ordinarius." In such cases the, American "Fulbrighter" found himself snubbed by his German colleagues. Complications of this nature, combined with the low rates of compensation noted earlier, may have been the cause for German suspicions that the program was not attracting high caliber scholars from the United States. A few American Fulbright professors apparently joined the critics. But most of the American professors seldom had such problems. In fact, the majority of the participants not only profited from their personal and professional experience, but enhanced the prestige of the program.(25) By and large, the reports from and about "Fulbrighters" in the United States attested to the valuable contribution the program was making in building closer ties between the educational communities of the two countries.(26)
Both American and German authorities did their utmost to reduce or eliminate the problems of grant recipients. An extensive orientation program for both Americans and Germans, before and after arrival in the host country, including shipboard orientation conferences, introduced participants, notably students and teachers, to conditions in the respective host countries. The Institute of International Education and the Committee on Friendly Relations among Foreign Students (now the International Student Service) assisted German students upon their arrival in the United States by arranging for reception, social contacts, and sightseeing. Universities organized orientation centers. Students were provided with helpful literature, and with lists of fellow grantees.
American students in Germany participated in systematic orientation courses lasting 3 weeks (later reduced to 2). Introductory language instruction was provided on board ship. With the help of the Experiment in International Living, many were placed with German families for 1-month periods; some decided to board with their hosts for the rest of their study period. During their stay in Germany the Commission endeavored to remain in touch with the American students by way of correspondence and personal visits, organizing regional conferences, and meeting with grantees at individual universities. In order to break the ice and to facilitate contact with German faculty members and students, the Commission financed a series of social meetings.
Since the Commission's contacts with American students were intended, as the Commission took pains to point out, to assist rather than supervise them, evaluation of their academic pursuits remained a difficult problem and the Commission was unable to reach a satisfactory solution. Responsibility for evaluation was first left with the so-called "foreign-bureau" (Auslandsamt) of each university which by and large was not equipped to handle the job. Eventually the "Conference of German University Presidents" (Rektorenkonferenze) agreed to cooperate. A number of adjustments were gradually made to meet some of the most critical problems experienced by American grantees. Universities helped in providing housing for individuals, but facilities for those with families proved well nigh impossible to find. Grantees were therefore- discouraged from bringing dependents to Germany. On the other hand, special allowance was made for the need of music students to supplement their university courses by refunding the costs of private instruction on an average of 2 hours per week. Further, in a few instances, the Commission approved supplementary funds for grantees to compensate for travel costs, microfilming and stenographic expenses when they appeared necessary to the completion of a given project.(27)
As indicated above, the vast majority of German grantees were university students at various stages of their academic training. With this emphasis on youth, the Fulbright program reinforced a policy started by HICOG. But there were certain differences in approach which permitted more individualized treatment with respect to selection of candidates and program development.
During the first years of its operation the Commission refined its criteria and procedures extensively. At its first session on September 29, 1952,(28) it divided the German students according to sources of funding and proposed a few rough criteria not essentially different from those used by HICOG. Grants given to students were of three types--- those whose transportation was furnished out of Fulbright funds and whose maintenance was paid out of the HICOG exchange budget; those whose transportation was provided from Fulbright funds and who received scholarships from an American university; and those whose transportation was guaranteed by Fulbright funds but who were able to obtain a private scholarship or had private means to take care of their dollar expenditures.
Personal criteria for eligibility were fairly simple, namely: German citizenship (or nationality), proficiency in English, and age below 35. There appears to have been some difference of opinion with respect to academic requirements. Some German members of the Commission argued in favor of selection of advanced over first semester students, i.e. graduates or postgraduates, others preferred recent high school graduates (Abiturienten). For the first year the Commission accepted a compromise proposal. Screening agencies were instructed to submit recommendations of candidates by using the following categories and percentages: (a) high school graduates (Abiturienten) who had not yet entered a university---15 percent; (b) first to sixth semester university students (provided that they had completed two semesters at a German university at the time of their departure) ---25 percent; and (c) upperclassmen, graduate, and postgraduate students---50 percent. A flexible margin of 10 percent was left for categories (a), (b), and (c).(29)
The candidacy of early semester students might have been hard to justify if admission had been based on academic standards alone, a practice followed frequently by German universities. In observance of the general guidelines of the Fulbright agreement, however, the Fulbright Scholarship Committees which made the final recommendations, did not consider academic excellence as the sole criterion, but placed great emphasis on such intangibles as personality, character, extracurricular interests, and social and political awareness.(30) On the basis of experience up to that point, a policy guide issued by the Commission to Fulbright Scholarship Committees for the 1955-1956 student program was quite explicit in this regard. Students, it was pointed out, would be judged in the United States not only on the basis of their scholarly achievements but also "on the impression they make as representatives of the Federal Republic." Therefore, due consideration should be given to personality traits, attitudes, and appearance. Hobbies, recreational activities, as well as social, political, and community interests were declared important criteria. Leadership, either demonstrated or potential, was a factor to be carefully weighed. The wish to visit the United States to learn about American life was not to be regarded as a valid reason for favorable consideration. Instead, the policy demanded that students show proof of a definite "goal" which the student's stay in the United States could substantially achieve. Choice of academic studies which could be just as successfully pursued in Germany would not justify participation in the program. Political and religious beliefs which in principle were stated to be of no concern to the screening bodies, could become relevant and legitimate criteria if they helped to "ascertain the applicant's openmindedness, tolerance, and understanding of the social and cultural climate of both the United States and Germany."(31) Emphasis on such intangibles seems to have led in some cases to neglect of academic standards, for the Commission found it necessary to admonish Fulbright Scholarship Committees to give more careful consideration to the academic achievements of candidates.(32) Moreover, the Commission stipulated that those with a questionable political background, in order to qualify for consideration, had to support their application "by unusually strong recommendations on academic qualifications."(33)
Further requirements had to be added when in the course, of the following years the student group was expanded or, more correctly, supplemented with the addition of so-called "Jungakademiker" (young academicians)(34) young teachers, young lawyers, and youth specialists, underlining increased emphasis on those young professionals who, upon their return to Germany, could apply immediately their newly gained knowledge within their fields.(35) The modified criteria were publicized in all German universities, ministries of education, and U.S. consular offices by special announcement.(36) The new category of young professionals included six groups: (a) students in their third, fourth, and fifth semesters at a university or technical university as of July 1955 (students from so-called pedagogical institutes of higher learning were not eligible unless they had completed their first examen) ; (b) students at a university or technical university who had completed six semesters or more of academic training as of July 1955; (c) students of "Sonstige [specialized] Hochschulen" (e.g., academies of music, arts, and the like) who qualified under "(a)" above; and (d) "Jungakademiker," or persons who had completed their formal university education, no matter what their profession, provided that they were under 35 years of age and desired to engage in specialized graduate studies in the United States.
The category of young lawyers, or so-called legal trainees, was adopted from the HICOG exchange program as an especially critical group of recruits for future managerial and executive positions.(37) The requirements for these. young lawyers (not to be confused with "Referendare," see Chapter II) were especially strict. Not only were they expected to have passed the second bar ("Assessor") examen but also to have spent 3 years in government service. Other young academicians included chemists, physicists, engineers, physicians, university assistants, and "Habilitanten" (i.e., candidates preparing themselves for an academic career). Physicians, however, were advised that they could not be placed in American medical schools but could study in other fields or be recommended for travel grants to accept internships in American hospitals. In all cases, the scholastic record of candidates in the, young professionals category had to be better than average. They had to have sufficient command of English to read with comprehension and to participate effectively in group discussions. Beyond this they had to show awareness of current affairs and proof of community activities. Finally, each candidate, had to present evidence that he would continue his present work upon his return, and agree in writing that he would return to Germany upon completion of his studies.(38)
At its 22d session (in February 1955), the Commission decided to include in its 1956 Annual Program proposal a "Youth Specialists" project(39) which was sponsored by the Neighborhood Settlement Association of Cleveland, Ohio, Inc., under the direction of Dr. Henry Ollendorff.(40) The latter had agreed to defray all expenses of the participants while in the United States, i.e., for maintenance, transportation, and administration, with only tuition for enrollment at Western Reserve University paid for with dollars provided by the U.S. Government, appropriated under Public Law 402 (the Smith-Mundt Act). The Department of State, with approval from the Board of Foreign Scholarships, strongly recommended acceptance of the proposal, but it created a lively controversy within the Commission. In deference to the academic character of the Fulbright program and perhaps also to German policy which in those days denied full academic standing to social work schools and institutions from which the young candidates were to be recruited, Chairman Chester Y. Easum, the American cultural officer, dissented from the majority of the Commission, stating that the project did not meet the established academic requirements of the Fulbright program which was intended for longer study than provided for youth specialists. The Commission, though recognizing that the project deviated from the normal standards of the Fulbright program, overruled the Chairman declaring that the, encouragement of continuing education for the leaders in this field was desirable.(41) The Commission, however, stipulated that applicants under this project must meet the Commission's standards, i.e., graduation from an approved German high school, selection through competitive procedures, and payment of travel costs within the United States by the sponsor or participants.(42)
To what extent German student grantees availed themselves of the variety of courses offered them at American universities is not fully ascertainable from available records. Fulbright program proposals established certain ceilings in such broad fields as American studies and social sciences, leaving all other fields unspecified, but neither they nor the annual reports of the Commission shed much light on actual student preferences. A sample of 166 students contained in the Annual Report for Program Year 1955 lists the following subjects in order of size of enrollment: humanities (54), law (45), mathematics and science (25), medicine, (13), fine arts (12), theology (9), agriculture (5), and economics (3). Whether these examples were typical is hard to verify. The Appraisal of the German Fulbright Program, which summarized the findings of a study of the experiences of German senior scholars and students between 1953 and 1959, conducted from December 1959 to February 1960,(43) listed the following fields in order of preference: humanities (39 percent students, 47 percent senior scholars) ; mathematics and natural science technology (27 percent students, 41 percent seniors) ; law (14 percent students, 3 percent seniors) ; political and social sciences, journalism (17 percent students, 8 percent seniors) ; economics (11 percent students, 2 percent seniors) ; and others, e.g., general education and physical education (2 percent students, 6 percent seniors). The fields of study correspond roughly, but not exactly, to the subjects chosen by the respondents in Germany. There was a substantial increase, more than triple, of students electing political and social sciences and journalism as their discipline in the United States. Their preference, no doubt, reflected a gap in the German academic system which only gradually, and partly under American influence, was beginning to build up its departments and institutes of social and political sciences.(44)
Between 40 and 50 American universities and colleges participated nearly from the very outset as sponsors. These included 11 American institutions which had established so-called head-for-head or one-way exchange programs with a German university, e.g., California with Cologne; Chicago with Frankfurt; Colorado with Erlangen; Georgia Tech with the Technical University of Stuttgart; Harvard, Michigan, and Minnesota with the Free University of Berlin; Indiana with Kiel; North Carolina with Goettingen; Ohio with Muenster; Skidmore with Freiburg; Stanford with Hamburg; and Yale with Heidelberg. These arrangements were not exclusive and did not prevent students from other universities from attending any of the above-mentioned institutions or students from the latter to enroll at other institutions. By and large, the record of academic achievements, as far as available, appears to have been relatively high.(45)
German university lecturers and research scholars, and school teachers, constituted only a modest fraction of the total number of grantees, as noted earlier. Although requirements for eligibility in each case were different from those for students, completion of academic training, good knowledge of English, and, in the case of research scholars, a specific advanced research plan were obligatory. Preference was given to applicants who were willing to commit, themselves to a stay of 9 to 10 months.(46) As in the case of students, capacity to convey their experience in the, United States to audiences in Germany and to apply it in their work upon their return was considered a vital criterion for selection.(47)
There appears to have been a wide variety in the academic affiliation at home, status, and interests of German lecturers and research scholars. A review conducted by the binational screening committees in Germany in 1954(48) shows that most of the applicants who came from universities and institutions of higher learning throughout West Germany and West Berlin, were from Berlin, Bonn, Detmold, Giessen, Goettingen, Heidelberg, Karlsruhe, Cologne, Mainz, Munich, and Wuerzburg, with the largest single group coming from the University of Goettingen. They ranked from full professors and lecturers (Dozenten) to assistants and high level professionals, with the Dozenten constituting the bulk. Their subjects of research and teaching included natural sciences (physics, biophysics, chemistry), mathematics, medicine, social sciences (political science and geography), forestry, music, and arts, with the comparatively largest aggregate in the natural sciences and medicine. Annual Commission reports make special reference to academic accomplishments of German grantees in the fields of architecture, biology, and epidemiology.
The annual reports contain evidence that the activities of German scholars were greatly appreciated by the American host institutions, and that, in a number of instances, their achievements led to special professional appointments and promotions after their return to Germany.(49)
A real breakthrough occurred on the American side, with Americans assuming the role of equal partners both in a contributory and beneficiary capacity. The element that established parity, at least in numbers, was the large number of American students. The Department's annual report for fiscal year 1954, covering exchanges from January 1953 to June 1954, lists 208 American students.(50) Except for France (241) and the United Kingdom (189), no other country had anywhere near this number of students. All of the students were expected to have "at least a fair knowledge of German, a stipulation that was generally met, but most satisfactorily in the case of students who were given assistant teaching assignments at high schools. Other than that, the same requirements applied to them as did to other students in the worldwide Fulbright program. They had to pursue academic study and research projects at the predoctoral level. A majority had to be graduate students who, in most cases, would conduct research for Ph.D dissertations, or advanced qualified students not working for a degree who had other good reasons to study abroad. Holders of the B.A., or equivalent, and M.A. candidates presenting academically sound study projects were considered eligible.
As far as scholastic background was concerned, students had to have received most of their school education and their undergraduate raining at high schools and colleges in the United States. Excellence in their academic performance and other meritorious academic or professional experience were considered significant factors for selection, as were the standards of the host institution and the feasibility of the proposed study or research project. Special requirements were established for certain fields, such as 4 years of professional study and/or performance in the creative and performing arts, an M.S. degree with 2 years of professional experience after receipt of the degree for students of social work, and an M.D. degree at the time of application for students of medicine. Of course, all had to be acceptable to the host country and to the institutions at which they proposed to pursue their projects.(51)
As far as personal qualifications were concerned, applicants had to be U.S. citizens. Race, color, or sex were not to be considered as criteria for selection. Their age had to be between 20 and 35. Adaptability to living conditions overseas and academic requirements were to be established by faculty verification or by interview. An important factor was their representation potential, that is, their capacity to contribute to a better understanding of the culture and civilization of the United States and thereby to contribute to better "understanding and friendship between the people of the United States and those of the host country." American students for the first Fulbright year (1953) were from more than 100 universities nationwide.
At least in the beginning, American students showed distinct preferences in the choice of their German host institution. The majority wished to enroll at either the University of Heidelberg or Munich. When this proved neither desirable nor practical, students accepted fairly wide distribution among the various universities in West Germany and West Berlin. The bilateral relationship that had been established between a number of American and German universities which provided sponsorship for German students, also proved useful in the case of American students. Eventually nearly all German universities and institutions of higher learning participated, including the various state academies for music and the arts.
An examination of the fields selected by American students during the first Fulbright year reveals an interesting but understandable imbalance of subject matter in favor of the arts and languages as against sciences, notably the social sciences, and against such professional categories as law (one student) and medicine (none). More than a third studied various fields of music (46) and the arts (20), fields with traditional standards of excellence in Germany.(52) A fifth (34) chose literature, especially Germanistics, and linguistics where German competence was obvious. Twenty-five elected the natural sciences, e.g., chemistry, physics and mathematics, and engineering, and 22 the social sciences. The remainder studied history (14), philosophy and the humanities (8), and theology (7). One student chose horticulture. The placement of students by the Commission reflected an intelligent judgment of institutions with respect to those whose integrity of reputation and academic standards had, by and large, been preserved and which had not been destroyed or compromised by the Nazis.
Computations made by USEC/G of American students' preferences in the following years showed remarkable shifts. The annual reports for 1954 and 1955 revealed the largest aggregates in Germanistics and comparative literature (40), in various fields of the (natural) sciences (35), and history and political science (35). Music and art dropped to 30. Theology, philosophy and the other humanities remained the same (15). Social sciences (without political. science) now hit bottom (10).(53) With the recovery of German academic life, with the increase of the number of universities, and with full academic accreditation gradually being accorded to a number of professional schools, student preferences underwent further changes in the following years.
Those graduate students who were given assignments in English language teaching at secondary schools found their work pretty much cut out for them. They were assigned as assistants to German teachers of English. Instead of giving formal instruction, they helped the teachers conduct discussion groups and afforded pupils an opportunity to engage in English conversation.(54)
Lecturers and research scholars as well as teachers, notably the former, supplemented and eventually replaced the specialists first used by OMGUS and later HICOG as consultants to assist and advise American officials and German authorities, agencies, and institutions. By comparison with American students, the number of lecturers and research scholars remained modest, rarely exceeding more than a fourth of the students, which was actually a larger percentage than in most other Fulbright programs. The level of their academic standing was remarkably high and included prominent members of the faculties of leading universities such as California, Chicago, Columbia, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Princeton, Stanford, Wisconsin, and Yale. Among them were a number of outstanding scientists and scholars of German origin who had left Germany or Austria during the Nazi regime, such as Karl Brandt, John A. Herz, Heinrich Kronstein, and Sigmund Neumann. The list is too large to be reproduced in full. It included during the first 3 years of the program such scholars as Raymond W. Albright, Professor of Church History, Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Howard K. Beale, Professor of American History, University of Wisconsin; Milton Burton, Professor of Chemistry, University of Notre Dame; Mabel A. Elliot, Professor of Sociology, Pennsylvania College for Women; Joseph H. Fichter, Department of Sociology, Loyola University (New Orleans) ; Hermann Frankel, Emeritus Professor of Classics, Stanford University; Harold Grimm, Professor of American History, Ohio State University; John H. Hallowell, Professor of Political Science, Duke University; Arthur D. Hastler, Professor of Zoology, University of Wisconsin; Einar Hille, Professor of Mathematics, Yale; Morris Janowitz, Professor of Sociology, University of Michigan; Joseph Kwiat, Professor of American Literature, University of Minnesota; Richard A. Musgrave, Professor of Economics, University of Michigan; Ralph Dornfield Owen, Professor of Education, Temple University; Burke Shartel, Professor of Law, University of Michigan; S. D. Shirley Spragg, Professor of Psychology, University of Rochester; Reynold M. Wik, Professor of American History, Mills College; Harvey Wish, Professor of American History, Western Reserve University, Cleveland; Charles C. Fries, Director, English Language Institute, University of Michigan; and many others of equal distinction in their respective fields.(55)
Most German universities were included in the arrangements. Again, as in the case of students, the special university-to-university relationships between certain American and German universities proved most useful. Requirements for eligibility were the same as those set by the Board of Foreign Scholarships for scholars sent to other countries. By definition, lecturers were considered persons at a Ph.D. or equivalent level who would teach or consult on a full-time basis at a university. Research scholars were expected to engage in full-time advanced research. Achievement in professional or scholarly fields at the post-doctoral level was a major criterion, as was competence in teaching or other academic experience. Research scholars were divided into two groups: mature, professionally established scholars, and recent recipients of Ph.D. or equivalent degrees in early stages of their career.(56) Although opportunities were generally announced in open competition, a number of the lecturers were selected upon specific request by German institutions. (57)
As a rule, the recipients of these grants had to be U.S. citizens. Consideration was given to the educational background of the applicant, that is, whether higher education had been received at American colleges or universities. Age, race, religion, and sex were not regarded as relevant. However, suitability, adaptability, and emotional stability were considered important criteria to be determined through interviews and special screening procedures. Candidates were expected to be "representative and responsible citizens" giving promise of furthering cooperative intellectual inquiry and protecting the nonpolitical character of the program.
Subjects for teaching and research by American grantees varied widely. A majority concentrated, at least in the beginning, as noted earlier, on American studies, especially in the fields of history, literature, sociology, psychology, education, political science, architecture, and English language.(58) But subjects ranged far beyond these fields and included mathematics and sciences (biology), medicine, psychiatry, law, economics, geography, and others. Research scholars engaged in studies of German literature, history, theology, and science in that order of preference.(59)
The professors and lecturers were augmented by participants in the "Inter-Foundation Lectureship Program" carried out with neighboring countries under the auspices of Fulbright programs. Under this program German universities were furnished with lists of Fulbright lecturers and research scholars who were teaching or lecturing in neighboring countries but who were available for lectures in Germany, provided that the German universities agreed to defray their expenses in Germany. The proposal proved to be extraordinarily popular. A number of outstanding American scholars gave lectures in Germany on a series of topics, most of them dealing with specific facets of American politics, economics, social conditions (minority problems), business management, history, literature, and the sciences.(60)
By all accounts American scholars acquitted themselves of their assignments with considerable success; and while quite naturally the degree of impact differed according to personality and project, the net result from the beginning appears to have been positive.(61)
Under the established program policies(62) American school teachers were considered for full-time teaching or consultation in elementary, secondary, technical, or vocational schools. Included were teachers substituting for their German counterparts under the program for interchange of teachers. Personal eligibility requirements were not much different from those established for lecturers, research scholars, or students except that preference was to be given to school teachers under 50 years of age. As concerns professional experience, applicants for full-time teaching grants had to have at least a bachelor's degree and a minimum of 3 years of professional experience in the U.S. school system. However, in the case of candidates for short-term seminars the requirement was 2 years of previous full-time teaching at the time of the application, or related professional employment in the U.S. school system in the subject treated in the seminar. Acceptability to the host country and institution of affiliation were prerequisites. As indicated earlier, the program occasionally ran into technical difficulties, due to differences in academic year schedules and differing teaching methods and conditions, situations which were usually adjusted satisfactorily.
The binational administration of the Fulbright program in Germany demanded a type of support structure that was different and separate from the regular HICOG exchange program, which operated directly under the auspices of the Department of State and HICOG, under its own budget. New criteria for selection and administrative procedures had to be introduced following the terms of the Fulbright Act and the operational policies as formulated by the Board of Foreign Scholarships for the Fulbright program worldwide.
With regard to the administration of the program in the United States, the responsibilities of the Board of Foreign Scholarships (BFS), the Department, and the major cooperating educational agencies have been described in the early pages of this chapter. The Chairman of the, Board from 1950 to 1953 was Walter Johnson, Professor of History, University of Chicago, and from 1953 to 1955 Frederick Hovde, President of Purdue University. Other members during the period 1950 to 1954 were leading representatives of university faculties, university administrators, and educators active in international affairs.
The Board's Secretariat consisted of a small staff headed by an Executive Secretary appointed by the Department and approved by the Board. Executive Secretaries serving during the first 10 years were Kenneth Holland (1947-1948) and Francis J. Colligan (1948-1956). Chiefs of the Operations Staff were Joseph M. Roland (1948-1949), George T. Moody (1949-1950), John Lund (1950-1952), and Robert S. Black (1952-1955). When the Fulbright program began, the task of organizing a whole new program required a separate unit exclusively concerned with the Fulbright program, which, operated from 1948 to 1951 as the Fulbright Program Branch of the Division of Exchange of Persons. Chiefs of the Branch were Frederic O. Bundy (1948-1949) and Howard P. Backus (1949-1951). Subsequently, all operational functions in the Department for academic exchanges were integrated into the regular program units of the exchange-of-persons office of the Department.(63)
Through these channels the Department provided staff services to the Board. It reviewed the budgets submitted by the Commission for approval by the, Board; financed the various principal cooperating agencies; supervised the administration of the program by the principal cooperating agencies, which in turn relied on scores of voluntary committees throughout the United States; secured dollar funds from universities and other private, donors to assist foreign students who received travel grants only; and discharged responsibility for the expenditure of all Department funds made available for orientation, counseling of foreign and American grantees, and for the screening and recommending of foreign applicants. To perform these functions the Department leaned heavily on the supportive services of outside organizations other than the principal cooperating agencies referred to earlier. Cooperation was required in numerous ways, and board policies were frequently revised to meet now educational developments.(64)
The development of the support structure in Germany, as in all countries participating in a binational Fulbright program, was equally complex. It was of necessity so, inasmuch as the program called for a higher degree of direct participation by German elements than heretofore in the management of exchange programs in Germany. The Commission was able to benefit from the experience of other countries with programs already in operation. At the top of the structure, as in all other countries, stood the Binational Commission, as described earlier. Article 2 of the German Fulbright agreement defined the functions of the Commission in detail:, namely (1) to plan, adopt, and carry out exchange programs, including the preparation of annual program proposals; (2) to recommend to the Board of Foreign Scholarships students, professors, research scholars, teachers, resident in the Federal Republic of Germany, and institutions of the Federal Republic qualified to participate in the program; (3) to recommend to the Board such qualifications for the selection of participants as it deemed necessary for achieving the purpose and objectives of the agreement; (4) to authorize the Treasurer of the Commission to receive funds to be deposited in bank accounts; (5) to authorize the disbursement of funds and the making of grants and advancement of funds; (6) to provide for periodic audits; and (7) to engage an executive director or officer and administrative and clerical staff, and fix and pay their salaries and wages. An additional function of the Commission not listed in the agreement, but of major importance, was the cooperative placement of Americans in German educational institutions.
The Commission, which met for the first time on September 29, 1952, convened thereafter several times each year at irregular intervals. Appointments of both the U.S. and German members were made annually, although some appointments were annually renewed for several years. The honorary chairmanship was reserved to the U.S. High Commissioner and later to the U.S. Ambassador, who appointed an Embassy officer to act for him as the active Chairman. High Commissioner Walter W. Donnelly, the first honorary chairman, retired soon after his appointment and his place was taken by the High Commissioner, subsequently Ambassador, the late James B. Conant, During the first 3 years the active chairmen, designated by the honorary chairman of the Commission, were: the Cultural Attaché of the American Embassy, Sam H. Linch; thereafter in acting capacity Treasurer George A. Selke, Chief of the Division of Cultural Affairs; who was followed by the Senior Science Adviser, William Greulich; and eventually the Cultural Attachés Chester V. Easum and E. Wilder Spaulding. Treasurers, during the same period, also appointed by the Embassy, were George A. Selke; Everett G. Chapman, Chief of the Exchange of Persons Division; Henry B. Cox; and Dean Chamberlin. The nongovernmental American members of the Commission, selected from prominent American residents in Germany, representing industry and various civic organizations and institutions, as a rule, showed more constancy of tenure than their governmental colleagues.
Professor Dr. Walter Hallstein, State Secretary of the Foreign Office, headed the group of German members which consisted of high-level dignitaries of the German bureaucracy and academic life. Among them, during the years under review, were Ministerial Counselor Dr. August Fehling, representing the Permanent Conference of the Ministries of Culture; Professor Dr. Egon Huebinger, Ministerial Director in the Ministry of Interior; Professor Dr. Hermann Heimpel, President, and Professors Dr. Erwin Fuess and Dr. Walter Kolb, members of the West German Conference of University Presidents; Professor Dr. Werner Richter, President, and Professor Dr. Theodor Clausen, Chairman, of the German Academic Exchange Service; and others. The Commission appointed Dr. John Mead as Executive Secretary, Heinrich H. Pfeiffer, Chief of the German Program Unit, and Karl Roeloffs, Chief of the American Program Unit in the secretariat.
The German Program Unit of the Commission staff was responsible for drawing up the panels of candidates for grants to be awarded to German professors, teachers, and students, with final selection made by the Board of Foreign Scholarships. It handled their processing from the moment of application to the point of departure and it maintained contact with the grant recipients during their stay in the United States and after their return to Germany.(65) The American Program Unit administered the sector of the program which was concerned with American grantees and acted "as guardian over the well-being of American grantees during their year in the host country."(66) For the placement of interchange teachers and teaching assistants, the American Unit availed itself of the cooperation of the German Academic Exchange Service (Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst---DAAD) and later of the German Teacher Exchange Service.
The Commission established contacts with German universities, particularly with those that had arranged direct head-for-head exchanges to secure placements for professors, lecturers, and research scholars. Other cooperating agencies, some of which were represented on the membership of the Commission were the Permanent Conference of Ministers of Culture (Staendige Konferenz der Kulturminister), the West German Conference of German University Presidents (West-deutsche Rektoren Konferenz), the DAAD, the German Research Society (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft), the Max Planck Institutes, the Association for American Studies (Gesellschaft fuer Amerika-Studien), and Inter-Nationes which provided a series of highly useful briefing materials for exchangees. Naturally, the Commission maintained close liaison, partly guaranteed by an overlap of personnel, with the Exchange of Persons Division of HICOG.
The Commission required a substructure of its own in marshalling the cooperation of the educational community in Germany. With the help of the Exchange of Persons Division and the American consulates, "Fulbright Scholarship Committees" (FSC) were organized in each consular district. Each committee consisted of five Americans and five Germans. The five Americans were appointed by the Consul General. He also served as Honorary Chairman and appointed the regular chairman of the Committee. One of the American members had to be the exchange officer attached to each consulate who, however, was not to be designated as chairman. The rest of the American members were to be, if possible, prominent citizens residing in the district. The Executive Secretary of the Commission was an ex officio member of each committee and consequently was invited to attend each meeting.
The German membership of the committees seems to have varied over time with representatives of various organizations and groups alternating. Members were appointed by the competent (Land) Ministry of Culture in a given state upon nomination by the Permanent Conference of Ministers of Culture. At one time or another membership had to include a German university professor, a professor from another institute of higher learning, a German student who had studied in the United States under the auspices of the exchange program and was active in student affairs, a representative of the student organization (Allgemeine Studentenausschuss--ASTA), and a distinguished German professor or research scholar.(67) In addition to their professional and personal qualifications, members of the committees were expected to represent such organizations as the Ministries of Culture, the West German Conference of University Presidents, and the German Academic Exchange Service.(68)
The functions of the Fulbright Scholarship Committees were, in the main, to interview student applicants and to make appropriate recommendations to the Commission. At least in the beginning, the committees were instructed to submit twice the number of candidates, that is, alternative recommendations for each opening allotted to the districts. Numbers were adjusted to university enrollment and population in each district.(69) Each student appearing before the committee had to undergo a prescreening interview at his university which, in turn, transmitted applications to the appropriate committee.(70) The Commission established special subcommittees for the screening of student applicants for travel grants only, composed of a university professor, a representative of DAAD , a representative of ASTA, a German student returnee, a representative of the Commission's secretariat, and two representatives from HICOG's Office of Public Affairs (an exchange-of-persons official and a cultural officer.)(71)
So-called "Jungakademiker" (young academicians---see above) at first applied directly to the Commission. However, obviously in face of the heavy load carried by it, the Commission eventually began to refer their applications, with the exception of those of young teachers and young lawyers, back to the committees within the districts from which they applied.(72) For the first time, these candidates were interviewed by the committees themselves as well as by the aforementioned special committees. Young teachers and young lawyers were interviewed by the committees after a prescreening by the Land Ministries of Education or Justice.(73)
Teachers who applied for participation in the interchange program were prescreened by the various Ministries of Culture with the cooperation of the DAAD.(74)
Professors and research scholars, on the other hand, by-passed the committees altogether. Nor were they required to appear for personal interviews. Instead, a binational committee consisting of members of the Commission and representatives of the Permanent Conference of Ministers of Culture, the West German Conference of University Presidents, the German Research Society, and the Association of Universities directly examined their applications.(75)
The German Fulbright program, which followed by only a few years the period of American military occupation, was influenced during its first years of operation by certain objectives and operational features different from those of other countries. The selection of projects, geared to subject matters relating to specific German needs and deficiencies, perpetuated in a more sophisticated way HICOG reorientation policy. At the same time, the Fulbright program had to be coordinated with a large exchange program in Germany that had been initiated with different objectives, funds, machinery, and procedures.
The nationwide support system, on balance, proved adequate to carry out a program which was substantial and diversified. The minutes of the Fulbright Commission reveal, not altogether surprisingly, at least during the first 3 years, a high degree of preoccupation with technical and procedural detail with less attention paid to matters of substance. On balance, the Commission worked as efficiently as could be expected under the circumstances. Its work represented a notable step forward in building closer ties of friendship and cooperation between the United States and Germany.
Senator Fulbright himself acknowledged the positive role of the Commission in a message sent on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the program, in which he said:
"In marking this significant anniversary we owe special gratitude to the services of the United States Educational Commission in Germany, whose membership is drawn from both German and American citizens.
"Here is truly a leading example of how effectively the binational commission can function in the exchange field. Without the conscientious and devoted service of Commission members and staff over this beginning decade, the Commission could not now enjoy the record of accomplishment it has achieved, nor look ahead so assuredly to the program's increasing influence in the decade to come."(76)