Fulbright in Korea's Future by Fulbright Korea

The Fulbright Korea Alumni Association (FKAA) was formed in 1987. By that time, there were about 700 Korean alumni of the Fulbright program, and local alumni chapters had been set up in each of the provinces. In May 1987, chairmen of the eight provincial chapters met in Seoul to establish the FKAA.

1. Human beings are born with the inalienable rights to pursue happiness, free from fear, poverty, ignorance, and tyranny. 2. Conflicts among nations and countries, part of which are related to the Cold War legacy, must be resolved through mutual understanding and respect. 3. Countries must exert efforts to communicate and understand each other through educational and cultural exchanges.

We Fulbrighters believe that realizing these ideals will lead to the peaceful and sustainable coexistence of the peoples and countries in the world. We reaffirm our cherished hope, as expressed in the 2000 Seoul Statement, to extend the Fulbright program to the entire Korean Peninsula.... From the Seoul Statement 2010

US$ 35.00 25,000 won

http://www.fulbright.or.kr Dust jacket artwork by Youngsun Jin

Jai Ok Shim | James F. Larson Frederick F. Carriere | Horace H. Underwood

The Korea Fulbright Foundation – The Korea Fulbright Alumni Association set up a committee in 1989 to look into the formation of a foundation, and in January 1991 the Korea Fulbright Foundation was established.

... we Fulbrighters proclaim the following three points:

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

The Korean-American Educational Commission (KAEC) – The agreement to form a binational Fulbright Commission was signed in Seoul on April 28, 1950, and the United States Educational Commission in Korea (USEC/K) was established in 1960 and renamed as the KAEC in 1972.

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

This book chronicles the evolution of Fulbright Korea, from its humble beginnings in 1950, through its contributions to Korea in the aftermath of the Korean War and through rapid industrialization, to its development into one of the most active Fulbright Commissions worldwide today. In these pages you will find more than a mere history of Fulbright; this book is a direct reflection, in many ways, of the history of modern Korea. It offers a decade-by-decade account of changes in the political and social climate of Korea, documenting how Fulbright Korea has progressed and expanded in response to these changes, always striving toward the fulfillment of the mission of the Fulbright Program. From the Preface

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History J. William Fulbright

Korean-American Educational Commission 한미교육위원단

J. William Fulbright was born on April 9, 1905, in Sumner, Missouri. He grew up in Arkansas and played football at the University of Arkansas. Upon graduation, he won a Rhodes Scholarship in 1924 and studied in England from 1925 to 1928. Prior to his departure for England, he had traveled very little outside of Arkansas. As a Life magazine report put it, the best of Europe was opened up to the roaming hill boy within him, and he came away from this grand tour and his reading of modern history and political science at Oxford with a wide-eyed internationalist outlook. On returning from his Oxford years, he worked briefly in Washington as a Justice Department lawyer, but then returned to Arkansas. He loved teaching and the life of the university. When the board of trustees of the University of Arkansas made him its youngest president at the tender age of 34, he considered himself pretty well settled. Fulbright was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1942 and to the Senate in 1944. His political career of more than thirty years in the U.S. Congress was marked by his unequaled contribution to international affairs and his tenure as the longest-serving chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The Senator is particularly well remembered for his opposition to the Vietnam War. In the 1960s, he led Senate hearings into the conduct of that war. Today, of course, Senator Fulbright is also widely known as the founder of the intercultural and educational exchange program that bears his name. The Fulbright program is recognized around the world as the largest and most prestigious such program. On February 9, 1995, Senator J. William Fulbright died in Washington, DC, at the age of 89.

Fulbright in Korea’s Future A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

Jai Ok Shim, James F. Larson, Frederick F. Carriere & Horace H. Underwood

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

All Rights Reserved No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without the permission of the Korean-American Educational Commission. Korean-American Educational Commission Fulbright Building 168-15 Yomni-dong, Mapo-gu, Seoul 121-874, Korea Tel: 02-3275-4000 Fax: 02-3275-4028 E-mail: admin@fulbright.or.kr Website: www.fulbright.or.kr

Published by Seoul Selection B1 Korean Publishers Association Bldg., 105-2 Sagan-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-190, Korea Tel: 82-2-734-9567 Fax: 82-2-734-9562 E-mail: publisher@seoulselection.com Website: www.seoulselection.com ISBN: 978-89-91913-73-8 03330 Printed in the Republic of Korea

To all Fulbrighters,

past, present and future.

Table of Contents

Forewords

vii

Acknowledgements and Editorial Notes

xviii

A Biographical Note on Senator J. William Fulbright

xix

Preface

xxi

Chapter 1

Changing Cannons to Cultural Currency

The Origins of Fulbright Korea Chapter 2

The 1960s

Revolution, Development, and Formation of the Fulbright Commission Chapter 3

The 1970s

Fulbright During Korea’s Rapid Industrialization Chapter 4

The 1980s Korea’s Domestic and International Political Transformation

Chapter 5

The 1990s

119

Mobile Communications, the Web, and Surging Interest in English Chapter 6

The Fulbright Building

147

A Resource for the 21st Century Chapter 7

The Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program, EWC, and Other Grants

173

Chapter 8

History of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association

183

Chapter 9

Taking Stock

199

Fulbright Korea at 60 and Its Future Epilogue

Observing the 60th Anniversary of Fulbright Korea

219

Endnotes

227

Appendix I: “The Importance of Cultural Diplomacy”

248

Appendix II: The Fulbright Song

252

Appendix III: Fulbright Grant Awards by Academic Field from 1950 to 2010 Appendix IV: KAEC Budget and Awards by Grant Program from 1978 to 2010

Foreword

extend my heartfelt congratulations on the 60th anniversary of the Fulbright Program in Korea. Over the past 60 years, the Republic of Korea has pulled itself up from postwar ruin to achieve both remarkable economic growth and democratization. All these accomplishments have been possible thanks to the high educational zeal of the Korean people and their strong will to learn even under the most difficult circumstances. This is why many Koreans place Abraham Lincoln on the top of the list of the most revered great historic figures from other countries. The Fulbright Program has been a gracious friend of Koreans who has helped their will to learn come to fruition. As it has always been there with Koreans during the entire years of modernization, it has become an integral part of modern Korean history. I would like to pay my profound respect to the noble inspiration of Senator James William Fulbright who established this wonderful international exchange program. There are nearly 2,000 talented Koreans who have benefited from the Fulbright Program, and they are now playing an important part as core leaders in Korean society. I have had chances to work with some of the Fulbright alumni who have outstanding expertise and a great sense of responsibility. There is a well-known proverb, “A friend in need is a friend indeed.” Americans have always been our true friends. They stretched out warm helping hands to us when we were in direst need. The Fulbright Program, which was initiated in the throes of the Korean War, has been one such helping hand. The Fulbright Program has made great contributions to enhancing friendship, cooperation, and mutual understanding between America and Korea. Some 1,800 Americans, who have worked on research and education in Korea through the Program, have been a strong bridge for Korea-U.S. friendship and cooperation. Today, the South Korean Government is funding approximately 40 percent of the annual budget of the Fulbright Program in Korea. In other words, Korea and America are joining their hands to create a brighter future together. In the years to come, the cooperative relationship between Seoul and Washington will go beyond our national boundaries to develop to the global scale.

vii

I believe that the rich history and experience of the Fulbright Program will be serving as a solid basis of our future relationship. In a feat without precedent, Korea has become the only country in the world to transform itself from a recipient to a donor country. Korea represents the only such case since the establishment in 1961 of the OECD. The Korean Government is now expanding not only economic aid but also educational assistance for foreign countries. For example, the Korean Government is planning to carry out the Global Korea Scholarship Program as a project to promote education globally. The project will include a variety of programs such as providing government scholarships for international students and assisting exchange students. Exchanges between young students, the protagonists of the future, are the most effective investment for world peace. The more young men and women from other countries share Korea’s success stories, I hope, the broader the road to common prosperity will be. Once again, I congratulate the Fulbright Program on its 60th anniversary. I have no doubt in my mind that it will continue to thrive in the coming years. Thank you very much.

Lee Myung-bak President of the Republic of Korea

viii

축하의 글

한

국풀브라이트 60주년을 진심으로 축하드립니다. 지난 60년 대한민국은 전쟁의 폐허를 딛고 일어서 비약적인 경제 성장과 민주화를 모

두 이뤘습니다. 한국민의 높은 교육열, 처지가 어려워도 반드시 배우려는 강한 의지가 이러 한 발전을 뒷받침했습니다. 한국민들이 존경하는 외국 위인들 가운데 에이브러햄 링컨이 최 상위권에 드는 까닭도, 바로 여기에 있습니다. 풀브라이트 프로그램은 한국민이 그와 같은 의지를 실현하게 도와준 고마운 친구입니다. 한국의 성장 발전과 늘 함께 해 온 풀브라이트 프로그램은 사실상 한국 현대사의 불가결한 일부가 되었습니다. 풀브라이트 프로그램을 가능케 한, 고(故) 제임스 윌리엄 풀브라이트 (James William Fulbright) 상원의원의 고귀한 뜻에 경의를 표합니다. 한국풀브라이트 프로그램이 배출한 2,000명 가까운 인재들은, 한국 사회의 핵심 리더로 활동하고 있습니다. 저와 함께 일한 풀브라이트 동문들은 모두 전문성과 책임감이 탁월했습 니다. ‘어려울 때 돕는 친구가 진짜 친구’라는 말이 있습니다. 미국은 늘 우리의 진짜 친구였습니 다. 그 진짜 친구는 우리가 가장 어려울 때 따뜻한 손길을 내밀었습니다. 한국이 전쟁의 참 화에 고통 받고 있을 때 시작한, 풀브라이트 프로그램이 그 대표적인 사례입니다. 풀브라이트 프로그램은 한·미 우호협력과 상호 이해증진에 크게 공헌했습니다. 풀브라 이트 프로그램을 통해 한국에서 연구와 교육 활동을 펼친 1,800여 명의 미국 장학생 동문들 은 한·미 우호협력의 든든한 가교입니다. 오늘날에는 한국풀브라이트 전체 예산의 40% 정도를 한국 정부가 맡고 있습니다. 한국과 미국이 손을 잡고 함께 미래를 만들고 있는 것입니다. 앞으로 한·미 협력 관계는 양국 간 차원에서 더 나아가, 글로벌 수준으로 발전할 것입니다. 이러한 미래 한·미 관계에서도 한 국풀브라이트의 역사와 경험이 든든한 토대가 될 것입니다.

이제 한국은 세계에서 유일하게, 원조 받던 나라에서 원조하는 나라가 되었습니다. 이러 한 사례는 1961년 OECD 출범 이후 유일무이합니다. 한국 정부는 경제 원조뿐 아니라, 교 육·학술 분야의 대외 지원과 교류를 확대하고 있습니다. 예컨대 한국 정부는 국제적인 장학 프로젝트로 ‘글로벌 코리아 스칼라십(Global Korea Scholarship)’을 추진하고 있습니다. 이 프로젝트에는 정부 장학생 초청, 교환 학생과 자비 유학생 지원 등 다양한 프로그램들이 포함될 것입니다. 미래를 책임질 청년 학생들의 교류는 세계 평화를 위한 가장 효과적인 투자입니다. 한국 의 성공 경험을 나누는 세계의 젊은이들이 많아질수록, 공동 번영의 길이 넓어질 것입니다. 한국풀브라이트 60주년을 다시 한 번 축하하며, 앞으로 더욱 의미 있게 발전하리라 믿어 의심치 않습니다. 감사합니다.

Lee Myung-bak President of the Republic of Korea

ver the past 60 years, the Fulbright Program has served to promote understanding between the peoples of the United States of America and the Republic of Korea by providing opportunities of mutual exchange to more than 3,600 American and Korean scholars, researchers, and specialists. The cumulative effect of these exchanges is demonstrated by the achievements, large and small, of the program’s recipients as well as all those who have benefited from interacting with former and current Fulbrighters. Serving as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Korea in the 1970s gave me a special appreciation for the importance of education and crosscultural exchange. After the Peace Corps Program in Korea ended in 1981, it was Fulbright that stepped in to provide English teaching support in the remote Korean schools where the Peace Corps operated. Korea now has the largest Fulbright English Teaching program in the world. Fulbright Korea annually awards over two hundred grants to both Americans and Koreans for graduate study, research, and other academic and teaching pursuits. Many of these grantees will go on to leadership positions within their respective communities, including those of CEO, university president, and government minister. Year after year, Fulbright Korea continues to demonstrate its important role in supporting Korea and facilitating exchanges that help both our nations move forward to meet the challenges of the future. I congratulate the Fulbright Program on its 60th anniversary in Korea. With best regards,

Kathleen Stephens U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Korea

xii

s Chairman of the Board for the Fulbright Program in the Republic of Korea, it is my great privilege and honor to congratulate Fulbright on its 60th anniversary in Korea. There are few countries in the world that exhibit more enthusiasm for higher education and international educational exchange than Korea, and I have always considered it an honor to work with the program here. As a former Fulbrighter who received a grant to study in Finland from 1979 to 1980, I have deep respect and appreciation for the visionary exchange program of the late Senator J. William Fulbright, who described the program’s goals in the following words: “The Fulbright Program aims to bring a little more knowledge, a little more reason, and a little more compassion into world affairs and thereby increase the chance that nations will learn at last to live in peace and friendship.” These words are a clear testament to the contributions the Fulbright Program has made in Korea and throughout the world. The U.S. Embassy in Seoul is proud of the impact the Fulbright Program in Korea has had on the transformation of the Korean Peninsula over the past 60 years. We look forward to Fulbright continuing to enrich the lives of all current exchange participants, alumni, and those who have benefited from the program. Sincerely,

Patrick J. Linehan Minister-Counselor for Public Affairs U.S. Embassy Seoul

xiii

Acknowledgements & Editorial Notes

he Korean-American Educational Commission would like to gratefully acknowledge the assistance of several organizations and many individuals in producing this historical account. These include all of the individual alumni, both Korean and American, who took the time to send us their reminiscences and comments on the Fulbright Program, only a few of which have been used in this publication. The Korea Fulbright Alumni Association helped solicit these from Korean alumni and, along with the Korea Fulbright Foundation, supported the project from start to finish. We also want to thank Vera Ekechukwu, Fulbright Papers Research Assistant, Special Collections at the University of Arkansas Libraries. With her assistance, we received material from the Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs archives to fill in the gaps in our own files, especially for the early years of the Fulbright Program in Korea. Editorially speaking, this book attempts to use the official Korean government system for Romanization of Korean words throughout, except in the case of proper names where the individual prefers otherwise or where longstanding convention dictates another usage. Korean names are spelled with the family name first, followed by the given name(s). No hyphens are used, except in the case of public figures who prefer that usage. Information on how to access the e-book edition of this volume, as well as future access to the scanned source materials, will be made available on Fulbright’s main web site, www.fulbright.or.kr, as well as on its alumni site, http://alumni.fulbright. or.kr.

xiv

A Biographical Note on Senator J. William Fulbright

William Fulbright was born on April 9, 1905, in Sumner, Missouri. The headline of a 1966 Life magazine article on Senator Fulbright noted that he was in the center of arguments about U.S. foreign policy and that he “stirred up stands.” It described him as an “aloof, thorny, unpredictable intellectual shaped by Oxford and the Ozarks.” 1 Senator Fulbright grew up in Arkansas. He played football at the University of Arkansas and, upon graduation, won a Rhodes Scholarship in 1924 and studied in England from 1925 to 1928. Prior to his departure for England, he had traveled very little outside of Arkansas. In fact, Fulbright himself described his pre-Oxford days as follows: “Remember, I’d never been anywhere to speak of. I’d never been to New York or San Francisco or Washington or any of those places. And here I’m picked up out of a little village at an early age...” As the Life report put it, the best of Europe was opened up to the roaming hill boy within him, and he came away from this grand tour and his reading of modern history and political science at Oxford with a wide-eyed internationalist outlook.2 On returning from his Oxford years, he worked briefly in Washington as a Justice Department lawyer, but then returned to Arkansas. He loved teaching and the life of the university. When the board of trustees of the University of Arkansas made him its youngest president at the tender age of 34, he considered himself pretty well settled. The Senator is particularly well known for his opposition to the Vietnam War. In the 1960s, he led Senate hearings into the conduct of that war. In 1963, Walter Lippman wrote of Fulbright, “The role he plays in Washington is an indispensable role. There is no one else who is so powerful and also so wise, and if there were any question of removing him from public life, it would be a national calamity.”3 Fulbright had deep doubts about the Vietnam War, which also affected his view of possible government service. In late 1960, when there was talk that Fulbright might be picked for Secretary of State in Kennedy’s Cabinet, the possibility thoroughly distressed him. “It’s not my dish of tea,” he said at the time. “I’d hate

the protocol, and I’d be damned uncomfortable getting up and giving

speeches with which I didn’t agree. The poor fella in that job never has time to think for himself.” The Life magazine report noted that Fulbright “…was an anomaly, especially in gregarious Southern politics, a man of intellect, almost a seminarian, pursuing an aloof career as an often dissident public counselor….” 4 Fulbright was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1942 and to the Senate in 1944. His political career of more than thirty years in the U.S. Congress was marked by his unequaled contribution to international affairs and his tenure as the longest-serving chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.5 Senator Fulbright was married to Elizabeth Williams Fulbright for more than fifty years, from 1932 until her death in 1985. They had two daughters, Roberta Fulbright Foote and Elizabeth Fulbright Winnacker. Senator Fulbright married Harriet Mayor in 1990. On February 9, 1995, Senator J. William Fulbright died in Washington, DC, at the age of 89.6

xvi

Preface The Fulbright Commission in Korea takes great pride in celebrating its sixtieth anniversary in 2010. In connection with this anniversary, the commission’s executive director, Shim Jai Ok, proposed writing a history of the Fulbright Program in Korea. Having served the commission in different capacities for over thirty-three years, she had personally witnessed many of the vast changes in Fulbright Korea’s programs. To her, it seemed only fitting that we finally compile a history of this program that has touched the lives of so many. In 2006, Shim suggested such a project to the KAEC staff and members of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association. The idea was met with agreement that it would be both significant and appropriate, considering the importance of the occasion. But where does one begin to research the history of a program such as Fulbright in Korea, and who writes it? In our case, we turned for support to the staff members of KAEC, who have contributed significantly to the process of researching the commission’s long history. We also received significant support, including financial assistance, from the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association and the Korea Fulbright Foundation. The organization and writing of the text fell largely on current and former administrators from the Fulbright Commission.1 Shim’s strong commitment to the book was the major factor in its successful completion. Another was the collaborative effort and dedication of two former executive directors of the Korean-American Educational Commission—Frederick F. Carriere and Horace H. Underwood—as well as James F. Larson, a former grantee who has served as the commission’s deputy director since 2005. For raw data on which to base the history and cross-check their recollections, the authors turned first to the minutes of Fulbright Commission meetings, annual reports, and other documents that were on file in storage rooms in the Fulbright Building in Mapo. These documents proved very useful for reconstructing events from the 1970s onward. However, the commission had no records on file from the 1950s and most of the 1960s. After the initial drafting of chapters had begun, the authors, in a major stroke of good fortune, discovered that the J. William Fulbright Archive at the University of Arkansas Libraries housed archives from the State Department’s Bureau of Cultural Affairs. Consequently, we were able to quickly order more than 500 photocopied pages of documents about Fulbright Korea’s early years that filled in most of the gaps.

xvii

This book is the first ever history of the Fulbright Program in Korea and one of the first publications of its kind by any Fulbright Commission. Although not the only sort of history that may be written about this program, it fills an important niche. It is our hope that this book will serve as an important historical record that may be updated and maintained well into the future to reflect the endeavors of Fulbright Korea. Not only this book but also the scanned documents and records upon which much of the narrative is based should be a valuable resource for future historians. It is written from the perspective of a group of administrators who altogether have worked with the program for over sixty years, although those years are concentrated in the past three decades. It chronicles the evolution of Fulbright Korea from its humble beginnings in 1950 through its contributions to Korea in the aftermath of the Korean War and through rapid industrialization, and on to its development into one of the most active Fulbright Commissions worldwide today. In these pages, you will find more than a mere history of Fulbright; this book is a direct reflection, in many ways, of the history of modern Korea. It offers a decade-by-decade account of changes in the political and social climate of Korea, documenting how Fulbright Korea has progressed and expanded in response to these changes, always striving toward the fulfillment of the mission of the Fulbright Program. The purpose of this book goes beyond providing a look at the past. We also offer a glimpse into the future and the tremendous things that can be accomplished through the Fulbright spirit. Although much has been accomplished over Fulbright Korea’s sixtyyear history, one important task remains yet unfinished. It is our hope that the Fulbright Program will be expanded to include educational exchanges with North Korea so that all Koreans may know the benefits of Fulbright and peace can be a gift shared across the entire Korean Peninsula. We truly believe that international education and cultural exchange will be vital factors in the reunification of Korea. Just as Senator Fulbright believed that international education could transcend politics and bring to light our shared humanity, so we believe it will open the hearts and minds of all Americans and Koreans, giving us the chance to build peace and harmony together. We know such a vision cannot be realized without overcoming many obstacles; however, in accordance with Fulbright’s vision for international understanding, we hope we can pursue a peaceful end to this conflict, which has gone on far too long. Although it is difficult to envision when this will come to pass, let us not stand by and allow it to take another sixty years.

xviii

Fulbright in Korea’s Future A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

xix

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

Chapter 1

Changing Cannons to Cultural Currency The Origins of Fulbright Korea

Making the Korea Connection

The day Senator J. William Fulbright and his wife Harriet Mayor Fulbright had been looking forward to all week–Saturday, September 22, 1990—dawned crisp and clear under a bright blue sky. It was one of those absolutely pristine fall days in Korea traditionally described as cheongo mabi (“the sky is high and the horses are fat”). The conditions were ideal for the promised daylong excursion to Gangwha Island. In those days, Gangwha still seemed like a very distant and remote place despite its geographic proximity to Seoul. With farming villages, an outdoor periodic market, and an ancient Buddhist temple nestled in an idyllic mountain setting, it was a virtual microcosm of a quintessentially rural Korea. Even if not quite in reality, then at least in imagination, it evoked images of an earlier time in Korea when Western forms of modernity were atypical. In this sense, Gangwha Island afforded a much welcomed contrast with Seoul. This excursion took place during a weeklong stay in South Korea by Senator Fulbright, his first and only visit to the Korean Peninsula. The occasion for the visit was an invitation extended to him by the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association to be the guest of honor for the official commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the establishment in Korea of the international exchange program that bears his name. Due to his advanced age and declining health, right up until the last minute it was thought to be unlikely that Senator Fulbright would actually be able to come to Korea. In the end, he was able to come, and

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History his presence made the 40th anniversary commemoration a landmark event and the most memorable moment in the history of the Korea Fulbright Program up until that time. Among all the achievements of a distinguished career in public life extending over more than half a century, the international exchange program Senator Fulbright established in 1946 came to be recognized as the centerpiece of his legacy virtually from its inception. Over the years, he increasingly came to embody the ethos of the exchange program in his own life. This was evident from the energy Senator Fulbright devoted to learning everything he could about Korea during his brief visit. Even though he was already over eighty-five years old, throughout his stay Senator Fulbright seemed more like an attentive—even eager—student than an octogenarian. He demonstrated an enthusiastic interest in everything going on around him as well as a seemingly insatiable curiosity that generated a constant stream of pertinent questions. He seemed especially enlivened by the excursion to Ganghwa Island, perhaps because it opened for him—albeit only briefly— a window onto a distinctive way of life based on traditions so deeply rooted in the past as to seem in some ways to be timeless. The daylong excursion also was an opportunity for Senator Fulbright and his wife Harriet to compare notes with their guide for the day1 and to generally assess their visit up to that point. There already was a great deal to mull over since the major high points of the visit had occurred earlier in the week. Senator Fulbright began to share his thoughts on these events as soon as the excursion got underway, and it soon became obvious that there would be ample time for reflection, since the traffic conditions on the way out of Seoul were, as usual, a veritable nightmare. One thing that really caught Senator Fulbright’s attention and was especially fascinating to him, he said, was how government and academia seemed to be unusually well interconnected through the Fulbright Program in Korea. This was an astute observation, of course, as Fulbright scholars in Korea have typically been represented prominently both in government and in academia. In this sense, the parallel with traditional Korea’s yangban (“scholar official”) class, which explicitly linked scholarly achievement with public service, is striking. Quite often, even those cabinet ministers and other high-ranking government officials who had not received a Fulbright award themselves were still connected personally to the program by having once served on the Fulbright Commission—essentially in the capacity of board members—during a previous academic career. This combination of academic and government service of course resonated meaningfully with Senator Fulbright, as it paralleled his personal history. It also affirmed his conviction that developing leadership potential should be a primary objective of the Fulbright Program.

Changing Cannons to Cultural Currency The Origins of Fulbright Korea

Senator Fulbright’s weeklong visit began with a meeting with President Roh Tae Woo at the Blue House.

The senator and his wife had arrived in Seoul earlier in the week, on Tuesday, September 18. After a day of rest and recuperation, the visit got underway officially on the morning of Thursday, September 20, with a courtesy call on President Roh Tae Woo in his office at the Cheong Wa Dae (The Blue House), the official presidential residence. President Roh spoke at length and with conviction about the many important contributions made to the national development of Korea by Fulbright scholars, and he thanked Senator Fulbright for establishing the program that made it possible for them to study in the U.S. In his disarmingly gracious way, Senator Fulbright—with perhaps just a bit of hyperbole—replied, “I would consider that my life has been worthwhile if the program has made a contribution to the development of your great country.” 2 Reflecting on this visit, Senator Fulbright said he became increasingly intrigued by President Roh during the informal discussion that followed the initial polite exchanges. One reason for this interest was that Senator Fulbright was aware of the public commitment to implement democratic reforms President Roh had made just three years earlier. It was a commitment he had kept, marking a sharp break with past military

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History governments. In fact, he had launched his political career illegitimately by lending critical support to a military coup led by his predecessor, although he later came to office through a democratic election. This seemed to be one of many revelatory moments for Senator Fulbright during his visit to Korea, as he had long argued in his foreign policy discourses for the need to allow the space for just this kind of internal reform of undemocratic regimes to take place. In fact, the Korea experienced by Senator Fulbright and his wife in 1990 was exemplary in numerous other ways as well. By then, it already was an advanced and rapidly developing industrial economy that was beginning to emerge from the shadows of the Cold War.3 The 1980s had been a decade of spectacular development for South Korea’s export-led economy, setting the stage for the country’s further progress in later years. The spectacularly successful Seoul Olympics in 1988 had helped to lower many ideological barriers; China, Vietnam, the Eastern European countries of the Soviet Bloc, and even the Soviet Union itself had all participated in the Games. If one considers that just four decades earlier the Korean Peninsula had been torn apart and largely devastated by war, the sheer rapidity with which this economic and political transformation had occurred in South Korea was unprecedented anywhere else in the world. As the subsequent chapters of this book will show, the Fulbright Program played an important role in South Korea’s spectacular rise from the ashes of the Korean War to become the great success story it is today. At this point, with the wrong kind of assist from Seoul’s notoriously snarled traffic, the Fulbrights and their guide were just passing Nanjido, an island located in a branch of the Han River, which at the time was the municipal garbage dump for the City of Seoul. It was said to be the largest such facility in the world, allegedly thirty-four times larger than the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt–a frequently noted although rather tasteless comparison.4 Noticing only the sides of this huge mound of garbage, which were planted deceptively with grass, Senator Fulbright was suddenly moved to comment effusively about the peerless beauty of the Korean countryside “with the low range of mountains you can see in the foreground set off against the backdrop of high mountains in the distance.” This awkward moment was allowed to pass unnoted by the guide. In retrospect, however, the spontaneous comment has turned out to be prophetic, like so much else Senator Fulbright said during his lifetime. Today, following its closure as a garbage dump in 1993, Nanjido is well on its way to a final transmogrification into a world-class ecology park by 2020. Continuing with a review of the events of the past week, Senator Fulbright recalled how impressed he had been by the 40th anniversary commemoration. This gala dinner was held in the Grand Ballroom of the Intercontinental Hotel on the evening of Thursday, September 20. With Prime Minister Kang Young-Hoon presiding, there were

Changing Cannons to Cultural Currency The Origins of Fulbright Korea

around seven hundred guests in attendance, including many high-level government officials, members of the foreign diplomatic corps, prominent individuals from all walks of life, and hundreds of Korean alumni of the Fulbright Program. It constituted recognition on an unprecedented scale of the important role the Fulbright Program has played in higher education in South Korea. The event also broke ground as the first American-style fundraising dinner ever held in Seoul, even if it did not immediately establish a new trend in fundraising for the nonprofit or NGO sector in Korea. The official commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the Fulbright Program in Korea came to a perfect ending the following day—Friday, September 21—with a gala reception for all the Korean alumni of the program that was hosted by Ambassador Donald P. Gregg and his wife Margaret (“Meg”) Curry Gregg in the garden of the U.S. ambassador’s official residence. With nearly four hundred alumni of the Fulbright Program in attendance, the reception was an unambiguous expression of their deep respect and affection for Senator Fulbright as well as a confirmation of the enormous impact the program he established has had on the lives of so many educators, government officials, and professionals from other sectors in contemporary South Korea. Harriet Mayor Fulbright is better qualified than most Americans to assess the impact of the program from a historical perspective. For unlike her husband, she was not making her first visit to Korea. She had lived in the country over thirty years earlier for about two years, from 1958 to 1960, which coincided with one of the most critical junctures in contemporary Korean history. At that time, Harriet Fulbright, who was then teaching English at Ewha Womans University, had personally witnessed the April 19 Revolution that launched South Korea on the long road from autocratic to democratic government.5 On the same day as the U.S. ambassador’s reception, Dr. Yoon Hoo-Jung, the president of Ewha Womans University, hosted a luncheon in honor of Senator and Mrs. Fulbright, an event that evoked many vivid memories of her earlier stay in Korea. This elegant luncheon was held at Aryeong Dang, a Korean-style banquet facility on the Ewha campus, with the university’s Fulbright alumnae, other faculty members, and several students in attendance. Recalling her previous stay in Korea, Harriet Fulbright marveled at how dramatically the country had been transformed. She jokingly relayed a story about how the first thing her husband said upon their arrival in Seoul was, “Well, show me around...and I had to tell him I couldn’t possibly show him anything because Seoul now looks like New York City.” In a way, it was precisely for this reason that they were on their way to Ganghwa Island. Apart from the physical transformation of the country, however, the most vivid memories Harriet Fulbright retained from her previous stay were all about students. She expressed her deep conviction that students were the key to South Korea’s dramatic

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

Senator Fulbright and his wife Harriet Fulbright at the Korean-American Educational Commission during their 1990 visit.

transformation from a poor authoritarian to a rich democratic society in little more than a quarter of a century. Moreover, as she readily acknowledged, the students she taught at Ewha also had changed her: I was in Korea for two years and teaching, and it was interesting because I walked into class on that first day and all the students looked alike to me. But on the last day they didn’t look alike at all. They had extraordinary, different personalities and purposes in life, and one of them even reminded me of my younger sister. So what one finds out is how alike we are as human beings, how we have the same desires, how we long to be seen for who we are, not defined by our country, our race, or our religion.6 The stock of reflections on the past week were exhausted just as the Fulbrights crossed the bridge and arrived on Ganghwa Island. The timing was perfect in another sense as well because the first scene they came upon was a bustling farmer’s market. Coincidentally, they had chosen exactly the right day in the traditional marketing cycle to observe a periodic market in progress. As iron is drawn to a magnet, so the scene immediately captured Senator Fulbright’s attention. Ginkgo nuts on skewers, bundles of flattened dried squid, and roasted silk worms—delicacies never found in American supermarkets, for sure–as well as agricultural tools and implements, pots and pans, woven

Changing Cannons to Cultural Currency The Origins of Fulbright Korea

mats, and even more exotic items all drew the Senator’s animated attention. As he moved through the market, however, the bantering interaction between the buyers and sellers soon came to interest him even more than the exotic merchandise. Their intense bargaining at first seemed like cutthroat competition, but in the end resolved into something more resembling a game. The essentially cooperative dimension of the transactions finally became fully apparent when sellers routinely gave buyers an extra measure while wrapping their goods. Even though it is a practice virtually mandated by custom, the formalized magnanimity it expresses exemplifies how open-ended, reciprocal exchanges can be deployed socially to promote cooperation and build mutually beneficial relationships. As he explained in The Price of Empire, which was published just a few months before his visit to Korea, Senator Fulbright found the view that human beings “in the original state of nature... had to be cooperative to survive” fully persuasive.7 He also expressed his conviction that this fundamental human proclivity toward cooperation was the foundation for the ethos underlying the educational exchange program he had established. Further, he believed this human propensity toward cooperation could and should be enhanced through practice, in effect, to promote the further humanization of mankind. It seems what accounted for Senator Fulbright’s fascination with the farmer’s market, then, was the concrete way it validated his deepest convictions about the human potential for cooperation. Although the same ethos is at the root of all trust-based transactions, including those conducted in modern supermarkets and department stores, the haggling and other forms of negotiating behavior seen in a traditional farmer’s market reveal its workings in a more immediate and vivid way. Senator Fulbright also wrote about the other dimension of human nature, however, which can be described succinctly as a tragic tendency to engage in organized slaughter of one’s own kind. This dimension came to the fore as well during the tour since the next stop was Gwangseongbo Citadel. A series of defensive walls, gun emplacements, and command posts, the citadel was the site of the sinmiyangyo, known in English as the Korean Expedition of 1871, which was the first American military action undertaken in Korea. Never widely known and now long forgotten by Americans, this “First American Korean War” serves for Koreans as a classic example of abortive “gunboat diplomacy,” since the isolationist traditional Korean government of the day—through its sheer determination—managed against enormous odds to thwart the imperialist assertiveness of the invading Americans, albeit at the cost of 243 Korean (and three American) lives. In the end, though, it was a Pyrrhic victory since Korea was compelled to end its isolationist policy only five years later—under even less favorable circumstances—due to a successful exercise in gunboat diplomacy by Japan. In retrospect, it became U.S. foreign policy from

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History then on—in part by intent, but also by default—to empower Japan to act as America’s surrogate in Korea for at least the next three-quarters of a century. Faced with this tangible reminder of acts of human aggression with such profound and long-lasting consequences, the recognition that lessons might be drawn from this tragic history seems to be the only potential source of hope for some kind of redemption. Rejecting as unpersuasive the argument that human beings engage in such organized slaughter because they are “instinctively, biologically, inherently aggressive” by nature,8 Senator Fulbright argues passionately in The Price of Empire that we can overcome the human tendency toward aggression only by changing our way of thinking. While it is naïve to suppose it is something that’s easy to do, he wrote, it is irresponsible to assert that it is not possible. In the end, he concluded, “It is possible—not very probable, but possible—that people can find in themselves, through intercultural education, the ways and means of living together in peace.”9 The final stop on the tour was Jeondeungsa, one of Korea’s most beautiful Buddhist temples, with a traditional history going back to AD 381. After visiting the main hall, Senator Fulbright took a seat under a large tree in the temple’s precincts. Even though it was a ginkgo tree rather than a Bodhi tree, it seemed like a good time to seek enlightenment from Senator Fulbright about why there was no apparent “Korea connection” in his life prior to this visit. As the longest-serving chairman in the history of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he had been virtually everywhere else in the world where U.S. interests are at stake. He even had visited remote islands in the Pacific in the early days of civil aviation, when reliance on puddle jumpers was unavoidable—due to technical limitations rather than an airline’s commercial strategy. How was it possible that Senator Fulbright had never once visited Korea during all those years? The response Senator Fulbright gave to this question was thoughtful, but also disturbing in its implications. Acknowledging that he had been mulling over this question himself virtually from the time he arrived in Korea, he said with a tone of regret that the only explanation he could give had to do with the negative associations with Korea that had accumulated in his mind over the years. He attributed the origin of these associations to the country’s traumatic history in the aftermath of World War II, and particularly the way the Korean War had served as the major flashpoint in the opening phases of the Cold War and ultimately had become one of its primary symbols for the next four decades. The disturbing implication of this response is that Senator Fulbright’s view of Korea was generally shared by many other Americans, including some of those considered to be among the best-informed on international affairs. The opponents of the Cold War as a paradigm for U.S. foreign policy, as Senator Fulbright increasingly became during the

Changing Cannons to Cultural Currency The Origins of Fulbright Korea

1960s, were generally determined to counter the “hubris of toughness” that they believed served as a rationale for violence and oppression in American policies both at home and abroad.10 In this context, there was, at a minimum, no compelling reason to focus their attention on Korea. In acknowledging this explanation of why he did not previously have a “Korea connection,” Senator Fulbright made it clear that his previous perception of Korea seemed very remote from the reality he now was experiencing. In effect, he was admitting something of a dilemma. From the very beginning of his career in the U.S. Senate, Senator Fulbright was a committed opponent of the Cold War primarily because of his visceral disapproval of behavior that was based on abstractions or grand theories. To view Korea solely, or even primarily, through the limited prism of the Cold War is, of course, to allow oneself to be victimized by an abstraction. Regardless of whether such a characterization could have been applied to Senator Fulbright previously, it clearly did not apply after he had visited Korea personally. The reality broke down the stereotypes, and the abstractions no longer offered an adequate prism. For many others, however, the potential for misunderstanding will remain until the last vestiges of the Cold War have been eliminated on the Korean peninsula. The drive back to Seoul was uneventful, as everyone seemed lost in their own thoughts. It was the right ending for a day full of interesting experiences and some thoughtful reflections. After resting on Sunday, Senator and Harriet Fulbright began their final day of activity with a breakfast on Monday, September 24, hosted by Prime Minister Kang in a beautiful traditional Korean-style building located on the grounds of his official residence. After breakfast, they visited the National Assembly and met with the Speaker and a large group of Assemblymen. That evening, Senator Fulbright was invited by Chung In Yong, chairman of the Halla Group, for dinner at Samch’onggak, a very exclusive facility for traditional Korean parties. After returning to the hotel later, he teased his wife by saying he had gone to a “girlie party” and had a very good time. As he was boarding the plane for Tokyo the following day, Senator Fulbright remarked simply, but with great feeling, “I know only a little about Korea, but through this visit, I found that Koreans are so kind that I feel like I am among old friends.... The traffic jams were the only drawback.” As many could testify from meetings with him in subsequent years, Senator Fulbright continued to have fond memories of his visit to Korea for the rest of his life.

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

the baCK story oF the inVitation11 Fred carriere It is famously said about real estate that it is location, location, and location. I’ve often thought that the same could be said about our lives. Certainly, being in the right place at the right time makes a big difference. In my case, my years with the Korea Fulbright Program almost certainly would have been much different if I had not had the good fortune to be the executive director at a very “sweet time” in the program’s development. The decade of the 1980s, in particular, was a time of unprecedented opportunities to expand and diversify our activities in the areas of student advisory services, testing services, and alumni relations. My efforts to clinch a “Korea connection” for Senator Fulbright, however, were linked most directly with the plan to establish an association for the Korean alumni of the Fulbright Program. We launched our plan in 1986 by traveling to locations throughout the country to meet with alumni over either lunch or dinner. Gradually, a certain momentum got under way, and the more positive responses we got from the alumni, the more strongly I felt my self-imposed obligation to bring Senator Fulbright to Korea. In my mind, one of the primary ties binding the members of the association together would be the sense of discipleship with Senator Fulbright. None of us had met the great man at that point, including me, and I felt we needed to remedy the situation. The Fulbright Alumni Association of Korea was inaugurated in May 1987 in conjunction with a commemoration of the worldwide 40th anniversary of the Fulbright Program. An invitation was extended to Senator Fulbright for the first time in connection with this commemoration, but it was declined, with an allegedly definitive advisory from the U.S. State Department that Senator Fulbright would no longer be making long trips overseas due to his advanced age and declining health. Indeed, though it was hard for me to accept, several people I knew who were close to him expressed the same opinion. Later the same year, in November 1987, I had the opportunity to meet Senator Fulbright for the first time while attending the Fulbright Association’s 10th Annual Conference in Washington. Although I tried to convey my intention to bring him to Korea someday during our brief meeting, due to my nervous delivery I think what I said came across as merely a polite greeting delivered in a somewhat bizarre fashion. Still, the meeting merely hardened my resolve to bring him to

Changing Cannons to Cultural CurrenCy The Origins of Fulbright Korea

Korea, due to the overwhelming impression Senator Fulbright’s unpretentious bearing and plain words made on me. As I recall, I even made a layman’s assessment of his health and concluded that he was in good enough shape for travel. Over the next two years, I worked every angle that I could think of, with little notable progress until late 1989, when Cassandra (“Cassie”) Pyle of the Council for International Exchange of Scholars (CIES) visited Korea to deliver a keynote address at a major academic conference. Prior to that time, we had not been friends, although we had a formal relationship in our respective capacities. Well, we became fast friends during her visit. When she told me in a matter-of-fact way that she was close to Senator Fulbright, and that he often came to her home for dinner, I really pressed her to help me convince him that he would have to visit Korea eventually. I suggested that the commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the Fulbright Program in Korea, which was being planned for the next year, would be an ideal time. Cassie told me quite frankly that she was not optimistic about the chances for success, but she agreed to do whatever she could to help. The big break finally came in early January 1990 with the unexpected news that Senator Fulbright, who had been a widower for some time, would be marrying Harriet Mayor on March 10. At that time, Mayor was the executive director of the Fulbright Association in Washington, D.C. I knew her in her professional capacity, but more importantly I also knew she had spent two years in Korea decades before teaching English at Ewha Womans University. Surely, it could only be a good omen for the success of my plans to invite Senator Fulbright to Korea. I think I heard the news on CNN late at night. As it was still a respectable hour in Washington, I immediately reached for the phone and called Cassie Pyle. As soon as she heard my voice, before I had a chance to say anything more than her name, Cassie told me that she was thinking along the same lines. In other words, in the manner of experienced co-conspirators, we didn’t even need to say what we were thinking. Cassie had even devised a strategic plan already, which she quickly outlined. It was very simple: she would host a reception for Bill and Harriet Fulbright to congratulate them on their marriage, but she would inform us of a starting time that would be a half hour earlier than the other guests. Due to this simple stratagem, I could meet alone with them without being too obvious, and thereby have the opportunity to extend in person the invitation of the Korea Fulbright alumni. As an additional gesture, the alumni asked me to carry a

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

KAEC executive director Frederick Carriere presents a ham to Mrs. Fulbright.

traditional Korean ham12 with me to the U.S. and convey it to Mayor on behalf of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association as “friends of the groom.” Arriving at Cassie’s home for the reception a half hour early as planned, I was relieved to find that Senator Fulbright and his wife were there already, just as Cassie had planned. I delivered the ham and received Mayor’s expressions of gratitude. Trying to break the ice, Senator Fulbright asked some questions about how Koreans perceive the United States, and Mayor mentioned her previous residence in Korea. As time was slipping away, however, I began to get very anxious that the other guests would arrive before I had carried out my mission. As if on cue, at that very moment Senator Fulbright said from out of the blue, “Korea sounds like a very fascinating country. I’d really like to visit there someday.” Hearing these words, I immediately reached into my pocket and handed over the letter of invitation. Even before Mayor had finished reading the letter to him, Senator Fulbright said he was delighted to accept the invitation. It was mission accomplished, but only with the help of two very special women: Harriet Mayor Fulbright and Cassandra Pyle.13 Both have been great friends and supporters of the Korea Fulbright Program over the years.

Changing Cannons to Cultural Currency The Origins of Fulbright Korea

Establishment of the Fulbright Program

Just as everyone was against war in August 1945, everyone also hoped a way could be found to guarantee a lasting peace in the future. As a young freshman member of the U.S. Senate from the state of Arkansas, J. William Fulbright was no exception. He was also appalled by the waste of resources and loss of human life caused by WWII, and especially by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Whether among the general public or in the U.S. Congress, however, there was not so much as even a semblance of a consensus about the best way to avoid such devastation in the future. It was at this pivotal moment that Senator Fulbright made the unique contribution of proposing the establishment of an international educational exchange program as the best way to promote this outcome. Looking back many years later, Senator Fulbright explained his thinking about this program in the following, breathtakingly bold terms: The simple, basic purpose of the exchange program we initiated over forty years ago is to erode the culturally rooted mistrust that sets nations against one another. Its essential aim is to encourage people in all countries, and especially their political leaders, to stop denying others the right to their own view of reality and to develop a new manner of thinking about how to avoid war rather than how to wage it. The exchange program is not a panacea but an avenue of hope—possibly our best hope and conceivably our only hope—for the survival and further progress of humanity.14 Today, with the benefit of hindsight, we can say that the outcome has lived up to the audacity of the insight that led to the establishment of the Fulbright Program. At the time, however, there were many obstacles to be overcome before the program could get under way. In the first place, the U.S. Congress in those days generally did not provide financial support even for domestic educational or cultural activities, and the prospect of getting support for such activities to be conducted internationally was simply nonexistent. Additionally, there were many influential members of the U.S. Congress who were wary about the potential for innocent young Americans to be corrupted by foreign “isms” and, if only for that reason, were bound to look askance at a program intended to promote international educational exchanges. Therefore, instead of submitting a standalone bill that was doomed to fail, Senator Fulbright hit on the idea of combining his bill for funding educational exchanges with a bill already before the U.S. Senate that provided for the orderly disposal of the enormous stockpiles of surplus U.S. war materiel left overseas when WWII ended. In short, the improbable melding of these two bills reflected the pragmatic calculation that a “soft sell” was required to get the bill establishing an

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History educational exchange program through the U.S. Congress. It was a stroke of genius. “Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to introduce a bill, for reference to the Committee on Military Affairs, authorizing the use of credits established through the sale of surplus properties abroad for the promotion of international good will through the exchange of students in fields of education, culture and science.” With those deliberately prosaic words, spoken on September 27, 1945, Senator Fulbright introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to create the educational and intercultural exchange program that now bears his name.15 The actual name of the legislation was nothing if not pedestrian: “A Bill to Amend the Surplus Property Act of 1944.” The program was originally devised as a means by which returns from the sale of surplus materiel abroad after WWII might accrue to the best interests of the United States.16 The amended bill killed two birds with one stone. While directly addressing the problem of how to dispose of surplus tanks, cannons, trucks, jeeps, and other war materiel around the world, it laid the groundwork for a massive two-way exchange of students between the United States and other countries around the world. A Christian Science Monitor article describing Fulbright’s legislation was titled “Changing Cannons into Cultural Currency.”17 Senator Fulbright’s bill would quite literally do that. It explained: “The United States has surplus war material scattered all over the world. In most cases it is too costly to bring home, the native countries can’t afford to pay much for it, and the alternative is to let it rot.”18 Under Fulbright’s plan, the disposal of surplus property abroad was placed under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State, with the funds to be used for this large new educational exchange program. On August 1, 1946, President Truman signed Public Law 79-584, an amendment to the Surplus Property Act of 1944. Today, it is commonly referred to as the Fulbright Act. The new Act authorized a pattern of overseas scholarships significantly different from any program up to that time. These differences have continued to characterize the Fulbright Program. First, by establishing a system of binational agreements between this country and others, it put the exchange of students, teachers, and senior scholars on a truly worldwide basis for the first time. By 1950, the new program involved 20 countries around the globe, including Korea. Furthermore, larger amounts of funds were available than for any previous exchange program. The Fulbright Act also stipulated that awards be two-way, providing grants for foreigners to study in the United States as well as for Americans to study abroad. The assumption was that each side could learn and profit from the other. In addition, program development would be bilateral, with both the United States and the participating

Changing Cannons to Cultural Currency The Origins of Fulbright Korea

On August 1, 1946, President Harry S. Truman signed the Fulbright Act into law.

country jointly involved in the planning process.19 A final difference from other programs existing at the time was establishment of the Board of Foreign Scholarships. It is unique among presidentially appointed boards in that it has a program development role as well as an advisory role. From the beginning, it had responsibility for setting basic policy for the Fulbright Program. The board decided, for example, that the program should be binationally organized and administered overseas. It determined that grants should be made to individuals, not to institutions, and it established the policy that funds should not be used to pay for buildings, laboratory equipment, microfilm, and the like. In later years, this requirement would directly affect Fulbright Korea when it decided to purchase its own building. From the start, binationality was one of the Fulbright Program’s main strengths. By 1972, there were cost-sharing arrangements in existence.20 As of Fiscal Year 2008, there was direct financial or in-kind support for Fulbright student and scholar programs in 105 countries around the world.21 The countries of East Asia, including Korea, were clearly at the top of Senator Fulbright’s mind when he introduced his bill in the Senate. In his remarks, he noted the

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History precedent of the indemnity paid to the United States by China as a result of the Boxer Rebellion in China in July 1900. Since the amount of the indemnity proved more than adequate to indemnify claims by nationals of the United States, in 1908 approximately $10 million was returned to the Chinese government. The government of China placed this money in a trust fund for the education of Chinese youth in China and in the United States. Senator Fulbright noted the resulting student exchanges and friendly relations between China and the United States and commented, “The good will and understanding created by the exchange of students has been our greatest bulwark against unfriendly criticism of our policies in the Far East.” The Senator also said, “I do not think one can deny that the exchange of students has been one of the most successful of our international policies. This foresight of our Government, nearly 50 years ago, has paid great dividends in our relations with the people of Asia.”22 In a speech later that year, Senator Fulbright observed, “No visitor or traveler can gain as much appreciation of the way and thought of living of foreigners as students can who actually live in the foreign country while they learn. We all now know that no country is far away in the age of airplanes. The necessity for increasing our understanding of others and their understanding of us has an urgency that it has never had in the past.”23 In the years since passage of the Fulbright Act, the United States program for the exchange of students, teachers, and senior scholars has become a widely accepted and important part of the academic world. Today, the Fulbright Program operates in more than 155 countries around the world. There are fifty binational commissions and educational foundations to govern the programs, including one jointly administered by Belgium and Luxembourg.24 As of the 2008–09 academic year, grants were awarded to U.S. students, teachers, scholars, and professionals to study, teach, lecture, and conduct research in more than 150 countries worldwide, and to their foreign counterparts to engage in similar activities in the United States.25 Over the lifetime of the Fulbright Program, exchanges have involved people from approximately 190 countries, or nearly all of the independent countries in the world. Fulbright is by far the largest and most prestigious scholarly exchange program in the world.

Consolidation under the Fulbright-Hays Act

During the late 1940s and 1950s, the original Fulbright Act was supplemented by further legislation. In January 1948, after fierce debate, the U.S. Congress passed the Smith-Mundt Act. It provided for both an information service to “disseminate abroad information about the United States” and an educational exchange service to cooperate

Changing Cannons to Cultural Currency The Origins of Fulbright Korea

with other nations in the interchange of persons, knowledge, and skills; the rendering of technical and other services; and the interchange of developments in the fields of education and the arts and sciences. It enabled the State Department to arrange scholarly exchanges with countries not covered by the Fulbright Act and to add U.S. dollar awards to Fulbright awards made in foreign currencies. 26 This was a crucial change, because without access to U.S. dollars it was not possible to support Korean Fulbright scholars in the United States. In 1953 and 1954, Congress, responding to the growing popularity of the program and the rapid diminishing of funds from the sale of war materiel, authorized the exchange program’s use of U.S.-owned foreign currencies from any source, including the sale of surplus U.S. agricultural commodities. This action more than doubled the number of countries eligible to participate and greatly increased the funds available.27 On September 2, 1958, President Eisenhower signed into law the National Defense Education Act (NDEA). In passing that law, Congress recognized that the defense and security of the nation were inseparably bound with education. Title VI of the NDEA was entitled “Language Development” and was composed of two parts, one dealing with centers, research, and studies and the other with language institutes. For the first ten years of this program, Title VI programs received steadily increasing support, and by the late 1960s the number of centers had grown to 106.28 In 1961, the many pieces of legislation affecting educational exchange were finally consolidated into the Fulbright-Hays Act. This Act broadened the scope of the program, gave it new flexibility, and assured it of dollars as well as foreign currencies. Since 1961, the Fulbright-Hays Act has been the basis for the Department of State’s entire international educational and cultural exchange program.29 In 1966, the International Education Act (Public Law 89-698) further strengthened the Fulbright Program by providing institutional grants for the establishment, strengthening, and operation of centers for research and training in international studies and the international aspects of other fields of study.30

Launching the Fulbright Program in Korea

The Fulbright Program was quite literally born out of the destruction of war and represented the hope that intercultural and educational exchanges might reduce the future incidence of armed conflict in the world. The need for hope in the prospect of a peaceful future was nowhere more apparent than in Korea, where war broke out on the peninsula less than five years after the establishment of the Fulbright Program and

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History delayed the full-blown implementation of educational exchanges under its auspices by slightly over a decade. Korea was one of the earlier countries to sign a binational agreement for educational exchanges under the Fulbright Program. The very first agreement was signed with China in 1947. It was followed by a hasty agreement with the British colonial government of Burma just before Burmese independence in January 1948. By the end of the 1940s, Australia, Belgium and Luxembourg, Egypt, France, Greece, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines, Turkey, and the United Kingdom all had agreements and functioning Fulbright commissions. It is noteworthy that only seven of these countries were in Europe, and that the developing nations were there from the start.31 By the end of Fiscal Year 1950–51, Fulbright Programs were also in operation in Austria, India, Pakistan, and Thailand.32 On April 28, 1950, an official agreement was signed in Seoul by representatives of the Republic of Korea and the U.S. “for financing certain educational exchange programs.” It was signed pursuant to the U.S. Surplus Property Act of 1944, as amended by Public Law No. 584, 79th Congress–now widely known as the Fulbright Act. In keeping with the Fulbright Program worldwide, the agreement explicitly mentioned two-way educational exchange between Korea and the U.S., authorized the U.S. Educational Commission to make recommendations to the Board of Foreign Scholarships, and made participants in the program exempt from taxation and any burdensome entry or residence requirements in either country.33 At the time of signing, the initial source of the U.S. Educational Commission’s funds was to be a portion of the $24 million owed to the U.S. government by the Korean government for loan repayments. This agreement made Korea one of the first twenty nations in the world to sign a Fulbright agreement with the United States. It was also one of the earliest developing nations to sign an agreement. With the outbreak of the Korean War, and the start of the long Cold War just a little over two months later, the Fulbright agreements with Korea and China were suspended abruptly. Tragically, in an outcome no one could have foreseen at the time, the armistice on the Korean Peninsula hardened into a de facto division of Korea into two very different nation-states. Those who signed the binational agreement for a Fulbright exchange program between Korea and the United States could not possibly have envisioned a prolonged period in which exchanges would take place only with the southern half of the Korean Peninsula. As this book will show, Korea’s continued division explains why the Fulbright Program here is at once a shining success story and also a stark reminder of the failure to achieve the ideals of the Fulbright Program. No other developing country in the world has

Changing Cannons to Cultural Currency The Origins of Fulbright Korea

accomplished so much economically, socially, and politically in such a short span of time as South Korea. Yet the continued division of the country and the tense military confrontation at the Korean Demilitarized Zone are also starkly at odds with the core philosophy and goals of the Fulbright Program. The Korean DMZ continues to be a powerful symbol of the need to turn swords into plowshares, as Senator Fulbright hoped his program would help to do. Moreover, the challenge posed by Korea’s continued division suggests that Fulbright Korea still has major challenges to meet and a major role to play in Northeast Asia and globally during the remainder of this century.

Exchanges Prior to the Establishment of a Binational Commission

Internal State Department documents shed some light on the earliest educational and intercultural exchanges between Korea and the United States following World War II. Such government-sponsored exchanges with Korea started the year before the Fulbright agreement was signed. One undated document on the history of the exchange program explains: During 1949, the Department of the Army transferred to the Department of State $70,440 to finance a program for bringing to the United States a number of Korean leaders in government and industry to observe American techniques and practices in various fields, including agriculture, forestry, textiles, and communications. Grants were made to 18 leaders under this program. The Department also provided travel grants to 33 Korean students during the same period from funds transferred by the Department of the Army. In 1950, 95 exchanges were planned with Korea under Department auspices. While grants were awarded under this program to 37 Korean students, 17 teachers, 10 professors, 14 leaders, and 17 American specialists and lecturers, the outbreak of hostilities prevented more than half of those exchanges from taking place. For example, only five Korean students arrived in the United States before the outbreak of hostilities, and only two American specialists were able to complete their assignments in Korea. Nevertheless, a group of 13 Korean teachers were able to complete a three-month course in English teaching methods in the United States, and 14 Korean leaders and research scholars were able to study and observe American techniques in the fields of medicine, education, social sciences, labor, and journalism.34

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

The U.S. embassy’s view of the purpose of the Fulbright Program in Korea was expressed in a Foreign Service Despatch sent from Seoul to Washington in 1957. It reads: The purpose of the educational exchange program in Korea is: (1) to increase understanding of the people and government of the United States so that confidence in our aims and policies will be increased; (2) to better equip participants to contribute to the democratic development of Korea, and (3) to establish a group of key persons in key fields who maintain long-term relationship (sic) with American colleagues in the United States and are accessible to USIS and embassy staff for their mutual benefit. Koreans, although proud of their long cultural heritage, are well aware of their backwardness and of their need to learn from the West in order to make Korea a modern nation. They look to the United States for this knowledge. In all fields of learning in the social sciences, the humanities, and in engineering, medicine, and agriculture, American books are highly regarded and great prestige attaches to study in the United States, and a growing number of leaders in all fields have studied and observed in America. Few Koreans are well trained in any field, and gradually, in government, in education, and in the professions, better trained younger persons are assuming greater leadership. These younger leaders have for the most part qualified for greater responsibility by showing competence at lower working levels. Koreans who have studied and observed in the United States have generally assumed greater responsibility on return, and many of them have demonstrated outstanding leadership. They are interpreting the American point of view on many problems, and are bringing new knowledge and extending democratic practices in areas where they work. Because of Korea’s long isolation and insularity, there remain much misinformation and lack of perspective about the outside world, including the United States. Knowledge of American life gleaned from personal relationship with Americans and first-hand observation of the United States continues to be one of the most effective means of combating prejudice and misinformation.35 A 1958 post dispatch to Washington, carrying Gregory Henderson’s signature and reporting on the past year’s educational exchanges with Korea, included a great deal of interesting background information:

Changing Cannons to Cultural Currency The Origins of Fulbright Korea

The giving of material aid or even technical advice alone is clearly not sufficient to allow the United States the achievement of all its long-term aims of seeing a united, independent, and strong democratic government with close ties to the United States and the Western cause firmly and permanently established in the Korean Peninsula. Personal experience with democratic life and with the requirements and uses of modern society must permeate Korea’s leaders and communicate itself to widening circles in her government, her professions, her universities and schools, her cultural leaders if what has been begun is to see consolidation. The existence of a major Communist exchange effort, while of no current effect in the Republic of Korea, underlines the importance of continuing our own exchanges by presenting the possibility of considerable future influence should Korea become united. 36 In addition to these political considerations though related to them, Korea’s small and depleted reservoir of human skills necessary for the operation of a modern state and her relative isolation from most other advanced nations made an exchange program with the United States a particular necessity. Until 1945, the Japanese performed the principal technical functions needed in operating the economy and the government and the Koreans usually had the opportunity to develop only more minor skills. Moreover, during the Korean War the Communists systematically looted the Republic of all the human skills it could find. The exchange program, working together with the OEC (Office of the Economic Coordinator) training program, is designed to contribute to the skills and techniques needed for the growth and viability of Korea. Hence, the Department’s exchange program is an essential supplement to American economic and military aid in Korea in enabling the development of democratic government in Korea, in increasing the understanding of and confidence in the United States, in increasing Korea’s skills and techniques, and in aiding the embassy in its work by establishing through the Korean professional and cultural worlds a circle of informed friends. 37 One of the most interesting sections of the 1958 annual report on educational exchanges by the U.S. embassy was the appraisal of the program’s accomplishments: “While the need for an exchange program in Korea is unusually great, circumstances here have been, on the whole, particularly favorable for its development, and in few if any other countries has its success been more palpable. Returned grantees have filled position after position in important offices of the Korean government, in the educational system, in the press, and

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History in the professions of law and medicine. While the same might be said for several other countries, the relative effect of these newly-trained men and women on the somewhat inchoate world of Korean society has been far greater than it could possibly have been in the more settled and trained societies of, for example, Japan or Germany. Observers would be virtually unanimous in saying that the tone of the above areas of Korean society has registered real changes, and for the better; in some cases altered perceptibly, in others advanced rapidly.”38 A 1961 report notes, “The Department’s educational and cultural exchange programs with Korea have been financed for the most part from dollar funds under the SmithMundt Act. In June 1960, an amendment reactivated the 1950 Fulbright Agreement, which had not been previously implemented. From 1949 through 1961 grants, were given to 494 students, teachers, professors, specialists, and leaders to come to the United States and for 36 American students, teachers, professors, and specialists to go to Korea.”39 Other State Department documents from the same time period give slightly varying figures, but it seems clear that more than 400 Koreans went to the United States, while between 36 and 47 Americans visited Korea during this period, largely under SmithMundt Act funding. Fulbright funding appears to have started in June 1960 with funds coming from Public Law 480, widely known as the “Food for Peace” law. The same report notes, “The educational exchange program with Korea has been conducted with dollar funds under Public Law 402 since hostilities prevented implementation of the Fulbright agreement signed in April 1950. In summary, our review of various archival documents indicates that nearly 500 Koreans and Americans received U.S. government funding between 1949 and 1960.”40 While the fundamental idea of the Fulbright Act had been to channel funds from the sale of surplus military equipment into scholarships, literally changing swords into plowshares, the first legislation provided no dollars for bringing foreigners to the U.S. When the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 began to take effect, the Fulbright Program became a two-way flow.41 A U.S. embassy document contained in the BEA archives and probably authored in 1959 or early 1960 sheds the following light on the earliest U.S. government-sponsored exchanges with the Republic of Korea: “Shortly before the invasion by North Korea in June 1950, a binational executive agreement was concluded between the United States and the Government of the Republic of Korea, providing for a five year program of educational exchanges under the Fulbright Act. However, the invasion and long continuing hostilities prevented the carrying out of this exchange program. During the hostilities, it was possible to carry out a limited exchange of Korean educators to aid in the rehabilitation of education in their country.”42

Changing Cannons to Cultural Currency The Origins of Fulbright Korea

Altogether, the Department of State brought over 176 Korean students, teachers, research scholars, leaders, and others after 1949 and assigned 25 American specialists and educators to Korea under PL 402, known as the Smith-Mundt Act. The State Department also administered a program of emergency aid to Korean students and scholars stranded in the United States. As self-support became impossible for the majority of these persons, grants were awarded to enable them to reach their educational objectives in the United States. Upon the completion of their studies they were required to return immediately to help in the rehabilitation of Korea. The undated document also states, “The Department of State and the Republic of Korea have concurred on the urgent need for the immediate activation of the exchange program under the Fulbright Act as a means of increasing the numbers of exchange grants to Korean educators and opinion molders and an expanded teacher training program-vital to our immediate objective of strengthening the ability of the Republic of Korea to resist Communism.”43

Establishment of the Binational Commission (USEC/K)

The agreement of April 28, 1950, had authorized establishment of a U.S. Educational Commission in Korea to facilitate educational exchange programs between the two countries. The commission was made up of eight members, four of whom were to be citizens of the United States of America, while the other four were to be citizens of Korea. The principal officer in charge of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Korea (the U.S. ambassador) was designated as the honorary chairman of the commission. As honorary chairman, the ambassador was given the right to appoint the chairman of the commission, to cast a deciding vote in the event of tie votes by the commission, and to appoint and remove citizens of the U.S. who served on the commission. The agreement required that at least two of these U.S. citizens be officers of the U.S. Foreign Service establishment in Korea. The government of the Republic of Korea was given the power to appoint and remove Korean members of the commission. The commission that had been authorized a decade earlier was finally formed in 1960 as the United States Educational Commission in Korea (USEC/K). On June 30, 1960, an amendment reactivated the Fulbright agreement with funds from surplus agricultural commodities sales to be used for educational exchange in the amount of the equivalent of $150,000 for 1961-62 and $200,000 for 1962-63.44 Although educational exchanges took place in the 1950s, a special status was accorded at that time to those grantees who arrived in Korea after the formation of the United

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History States Educational Commission in Korea (USEC/K). This much is made clear in the first USEC/K annual report for Program Year 1960-61. In a section of the report dealing with the Inter-Country Lecture Program, it is mentioned that Belle Boone Beard had been sent to China to give lectures. It describes her as follows: “Dr. Beard, professor of sociology and chairman, dep’t of sociology, Sweet Briar College, Sweet Briar, Va., has been lecturing in the fields of sociology and gerontology at Seoul Women’s College and Seoul National University as the first Fulbright Grantee in Korea.”45 In practical terms, the full-fledged start of Fulbright Korea, under the management of a binational commission, was delayed for just over a decade after the binational agreement was signed owing to the outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 and its aftermath. Ironically, given Senator Fulbright’s intention of offering an alternative to the destruction of WWII and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Korea became the only nation in the world where war itself delayed the creation of a binational commission for Fulbright exchanges. Also, war on the peninsula and the tense confrontation that continued along the DMZ during the long Cold War led many to view the relationship of the U.S. to Korea through the lens of military and strategic considerations rather than education and cultural exchange. The Fulbright Program in Korea, which began amid the utter destruction of the Korean War, grew in parallel with the nation’s “economic miracle,” as its rapid growth is often characterized. Indeed, the Fulbright Program played an important part in South Korea’s rise from the ashes of war to become one of the most advanced industrialized economies in the world. Today, the role of Fulbright in South Korea’s national development is becoming better known because of the spectacular success of the nation’s electronics industries and its advanced digital networks, at the very time that these infrastructures are bringing nations of the world closer together via the internet and new media. Extensive studies by the World Bank and other international organizations have identified education as one of the important pillars of the knowledge economy or information society emerging in Korea. Perhaps nothing underscores the profound impact of the Fulbright Program in Korea better than the Korean government’s recent decision to create its own educational exchange program modeled after the Fulbright Program.46 The developing nation that the U.S. sought to help through its aid programs and Fulbright exchanges in the 1960s and 1970s is now an advanced, technology-driven economy and a donor of aid and expertise that is ever more widely looked to by the developing nations of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The start of the Fulbright Program in Korea can be summarized in terms of the following main features. First, the binational agreement was signed on April 28, 1950,

Changing Cannons to Cultural Currency The Origins of Fulbright Korea

placing Korea among the first twenty nations of the world to have Fulbright Programs. Second, the Korean War broke out less than a month later, delaying formation of USEC/ K but not actual exchanges under the broad umbrella of the Fulbright legislation. Third, more than 140 Koreans and over 30 Americans participated in academic exchanges, mostly under Smith-Mundt funding, before, during, and after the Korean War and before the formation of USEC/K in 1960. Fourth, these early exchanges operated, at least in principle, under the guidance of the Board of Foreign Scholarships—currently known as the J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board–which had been created by the initial legislation in 1946. The Fulbright Act was the initial and guiding piece of legislation propelling America’s international educational exchanges following WWII. It was followed by several other laws, including the Smith-Mundt Act, with the result that the Korean grantees were referred to, in the early years, as “Smith-Mundt grantees” or by other category names. However, passage of the Fulbright-Hays legislation in 1961 brought all of the major exchange programs under the Fulbright umbrella. These historical realities surrounding the origins of the Fulbright Program in Korea have several implications. First, they meant that the task of building the Fulbright Program, as with the overall task of rebuilding the nation’s economy, would begin almost from scratch in the rubble of the Korean War. In fact, educational and intercultural exchanges between the United States and Korea began around the time the binational agreement was signed and continued through the Korean War and its aftermath, although formation of the binational USEC/K was delayed until 1960. Second, after the war ended with an armistice and armed confrontation continued to be a tangible threat along the DMZ, Korea would become the only country in the world following the end of the Cold War in which Fulbright exchanges would reach only half the country. Third, the continued largescale presence of U.S. armed forces in South Korea has been a prominent public factor in the U.S.–Korea relationship over the years, one that in some ways has overshadowed the educational exchange relationship in which Fulbright has played a leading role.

Recurrent Themes in the History of Fulbright Korea

Several main themes will recur throughout this book. The first is an emphasis throughout this history on governance and leadership of the Fulbright Program. This includes the shifting roles of both the U.S. and Korean governments in the development of the Fulbright Program in Korea, as well as the participation of academic and private sector representatives. Although the Fulbright Program originated with the U.S. government,

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History Fulbright commissions operate with binational funding and governance and, in effect, operate somewhat independently of the government under the Board of Foreign Scholarships. This arrangement is a profound source of strength for the Fulbright Program. Quite naturally, the U.S. government exerted a great deal of influence in the early years of the program. However, as time went on the government of Korea came to play a more active role. In 1981, the Fulbright agreement was amended to “balance the role of the commission between the two countries.” A second thematic emphasis is that of continuity in change. The continuity can be found in continuous promotion, over the years, of Senator Fulbright’s basic idea of sending people across oceans to learn about other cultures. The Senator’s remarks in introducing and supporting his legislation over the years make it abundantly clear that he interpreted the term “student” very broadly to include people from all walks of life. Changes in the Fulbright Program over the past half-century usually involved questions of how to most effectively carry out the program’s mission in a changing environment. While the Fulbright Program in Korea began with students and scholars, it has branched out over the years to include a large component for English Teaching Assistants, a program in the U.S. for Korean secondary school teachers of English, and programs for both Korean and American international education administrators. Over the same span of time, South Korea went from the status of a desperately poor, war-torn developing country to that of an advanced, technology-driven economy and a leading member of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and other international organizations. Inevitably, there would be debates and adjustments in program focus in response to such a dramatic change in the nation’s circumstances. In its early years, the mission of Fulbright was seen as that of developing Korea’s system of higher education. During the 1970s, it shifted to a focus on the study of man in “a rapidly industrializing society.” As Korea developed, there were debates about the proper role of the natural sciences and mathematics versus the social sciences, humanities, and arts in Fulbright exchanges. In addition, there was debate about whether and to what extent the Fulbright Program should support American studies in Korea and the development of English language teaching. Over the years, there were also frequent discussions of the proper emphasis on outlying regions versus Seoul in awarding Fulbright grants to Korean students and scholars. A third theme is the growth of two-way flows within the Fulbright Korea program and the associated challenge of recruitment and final selection of both Korean and American Fulbright grantees. In the early years of the program, it was mostly American faculty who came to Korea to teach and Korean students who went to the U.S. to learn. In those years, relatively few Americans applied for Fulbright grants in Korea, while many

Changing Cannons to Cultural Currency The Origins of Fulbright Korea

Koreans applied to study in the more educationally developed United States. However, as time went on and Korea’s own educational system developed, this pattern changed to a more balanced two-way flow, in keeping with the binational character of the Fulbright Program. A fourth theme treated throughout this history has to do with funding, which is essential for any successful educational exchange program. The Fulbright Program began on the basis of U.S. government funding, but over the years the Korean government’s contribution to the program has equaled, and in some cases exceeded, that of the American government. In addition, nongovernmental sources of funding, such as ETS in the case of high-stakes academic testing, played a key role in the growth of Fulbright programs in Korea. Finally, this book addresses the question of infrastructure to support the Fulbright program. Here we look at two developments that have profoundly affected the program’s activities over the years. The first is physical infrastructure, including office space for the secretariat and housing for American Fulbright grantees in Korea. Over the years, this issue cropped up repeatedly at board meetings of the Fulbright Commission in discussions of increased rent or chonsei (“key money”) for office space, a house for the executive director, or grantee housing. A breakthrough occurred on this nagging issue that was a real landmark in the history of Fulbright Korea with the purchase of the Fulbright Building in 1999 and its dedication in January 2000. It not only contained ten apartments for staff and grantees, but also seven computer-based testing centers, a beautiful first floor facility for the U.S. Education Center (counseling center), and adequate office space. Equally important, ownership of the building allowed installation of a state-ofthe-art network infrastructure that allowed Fulbright to enter the internet era not only in its State Department-affiliated U.S. Education Center but in all aspects of program administration. The above themes reoccur throughout the history of Fulbright Korea to date. In the pages that follow, they are discussed in relation to the Korean-American Educational Commission’s three major areas of activities. As executive director Horace H. Underwood succinctly told visitors, by way of explaining what Fulbright Korea did: “We give money, we give tests, we give advice.” Indeed, the three main program activities have been Fulbright and certain other scholarly grant programs, educational testing (with a primary emphasis on TOEFL), and student counseling. The second area of activity, educational testing, grew dramatically starting in 1984 with the signing of an agreement with ETS that put KAEC in charge of all TOEFL administrations in Korea.

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

Chapter 2

The 1960s

Revolution, Development, & Formation of the Fulbright Commission

The binational Fulbright Commission, formally named the United States Educational Commission in Korea (USEC/K), began operation in the midst of the revolutionary changes in Korean politics that ushered in the decade. These began with the student revolution of April 19, 1960, that overthrew the government of Rhee Syngman. In September of that same year, the commission began operation. In the following spring, the junta of General Park Chung Hee seized power in a military coup on May 17, 1961. Following these tumultuous events, the new military government in South Korea and all major institutions turned their attention to the immense task of national development. The military coup conditioned all activities in South Korea’s education sector, including the activation of the Fulbright Commission (USEC/K). Although some Fulbright grantees were named to high-level positions in the new government, many were also arrested, and quite a few were jailed. The circumstances were captured vividly in a mid1961 Foreign Service Despatch from the U.S. embassy in Seoul. It included the following assessment: A year which began with a student revolution (April 19, 1960) and ended with a military junta seizing power (May 17, 1961) cannot be said to be an easy year in which to judge the success or non-success of an exchange program. The previous ten years of Liberal Party rule under former President Syngman Rhee saw appreciable numbers of party functionaries being sent to the US under

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History the exchange program, especially in the leader category. The regime’s violent overthrow last year led to the imprisonment of numbers of these grantees and the unemployment of others. Similarly, the many arbitrary arrests following this year’s military revolution did not spare those grantees who had long been in opposition until the previous year; again, sweeping changes swept many educators, legal specialists, grantees, and leaders from office, and some into jail. No program emphasizing leadership could be immune from such revolutionary tides. It is to the praise of past choices that so many grantees are still in positions for which their training has fitted them. Especially when the post–sometimes against Departmental judgment–has insisted on the future worth of a candidate rather than his present prominence has the exchange program been ultimately able to escape with minimal damage.1 The post report went on to say: The conditions of the last fifteen months themselves qualify a leadership program; they at the least confirm that only with local decision and considerable post experience in arriving at it can success be hoped for. Tolerance for local decision has been given. Where judgments were initially good, value will return—even from behind iron bars, if not especially from there. The exchange program will continue to be a useful part of the effort to build understanding between Korea and the United States. With more time for contact and follow-up, it can be even more successful in its endeavors.2 One section of the post report described the program on civic leadership, and it specified some of those who were arrested, as follows: This particular section of the exchange program has been most badly damaged by the new military regime, which has systematically been removing civic leaders to replace them by military personnel. Grantees in this field who had not already departed before the military revolution usually have not been allowed to receive passports, except in a few cases. The arrest of many former grantees also took place, based on their positions at the time of the revolution. Such men as CHO Cha-ch’on, former Minister of Justice (FY57 Leader) and for ten days prior to the revolution Home Minister KIM Young-son, former Minister of Finance (FY55 Leader) and HYON Sok-Ho, former (twice) Minister of National Defense and

The 1960s

Revolution, Development, and Formation of the Fulbright Commission once Home Minister (FY57 Leader), have been arrested among others, the last, however, soon being released.3 The post report stressed the importance of follow-up with Korean grantees, noting that “great differences between the cultures of Korea and the United States increase the importance of follow-up. Constant encouragement and moral or diplomatic support for grantees is necessary in the face of confusion and change in Korean life and the frustrations faced by them in bringing their U.S.-received training to bear on an exceptionally conservative society.”4 Although fighting in the Korean War ended with an armistice in mid-1953, the damage from the war and the effects of the long Japanese colonial period that preceded it would take decades to overcome. As of 1960, South Korea was still a desperately poor developing country in economic terms and was struggling to build up its education system, beginning with emphasis on the primary and secondary levels and progressing in later decades to expansion of educational opportunities at the tertiary level. The funding that made possible implementation of the Fulbright exchange program in Korea came from Public Law 480, the Agricultural Trade Development Assistance Act, which President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law on July 10, 1954. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy underscored the importance of Public Law 480 to the U.S. and the rest of the world by renaming it “Food for Peace” and placing it in the newly created U.S. Agency for International Development. “Food is strength, and food is peace, and food is freedom, and food is a helping hand to people around the world whose good will and friendship we want,” Kennedy said at the time.5 In Korea, as in other countries around the world, the initiative for the Fulbright Program came from the U.S. government. It was generally welcomed because it offered a constructive solution for two postwar problems: how to dispose of surplus military equipment around the world, and how to make use of America’s agricultural surpluses. On June 30, 1960, the U.S. ambassador to Korea and Korea’s minister of foreign affairs exchanged notes in Seoul agreeing to amend the bilateral treaty on educational exchange. This amendment gave the program access to $900,000 made available as a result of the agreement between the two governments regarding funds and repayments related to the American Surplus Agricultural Products Act. The diplomatic notes exchanged on June 30, 1960, added the following paragraph to the preamble of the original bilateral agreement: “Considering that funds provided for under the present agreement have not been made available for such educational programs and that the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History Republic of Korea desire to establish certain educational activities with funds in the currency of Korea that become available from additional sources for expenditure by the United States for such purposes...” 6 Thus, although educational exchanges with the United States had taken place on a limited scale following the 1950 binational agreement to start a Fulbright Program, the implementation of the program on a significant scale took place a decade later. Not only the scale of the program but also its binational character took a big step forward in 1960.

The Creation of USEC/K and Its First Years of Operation

On September 1, 1960, the United States Educational Commission in Korea (USEC/K) was officially established with space provided in the cultural affairs office (CU) of the U.S. embassy. Ko Kwang Man was appointed as the first executive director of the commission. Although the commission was binational, its name reflected that it was an initiative of the U.S. government. Throughout the 1960s, Fulbright in Korea was almost exclusively funded by the United States government as part of its development assistance. Both the source of funding and the high priority placed on national development accentuated the relative influence of the U.S. versus the Korean government in Fulbright’s early years. The start of Fulbright Commission activities in 1960 also marked the start of broader public awareness of Fulbright in South Korea. Since this was the first year of operation in Korea, the executive director engaged in a large amount of publicity to inform the public as to just what Fulbright was, what its activities were, and what its purpose was. This entailed several interviews on the Voice of the U.N. Command radio station, articles in several of the leading newspapers, and a speech before Rotary Club International.7 A post report in 1961 stated, “The arrival of Smith-Mundt grantees from America as well as the newly established Fulbright professors are also covered by the proper section of USIS, whether motion picture, still pictures, or newspaper section press release, usually being prepared by the cultural officer and his staff.”8 The makeup of the very first United States Educational Commission in Korea shows some remarkable similarity to the current constitution of the Korean-American Educational Commission board. On the Korean side, there were representatives of both the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, along with Yu Chin-o, president of Korea University. The American side included the public affairs officer (PAO) and the cultural affairs officer (CAO), with the latter serving as treasurer. The other two American members of the board were the Asia Foundation Representative, Jack James, and Horace G. Underwood, a professor of education at Yonsei University.9

The 1960s

Revolution, Development, and Formation of the Fulbright Commission The presence of Underwood on the first USEC/K board is notable because it shows that an effort was made by people at the U.S. embassy to reach out to non-governmental Americans who were longtime residents in Korea but still clearly American. A person like Underwood could function as a bridge or liaison between the two cultures, helping the commission more effectively achieve its goal of being binational. As people who knew him well will testify, his presence also helped to ensure that the commission would be independent of either government. Finally, it was noteworthy that Underwood hailed from Yonsei University and from the family that founded that institution. Yonsei was then, and still is today, the most internationalized of Korean universities, reflecting the longstanding influence of Protestant missionaries, including the Underwoods, on Korean higher education. The start of Fulbright Commission activity and the hiring of staff were no easy matters. The first annual report of the commission notes, “Even though an Administrative Procedures Manual was provided, the Secretariat lacked sufficient competent instruction and personnel necessary to establish the proper accounting records. The Administrative Officer was originally hired as an Assistant to the Director in an English advisory capacity and as such was approached for the position on a part-time basis, which she agreed to. It was known from the beginning that she was not trained in accounting and would require the assistance of the treasurer or other designated persons in the setting up of commission records. Attempts were made to arrange meetings between the embassy’s disbursing officer and the commission’s administrative officer, but these never materialized due to the extremely busy schedule of both. Consequently, nine months have passed since the hiring of the Administrative Officer and all required records have not as yet been set up.”10 The post report on exchange programs for the year from July 1961 to June 1962 is even more explicit about the early difficulties. It states, “The administration of the USEC/K secretariat last year left considerable (sic) to be desired. American grantees were critical of the administrative and logistical support received from the Secretariat or, rather, of the lack of such support. Administrative and fiscal procedures were not standardized, effective, or efficient, and in some cases were non-existent. Liaison between the Executive Secretary (sic)11 and the grantees tended to break down. Bitterness in several cases arose to the point of influencing grantees to threaten the termination of grants and was a partial factor in the departure of one wife from Korea.”12 The report went on to note: Fiscal records were not maintained in proper order during this period. When

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History the matter of an audit of the commission’s books first came under consideration last spring, the Executive Secretary (sic) requested that the audit be postponed until such time as an outside accountant be employed to put them in order. This was done during the late summer and fall, and the audit has been completed and results forwarded to the Department of State under separate cover. Very limited records of correspondence were maintained. Even on such matters as official communications with ROK government ministries, no file copies existed; arrangements were made by the Executive Secretary in regard to the placement of grantees in certain universities without the advice and consent of the commission or without any record being kept of the arrangements and transactions. Efforts made by the new CAO and the new ACAO-Exchanges to work with the Executive Secretary in building a program of value and real meaning for Korea were unsuccessful. The Executive Secretary either could not or would not understand the exigencies of the situation. The Executive Secretary recognized and stated the need of appointing an American assistant to supervise administrative matters of the secretariat and to administer English testing. He volunteered that it would be necessary to pay the American assistant more than the Executive Secretary, whose salary, though small by American standards, is higher than that of a Korean cabinet minister. With this understanding, Mr. Paul Rowen was employed as administrative assistant. The day after the American was hired, Dr. Belle Boone Beard, Professor of Sociology at Sweet Briar College in Sweet Briar, Virginia, was the first American Fulbright grantee in Korea following formation of the United States Educational Commission in Korea.

The 1960s

Revolution, Development, and Formation of the Fulbright Commission however, the Executive Secretary resigned his position. Since that time he has engaged in personal attacks upon Mr. Rowen as well as upon others concerned with the administration of USEC/K.13 Upon the departure of the executive secretary, Rowen acted in that capacity. However, this was not considered a permanent arrangement. The post report included the following brief assessment of the difficulties faced by Fulbright in its first two years: “However, in view of the usual amounts of ‘teething troubles’ in new Fulbright programs, it can be said that Korea probably was better off than normal.”14 On April 14 of the following year (1961), Belle Boone Beard, Professor of Sociology at Sweet Briar College, arrived in Korea as the first American Fulbright scholar. On May 26, the first academic screening was held for Korean students. Out of 168 applicants, seventy-eight were judged ineligible, twenty-seven were recommended to the board, and a total of eleven candidates and alternates were selected.

“You Must Be Full Bright!” Park Keun Woo Former President of Dong Ui University English Education

I am a 1964 Fulbright scholarship grantee. That was half a century ago, when Korean students could hardly dream of overseas study at their own expense. In those days, a TV and telephone were the paraphernalia of only wealthy families in Korea. The Fulbright scholarship was given public exposure in the local newspapers like the Pusan Daily Express. Guided by the advertisement, I applied for the scholarship and took an English test at the Pusan office of the United States Information Service. Having passed the screening test, I sat for the main test in Seoul. It was an interview to test oral communication ability before a board of six or seven examiners headed by Dr. Straus. Dr. Hahm Byung Choon, Professor of Yonsei University, was one of the examiners. Four of the successful candidates from Pusan were Lee Yong Rak, Pusan National University; Hahn Keun Bae, Dong-A University; Lee Jeong Ok, Pusan Teacher’s College; and Park

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

Keun Woo, Pusan High School. One axiomatic expression prevailing among us was, “You must be full bright to become Fulbrighters.” The passport procedures were complicated and redundant. It took travels from Pusan to Seoul to have a health checkup and interview at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The rules made it mandatory to carry one’s X-ray film through entrance to the United States. Looking back on the complicated process we went through, I wonder if I could ever go through it again. Prior to placement into the university, we received a two-week orientation offered by the University of Minnesota. This program included cultural immersion in the form of a home stay. Arriving in the United States, I was struck by a strange landscape marked by dense forests surrounding the city, many lakes, and an endless flow of cars. The state of Minnesota was amply studded with lakes, as car license plates displayed the phrase “Ten Thousand Lakes.” The orientation program gave an overview of American history and culture along with a smattering of major disciplines. Among American youngsters, a new dance called “the jerk” was popular, and Joan Baez’s songs were quite hip at that time. Upon my return from the day’s program, undisturbed time alone made me feel homesick. The scene of departure from my family at Kimpo Airport replayed itself before my eyes. It was the first homesickness I had ever experienced. We received a monthly stipend in the amount of $210 from IIE. To rent a room cost $39 per month. With this monthly stipend, there was no financial problem living in the United States, but I could not make a single phone call to my family for one year. To call home, the first step was to place an order for a call with the post office and then wait, which might take a day in an extreme case. It cost $13 to make an overseas call, taking a deep bite out of the monthly stipend. No one dared to call home; letter writing was the only means for communication with one’s family. Such an inconvenience is something inconceivable for today’s students abroad, who are so used to all the expediencies brought by technological development. Nowadays, they rarely write letters home. An international phone call is just like talking over the phone with a neighbor. The one-year master’s program was rather short, but my exposure to higher education in the United States laid the groundwork for my growth in a professional capacity. On repatriation, I moved up the ladder to become a professor at a university where I would spend 47 years until I retired.

The 1960s

Revolution, Development, and Formation of the Fulbright Commission

The Fulbright-Hays Act, 1961

On September 21, 1961, President John F. Kennedy signed the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act, better known as the Fulbright-Hays Act. This consolidated the legislation on the books and simplified the provision of international exchanges. Among other things, it put the Board of Foreign Scholarships in charge of selecting students, scholars, and teachers participating in educational exchanges under the act; endorsed the use of binational (and multinational) foundations; and encouraged “foreign governments, international organizations and private individuals, firms, associations, agencies, and other groups” to participate in the administration of the act “to the maximum extent feasible” and to contribute to its purposes financially.15

First Korean Student Fulbright Grantee Choi Jin Young Emeritus Professor, Chung Ang University First Korean student Fulbright Grantee.

It gives me great pleasure and a thrill to recall my days in the United States as a Fulbrighter. They go back to early 1960, when I was working as a reporter for the Korean Republic, presently the Korea Herald. I was a graduate student majoring in English literature at Seoul National University. Gripped with an urge to study abroad, I applied for a Fulbright scholarship. The screening process was much more complicated than I expected. There were many hurdles, including

Choi Jin Young was the only female and the youngest student in the first batch of Korean Fulbright grantees. Choi received her first grant in 1961 to do graduate work at the University of North Carolina. In 1991, she received a second grant as a senior researcher at Yale University.

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

US Ambassador to South Korea Stephen Bosworth presents Professor Choi Jin Young with a Fulbright Award on April 28, 2000.

the Korean history exam offered by the Ministry of Education, oral speaking tests at the American embassy and Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, and interviews with Yoon Il-son, President of Seoul National University; Hellen Kim, president of Ewha Womans University; and the executive director of the Fulbright Commission. I was ultimately selected as one of the first batch of grantees for the Fulbright scholarship, and at the time I was the only female and the youngest student. The personal security clearance was equally complicated, since it took place shortly after the country had gone through political upheavals, including the April 19 Student Uprising and the Military Revolution. It was in September 1961 that I departed for the United States. The airplane, bound for San Francisco, made two stops, in Tokyo and Guam. Upon arrival in San Francisco, I took a nonstop flight to Boston, where an old friend, Lee In-ho (who would later serve as the Korean ambassador to Russia) was waiting. My final destination was the University of North Carolina (UNC), Chapel Hill. Arriving at the campus, I found myself enchanted by the harmonious blend of green lawns, dense forests, and time-worn colonial-style buildings. Founded in 1780, UNC was the oldest state university in the United States, and I liked the quiet and dignified atmosphere. After admission to the dormitory, we were given a thorough orientation. That, together with the helping hands of students, facilitated the process of registration. The professor in charge of foreign students was Dr. A.C. Howell, who had taught me at Seoul National University. It was through Dr. Howell that I took a fancy to

The 1960s

Revolution, Development, and Formation of the Fulbright Commission

the University of North Carolina. I had no difficulty understanding lectures. The campus lawn was set for performances by world-renowned musicians. The food in the student dining room was reasonably priced. A full-course meal cost only 45 cents, and the tuition fee per semester was $480. Compared with the cost of study today, this sounds like a fairy tale and far from reality. Among the many experiences I had on the campus, the most memorable was receiving mail one day from an unknown person. Upon opening it, I found it to be a novel published in North Korea. Attuned to anti-communist mantras, I found my heart beating hard throughout the night. We were inoculated against communism, and my flesh crawled at the thought of how I, among many others, had been singled out as a target for North Korea’s propaganda. Going abroad for study was considered a matter of great pride since the top honored students and the names of the scholarship recipients appeared on the front page of the Dong-A Daily Express. I delayed my decision about what to do with the book. Reporting to the police or FBI might be one way. But doing this might cause ripples, and I thought it wise to keep it under cover. I wrapped the book with many papers and threw it into a wastebasket. From that time on, there was no fuss. In hindsight, I regret that I did not even care to note the title of the book and its author. The Fulbright-Hays Act encompassed the Fulbright Program but authorized a much broader range of activities related to international education and cultural exchange than the existing law. In the same month, President Kennedy signed the law that established the U.S. Peace Corps. The influence of the Cold War was evident in the Fulbright-Hays Act, as Section 2452a dealt with exchange programs with countries “in transition from totalitarianism to democracy.” That section specified but was not limited to Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania.16 The act also continued authorization for the twelve-member, presidentially appointed J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board. The Fulbright-Hays Act established a Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs within the U.S. Information Agency. The act also strengthened the Title VI provisions of the NDEA act. It authorized a wide range of cultural, technical, and educational exchange activities, but one section—102 (b) (6)—focused exclusively on the strengthening of education in the fields of foreign languages and area studies throughout the American educational system. There was general agreement within the government at the time,

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History including Senator Fulbright, that the purpose of Section 102 (b) (6) was to add an overseas dimension to the Title VI programs.17

Barbara Mintz 1962: Senior Lecturer Pusan National University 1963: Senior Lecturer English Department, Pusan National University 1967: Senior Lecturer English Department, Sungkyunkwan University

W hen my husband Grafton and I arrived in Pusan in 1962, we really didn’t know what to expect other than students to teach at Pusan National University. I was assigned to the Business Department, Grafton to the English Department. As one of very few women on the faculty, I later learned that the overwhelmingly male faculty didn’t quite know what to do— to include me in the university and departmental parties, for instance? Besides being female, I was a bit young (in my twenties) to be a university professor! I had onl y young men as students, another interesting departure f rom my classes at Barbara Mintz was awarded a senior lecturing grant Ohio State. The students were 1962, 1963, and 1967. Her husband Grafton Mintz was also a Fulbright grantee; they both taught English at eager and helpful. They always Pusan National University in Busan and at Sungkyunkwan wanted to talk (practice their University in Seoul. Pictured here in 1963. English) before and after class, carrying my books as we went, and once, as I was writing on the chalkboard with my back to the class, I was a bit startled to realize that one of my helpful students

The 1960s

Revolution, Development, and Formation of the Fulbright Commission

was vigorously brushing the back of my skirt, which had gotten covered with chalk dust! I also learned that practicing the minimal pair see/she (to work on pronouncing the word city) was not quite the thing to do in class. There was also concern with foreign languages in Korea in the early 1960s, but with a primary focus on English. In 1963, the U.S. Educational Commission in Korea established the TEFL program to provide English language training and testing.

Marshall R. Pihl (1933-1995)

Marshall Pihl was the first Fulbright student grantee in Korea. He began his Korean language study at the U.S. Army Language School and later used his G.I. Bill funding to support the graduate study that prepared him to become one of the leading American scholars of Korean literature. He was known especially for his expertise in the “performed literature” he described in his dissertation, later published as The Korean Singer of Tales. Pihl received his Fulbright student grant after graduating from Harvard College in 1960, where he majored in Far Eastern languages. He received an M.A. in Korean language and literature from Seoul National University in 1965, becoming the first Westerner to earn a graduate degree from a Korean university. He then entered the doctoral program at Harvard University, where he received a Ph.D. in 1974. During another Fulbright year in Korea in 1970-71, Pihl was named the winner of the first annual Modern Korean Literature Translation Award, sponsored by The Korea Times. His first collection of translations, Listening to Korea, was published by Praeger in 1973. Later, he produced The Good People: Korean Stories by Oh Young-su, published by Heinemann in 1985, and co-edited (with Bruce and Ju-Chan Fulton) Land of Exile: Contemporary Korean Fiction, published by M. E. Sharpe/UNESCO in 1993. He also published many articles and translations in periodicals such as Korea Journal and Korean Studies and in collections such as Peter Lee’s Anthology of Korean Literature (1981) and Flowers of Fire (1986). But he was most proud of the beautifully produced work that originated as his dissertation, The Korean Singer of Tales, published by Harvard University’s Council

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

on East Asian Studies in 1994. As a pioneer in a then tiny field, Pihl was unable to secure a regular academic position. Instead, for much of his professional career he taught Korean literature part-time while earning his living as an administrator. Although he was an exceptionally capable administrator, serving as associate director and then director of the Harvard University Summer School from 1977 to 1987, Pihl was thrilled when he was finally able to devote himself full-time to teaching and research after joining the Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures at the University of Hawaii in 1989. His contributions in Hawaii were much appreciated and widely acclaimed. He received tenure in 1992, and a promotion to full professor in 1995, the year of his tragically premature death. On June 18, 1963, a new binational agreement based on the Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961 was signed by both governments. That same month, William L. Strauss was appointed as the second executive director of the U.S. Educational Commission in Korea.

Leadership and Secretariat Staffing

In his report of March 17, 1967, then executive director Donald Frantz, Jr. made detailed suggestions for a more comprehensive definition of the executive director’s role. These included the following points: • He shall work with the widest latitude for independent professional judgment, action and decision within the policies laid down by the commission to organize, to direct and to coordinate the programs approved by the commission. • He shall establish and maintain general supervision over commission activities and staff members.

• He shall on matters of mutual concern and interest consult with and maintain liaison with:

- the members of the Ministry of Education (MOE), Economic Planning Board (EPB), government of Korea;

- the officials of the American embassy and various agencies of the U.S. Government, in particular USOM, Peace Corps, where applicable, the Eighth U.S. Army, and USIS;

The 1960s

Revolution, Development, and Formation of the Fulbright Commission - designated representatives of private organizations, all of which groups operate in educational areas concerned with the commission’s activities.19 In addition, Frantz outlined the duties and responsibilities of an East-West Center (EWC) representative. He noted that he had conclusive evidence that the programs of EWC and Fulbright had different goals and policies. However, he chose to write statements regarding the duties of two USEC/K executives as “reflective of the separate but conceivably cooperating functions of an Executive Director and a Deputy Director.”20 Thus, the position of deputy director and the need for such a position within the Fulbright Commission originally grew directly from the demands placed on Fulbright by East-West Center programs. At the commission meeting of April 11, 1967, the chairman announced that Frantz wished to terminate his contract at the end of the year and return to the U.S. 21 The following month, at the commission’s May 19-20 workshop and meeting in Cheju Island, the board discussed applicants for the executive director’s position and considered their papers in detail. The board voted to offer the position to Edward Wright.22 Some of the early staffing of the Fulbright secretariat set patterns for the future but also revealed the circumstances at the time. For example, a new driver was hired for the 1958 Jeep Station Wagon. His major functions were threefold: 1) as a driver for staff responsibilities, 2) as a driver for American grantees in helping them make university appointments, and 3) as a clerk in the office. Another staff member continued as a driver for the executive director.23 At the commission meeting of July 3, 1968, Wright presented a proposed office organization for Program Year 1968. The purpose of the staff reorganization was to meet functional demands on the commission. The proposal described the duties of the executive director and nine other full-time staff, including two drivers. A deputy director would have particular responsibility for supervision of office operations, for follow-up activities, and for counseling. In programming, the deputy director would have particular responsibility for American Studies. The proposal also included a program officer, a budget and fiscal officer, and program assistants and secretaries. Wright explained that the deputy director’s regular duties would free the executive director from routine administrative duties, enabling him to visit provincial areas more often and to spend more time on program activities. The reorganization proposal was approved by the commission. 24 At its meeting of October 30, 1969, USEC/K approved a draft of the revised Bylaws for the U.S. Educational Commission in Korea, which was subsequently air-pouched to the Department of State.25 The revision of the bylaws reflected the organizational changes that had been approved earlier.

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

Program Priorities in the Early Years: An Emphasis on Development

In keeping with Korea’s status as a developing nation, the program priorities of Fulbright Korea in its early years were focused on development, and the flow of both students and teachers was one-way: American scholars went to Korea to teach, and Korean students went to the United States to learn. The flow was also one-way in quantitative terms, with many more Koreans heading for the United States than U.S. scholars or students coming to Korea. Among U.S. aid programs for the education sector in Korea, the largest was the U.S. Operations Mission (USOM). It gave an estimated $11,906,600 in educational assistance to Korea during the period from 1954 to 1968. The program mainly focused on providing technical assistance for the development of educational institutions, especially the colleges of Seoul National University, and of governmental agencies concerned with higher education. The Asia Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the East-West Center were also significant sources of funding for Korea’s education sector during the 1960s.26 The following description from a 1968 post report to Washington from the U.S. embassy in Seoul helps to illustrate the strong development, as well as the military and security emphasis, of U.S. exchanges with Korea in the 1960s: Statistically, programs backstopped by the cultural affairs office (CU) and the Board of Foreign Scholarships (BFS) are secondary elements in the human resource development effort in Korea. Since the 1953 armistice, more than 12,000 Koreans have gone to the U.S. for military training; more than 3,000 for AID participant training; and about 400 under the State Department’s leader-specialist programs (the latter for an average of 45-60 days as contrasted with much longer periods for military and vocational training). In addition, approximately 600 went under Fulbright and East-West Center programs. The overwhelming emphasis in U.S. government-financed programs, therefore, remains upon Korea’s security and economic needs. Although Korea’s military and economic requirements remain paramount, there is evidence that Koreans feel strongly that they have reached a stage where more attention should be paid to their educational and cultural development.27

American Studies

From its start, the Fulbright Program in Korea sought to send Korean students to the United States for study in the field of American Studies. However, as one critical

The 1960s

Revolution, Development, and Formation of the Fulbright Commission treatment put it, “the Korean academic atmosphere deterred students from studying in the field, and eventually American Studies became a tree without a solid root. In spite of the commission’s emphasis on American studies, only one Korean institution, Sogang College, had an Education Ministry-approved academic minor in American studies by 1968.” 28 In February 1965, the first seminar in American Studies was held at Bulkuksa in cooperation with the United States Information Service (USIS) and Sogang University. The United States Information Service was the name officially used overseas by the United States Information Agency (USIA), and this seminar was in response to the funding priorities of the Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961. Korean participants in this seminar organized the American Studies Association of Korea (ASAK). One scholarly account suggested that USEC/K welcomed the meeting’s “unanticipated side-effect,” expecting that the new association would join USEC/K in sponsoring future academic activities.29 In fact, a number of American Fulbright scholars came to Korea during the latter half of the 1960s in an effort to help American studies take root as an academic discipline, and there were annual American studies conferences over this same time period. Also, a number of universities considered upgrading or initiating American studies courses in the late 1960s. However, since all of the American studies programs in Korean universities were established to tap the opportunities provided by the United States, the programs dwindled when U.S. aid decreased. USEC/K put its highest program priority on National Development; American Studies was just a high priority. 30

Prominent Americans Visit Korea

In 1967, the U.S. embassy brought the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Earl Warren, to Korea as part of its program on the development of legal institutions. In a speech to the Korean Supreme Court, Warren said, “I believe there is a common bond between men of law in all nations, because the law we use is not strictly our own.” He went on to describe the U.S. Constitution and its core principles of individual rights, power residing in the people, and the diffusion of powers and noted that these principles were not of American origin: all law, he said, is continually borrowed and moving around. Warren went on to add, “None of these principles was discovered by our Founding Fathers. They had learned from the experience of people of all ages. But put together as they were and adapted to our conditions and mores, they have served us well.”31

English Teaching

The propensity of Korean students to study abroad, especially in the United States and other English-speaking countries, meant that English would quickly become a national

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History preoccupation in South Korea. Koreans considered learning English to be one of the keys to success in life. Children from wealthy families learned English at a private English education institute, ELI, at Chungmuro in Seoul. The yearly tuition of 20,600 won was more than double one year’s university tuition at that time. However, in spite of the English learning frenzy in the nation, the language proficiency of Korean students was far below the international standard. According to a TOEFL survey of nearly 9,000 scores from all over the world between 1964 and 1966, Korean students ranked third from the bottom among the Asian nations represented.32 The Fulbright Program in Korea felt the heat of the enthusiasm among Koreans for learning English and tried to help the Ministry of Education “to improve the techniques in the teaching of English as a foreign language.” Fred Lukoff had started a program to teach the teaching of English at Yonsei University, with the help of the Asia Foundation, several years before Fulbright ran a similar program. The USOM contributed money and English education specialists to train English teachers in the public schools of Seoul and government officials to do graduate work or special training. The program developed into the English Language Training Center, the directorship of which was handed over to Korea in 1963. Specialists in teaching English from the University of Michigan gave advice and suggestions on “all phases and levels of English teaching throughout Korea” under the USOM-Peabody Teachers Contract, which was terminated in 1962. The Fulbright Program was expected to fill a “vacuum” left by the phasing out of the USOM programs.33 American grantees in the teaching of English as a second language taught classes at colleges and universities to which they were assigned. In addition to their class load, they held numerous seminars and workshops throughout the year for English teachers at secondary schools, tutors of English, and American Peace Corps volunteers.34 In 1966, the U.S. Peace Corps, as part of its commitment to aid developing countries around the world, sent its first group of volunteers to the Republic of Korea, which at that time was still a poor, undeveloped country barely recovering from the devastation of the Korean War. On the Korean side, given this Confucian nation’s overwhelming emphasis on and desire for opportunities in education, it was natural to hope that the Peace Corps volunteers would be assigned as teachers. But what the Americans could teach, what they knew better than their Korean counterparts, was certainly not science or math, but English. So it was that the arrival of the Peace Corps in Korea underscored Korea’s commitment to development, and in particular to the rebuilding and development of its education sector. It also showed how Koreans realized early on that English proficiency would be

The 1960s

Revolution, Development, and Formation of the Fulbright Commission

1961 grantees Dr. Chester A. Bain, Dr. Richard Garver, Dr. Charles L. Hoag, and Dr. Marion L. Edman participate in a Fulbright lecturers’ Seminar.

one key to successful development. Not incidentally, the Peace Corps program was for an entire generation the major source of the Americans who would go on to be professionals in Korean studies or establish lifelong involvement with Korea. With the arrival of the first group of volunteers, designated K-1, South Korea became the fiftieth country in the world to host Peace Corps volunteers. Prime Minister Chung Il-Kwon, who had expressed interest in the Peace Corps as far back as 1961 when he served as the Korean ambassador to the United States, officially welcomed the K-1 group to Korea. Though there were about 50,000 U.S. troops stationed in Korea at the time, the Peace Corps announced that volunteers would have little contact with them. Two-thirds of the K-1 volunteers taught English. A Peace Corps official noted that although English was a required subject in secondary schools and the first two years of college, millions of hours were being devoted to its study with meager or limited results. The critical issue was to improve the quality of the teaching and learning of English. Indeed, over the years that Peace Corps volunteers served in Korea, more than two-thirds of them would be English teachers. By Fiscal Year 1968, Peace Corps volunteers were in the equivalent of 33% of public high schools and 25% of public middle schools in Korea. The expectation of the Peace Corps country director and of the embassy was that the program would be phased out within five to six years.35

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History Although it was not apparent at the time, the Peace Corps program in Korea would later exert an influence on the Fulbright Program. Shim Jai Ok, who served as financial officer and later program officer with the Peace Corps in Korea from January 1969 to December 1977, would later join the Fulbright Commission staff. As we will describe in Chapter 6, her experience with the training, placement, and administration of the Peace Corps English teachers in secondary schools and universities would prove invaluable in the design and implementation of the Fulbright English Teaching Assistant (ETA) program in 1992.

English Testing and Counseling

The Fulbright Commission in Korea became involved with English testing from its inception. The first available annual report states, “Early in the establishment of the commission, the handling of English testing was turned over to the Secretariat. This includes not only the testing of those students applying for Fulbright grants, but also the testing of all persons wishing to go to the U.S.A. for study. This testing was formerly conducted by USIS.”36 A post report during the second year of the Fulbright Commission’s operation had the following to say about English testing: “English testing is normally done by the Fulbright secretariat. This had not always been done in the past due to the lack of a qualified person to administer the tests. It is being done now except for provincial candidates whose examinations are administered by the branch public affairs officers. Oral tests are administered by the Executive Assistant USEC/K and two qualified Americans in the field of English teaching.”37 The Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), designed and distributed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) in Princeton, did not make a smooth entry into the Korean education market. A post report for the July 1963 to June 1964 year had the following to say about English testing: English testing procedures are the same as previously reported. However, both the embassy and USEC/K believe that the TOEFL examination will seriously affect their programs. As TOEFL examination procedures have been explained, they are virtually unworkable in Korea. It is USEC/K’s and the embassy’s experience that the Educational Testing Service (ETS) of Princeton, New Jersey, who will administer TOEFL, has no knowledge of Far Eastern realities. On three separate occasions in 1963-64, ETS, in administering the College Entrance Board examinations, ordered Korean students to report to either Tokyo or Kobe for

The 1960s

Revolution, Development, and Formation of the Fulbright Commission examinations. A payment of $10 US currency is required to take TOEFL. An average skilled worker—carpenter, electrician, or plumber—has been reported as making the equivalent of approximately $1.50 daily. This $10 must be paid in US currency, not in local currency. The Ministry of Finance, on the recommendation of the Ministry of Education, refuses to allow conversion for the purpose of taking such examinations. The Ministry of Education states that the USG should bear the cost of these examinations and the ROKG will not permit the release of currency for it. At the present time neither USEC/K nor the embassy see any solution.38 Ultimately, as later chapters of this book will show, English testing, and in particular TOEFL administration, would become a major non-grant program activity of the Fulbright Commission, with substantial benefits for its grant programs and overall activities. During Fulbright’s first decade in Korea, its English testing activities increased. In 1967, in view of the appropriations cut, the Institute for International Education requested that eleven Koreans be retested in English in order to present the candidates in the best possible light. USEC/K used its own test of English, but also reported TOEFL scores. In 1967, the eleven candidates, in the fields of law and science, had TOEFL scores that clustered mostly in the mid- to high 400 range, with the highest score being a 498. The executive director’s report for March of that year noted that “English classes for grantees with scores of below 500 on the TOEFL will resume in March 1967.”39 By 1967, the TOEFL had clearly become an important element in the screening of Korean students for study abroad. In that year, the exchanges officer at USIS recommended that the TOEFL be required for all students going to the U.S. beginning in January 1968 and that Fulbright take over responsibility for both the test and for counseling the students. This recommendation was bluntly rejected by Fulbright’s executive director on three grounds: the current binational agreement made no reference to non-sponsored students, the Fulbright Commission’s annual program proposals for 1967 and 1968 did not include this, and, finally, the Fulbright Commission had no staff, available office space, or library room for such services.40 In the early and mid-1960s, the State Department had a contract with the American Korean Foundation (AKF) for counseling and testing.41 The original grant from the State Department to AKF for student counseling stated, “The purpose of this grant is to assist the Foundation to expand its services in Korea to provide more effective counseling, guidance, screening and English language testing.” The grant was for the period from April 1, 1963, through June 30, 1964, and was in the amount of $25,000. An amendment to the grant provided for a second year of operation.42

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History In Fiscal Year 1966, costs for this service came to 69,023 won. AKF declined to honor the contract in Fiscal Year 1967, for reasons the executive director was never able to determine. In Fiscal Year 1966, EWC nominees had taken the TOEFL; in Fiscal Year 1967, they did not. USEC/K was left with the responsibility for these services. The USEC/K bill to EWC for screening and testing was 49,583 won, but that did not include, or begin to measure, the man-hours put into drafting the test, pretesting it, administering it, and scoring it.43 The request from the Department of State to relocate educational counseling within the USEC/K framework was worded as follows: “The Department is primarily concerned that the following functions be maintained to some degree: giving basic advice to qualified students about a proper choice of a U.S. institution; English testing; and the weeding-out to the extent possible—with the knowledge and cooperation of the visa officer—of the obviously unqualified for any reason. There are no funds to help provide extensive services to universities... nor do we think it appropriate to actively assist the students to obtain scholarships by writing their letters for them, assembling supporting documents, etc.44 The executive director’s report to the commission on March 17, 1967, included an appendix that described his discussions with the Cultural Affairs Office (CU45) about a counseling center, and the CU contract with the American Korean Foundation (AKF). Among the main points discussed were that the function of the Fulbright Commission was in higher education with sponsored students; that the inclusion of undergraduate, non-sponsored students introduced a new principle of operation; and that housing all educational problems under one roof would raise questions of “empire building.” However, it seemed logical for all educational matters to belong to the commission. What it needed, it was determined, was an overseas center for research, consulting, counseling, testing, interviewing, in-country programs, and other such efforts. The commission could provide this service.

My Encounter with a Dignitary Song Sang Hyun International Criminal Court

The first time I ever heard the name of the “Fulbright Program,” it was mentioned by a professor at the university where I was studying. He had gone to the United

The 1960s

Revolution, Development, and Formation of the Fulbright Commission

States for a one-year sojourn in the early 1950s, shortly after the Korean War had ended. Only a few top students were given opportunities to study abroad, and there were few people to talk with about overseas study at the time. Overseas study made me think of my ability in foreign languages, particularly English. When I was a high school student, those eager to study English formed a study club where they intensified their studies of English. Having no chance to become a member of the club, I almost gave up on the thought of overseas study. However, encouraged by a professor, I went to the Fulbright Office. This took a lot of courage on my part since I did not think much of overseas study. An administrator of the office was kind enough to explain, in detail, the procedure for the scholarship application, with the help of reference books. I was inspired by a better knowledge of the scholarship program. There were many forms to be filled out, and it required reference letters from professors. Out of all the requirements, the TOEFL seemed to be the most impossible hurdle, casting cold water on my rising hopes. I said to myself, “I don’t have to go to America.” Even my parents were not so eager to see me away from home since I was their only son and they had no daughters. One day, I happened to meet a Fulbright scholar on the campus. Summoning up my courage, I stammered a few English words. In response to this courageous behavior, he enthusiastically supported my preparation of papers and reference letters. The TOEFL was the most burdensome part of the application. I prepared myself for the English test. I thought that the language test should be conducted in the context of my knowledge of the culture and history of the country in question, and that there was no need to intensify the study of language alone. The most difficult part of the language test was listening comprehension. Fortunately, I was a successful candidate, perhaps because the field of law invited so few candidates that it was much less competitive. The notification of this good news was not so much a pleasure as it was a new source of worry. I had never been away from my home and was concerned about what this adventure meant for my future. Other concerns were the school and the field of study I had to choose. When it comes to choosing a school, one is concerned with the prestige or name value of the school. There was one successful candidate who was admitted into Yale Law School. However, he dropped out of the scholarship independently simply because the name of the university did not satisfy his academic lust. The prestige of the school did not factor into my choice of school. I was searching for

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

a school where I could study both English-American law and continental law comparatively. My search ended with the master’s course of Tulane University in New Orleans, a romantic city where streetcars named “Desire” streamed endlessly under Spanish moss. I was told that the state of Louisiana had been French territory before the United States purchased it. The expectation that French might be spoken in tandem with English excited my interest. On arriving in New Orleans, this expectation was dashed by a painful dose of reality: all the streets named in French were translated into English, and French had no place to stand amid the dominance of English. The passage of 45 years obscures my memories of what happened in those days. Among my fuzzy memories, the Fulbright Program stands out like a merciful persona whose encounter with me was destined by providence. Apparently, the Fulbright Program remains monumental, comparable to a Copernican revolution, to me, someone who used to feel a great sense of satisfaction with accomplishing a small feat. It has been a source of inspiration in confronting many challenges. Even today, it stands me in good stead as I cope with the challenges of serving as president of the International Criminal Justice Court. The AKF operation was to continue until June 30, 1967. It had a budget of $22,000, with CU saying that $5,000 would now be available for the same program due to the appropriations cut. The recommendation coming out of the discussions with CU was to move the AKF program into USEC/K operation and realign the administrative organization to include the East West Center (EWC) and Health, Education and Welfare (HEW ) when that program arrived in Korea. The cost was $20,000, to be shared by the Fulbright Commission, USIS, EWC, and any other agencies that wanted the services of the center. It was also recommended that new office space be located and that more vehicles and more office equipment, including typewriter, files, air conditioners, and so forth, be purchased.46 At the commission meeting of April 11, 1967, there was discussion of an educational counseling service, based on the executive director’s report on his trip to the U.S. the previous month. The chairman noted that although the Department of State had asked if the Educational Counseling Service operated by the American-Korean Foundation under a Department of State contract could be accommodated within the USEC/K framework, the Department had also indicated that it felt that not all the functions undertaken by

The 1960s

Revolution, Development, and Formation of the Fulbright Commission AKF would be appropriate under USEC/K auspices, i.e., writing letters to universities for applicants, helping them look for fellowships, etc.47 There was in-depth discussion of the importance of educational counseling, along with the space, staffing, and administrative requirements it would entail. The Ministry of Education representative on the board said that Korean students were then conferring with friends and teachers in Korea and in the United States and making decisions on the basis of limited knowledge. Sometimes, students would change their university and course of study after arriving in the United States. There was a need for consultation in Korea prior to a student’s departure for the United States. It was an important function; the question was who would take this job. During the discussion, the commission’s chairman noted that the absolute imperative was not the counseling, but the English testing, which was required for university admission and to obtain a student visa. The MOE board representative added that students going abroad now needed to take two English tests—the AFK test and that of the Ministry of Education. He suggested that this might be done jointly.48 The board appointed a subcommittee to obtain further details from AFK regarding the success and failures of its counseling service to date, problems, and so forth. At its May 19-20 meeting on Cheju Island, the commission took up the matter of testing and counseling services for non-sponsored students. On the former matter, it agreed that English testing of non-sponsored students would not be a concern of the commission. With respect to student counseling, the commission agreed in principle to the location of a counseling center for non-sponsored students within the USEC/K framework, contingent upon obtaining additional office space and personnel and required funds. The commission did not anticipate that it would be able to obtain additional office space in the immediate future, and thus there would be an inevitable hiatus between the ending of the AKF contract counseling service and the ability of the commission to assume counseling duties.49

East-West Center Services

Fulbright Korea began providing services to the East-West Center in Program Year 196061 by announcing grants and sending one high school teacher to the center for training.50 In March 1967, the executive director reported to the commission on the very first billing of EWC for English Language Training. But this point raised a serious issue: EWC had an opinion about TOEFL and ELT that was different from the USEC/K position. EWC did not emphasize a candidate’s competency in English as a selection criterion as much as USEC/K did at that time. USEC/K had established an English Language Consultant Center (ELCC), and one major phase of its operation was concentration on the grantees

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

The East-West Center is a national educational institution established in Hawaii by the U.S. Congress in 1960 to “promote better relations and understanding between the United States and the nations of Asia and the Pacific through cooperative study, training and research.” Pictured here is Dr. Suk-Jin Chang, program consultant for the Korean-American Educational Commission, with Korean students at a workshop at the East-West Center in Hawaii.

The 1960s

Revolution, Development, and Formation of the Fulbright Commission and nominees in a full year of pre-orientation in English.51 The executive director also reported to the commission that there was a “lack of definition and responsibility connected with the EWC Program.” Further, he noted that correspondence from EWC had clearly indicated that EWC could never turn over decision-making and selection of grantees to USEC/K. USEC/K was, he said, a “dumping ground for EWC problems without USEC/K having any of the necessary rights to establish policy and program.” This situation also made it clear that another person was needed in the secretariat on the executive level.52

Emphasis on Seoul versus Outlying Regions

The leading universities and colleges in Korea have historically been concentrated in and around Seoul. All available evidence suggests that from the start of Fulbright in Korea, there was grumbling about the program’s excessive focus on Seoul and the isolation of provincial areas, especially the province of Jeolla.53 Access to the Fulbright Programs, a chief path to success in Korea, was open mainly to the students and teachers of the colleges in Seoul and Gyeongsang Province. The Fulbright Commission encountered complaints about the monopoly of certain areas and was worried about negative effects on U.S.-Korea relations: “In discussions with various individuals, we have encountered the feeling that the present makeup of the commission has resulted in an excessive concentration of support to Seoul National University or members of its faculty. Although we are unable to confirm that this is a correct perception of the present situation, we are convinced that even the existence of this view among many Korean leaders (in and outside Seoul) is inimical to the best interests of the program.” The commission took steps to try to rectify the problem by putting “special emphasis” on supporting academic activities of scholars and students in provincial areas in the 1968 program. Specifically, the commission provided Fulbright lecture series in Jeonju (Chonbuk National University) and Kwangju (Chonnam National University) by scheduling several Fulbright-Hays lectures throughout the year from Japan and Seoul. Needless to say, the commission’s efforts fell short of remedying the deep-rooted discrimination.54

American Graduate Students versus Lecturers

At the commission meeting of March 17, 1967, there was an interesting discussion on allocating available funds to an additional American lecturer versus giving them to an American graduate student. Two new and three renewal grants had been issued for the American lecturer program, so funds were available for one American lecturer. However, it was noted that if an additional American lecturer were not selected, these funds could

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History be used for two more American graduate student grants. David Steinberg noted that while this was a difficult choice, his general feeling was to opt for the graduate students in order to encourage young people to devote their careers to Korean studies. After considerable discussion, the commission voted to select two additional graduate students rather than an American lecturer.55

Joint Meeting of USEC/K and USEC/Japan in Seoul

The June 6-8, 1969 meeting of the commission was a joint meeting with the United States Educational Commission in Japan held at Academy House in Seoul. The topics discussed during the meeting included various aspects of programs and funding for them. At the outset, executive director Edward Wright stressed that national development was an overall program theme in Korea. During the discussion of funding, one of the American board members observed that the reluctance of the Korean or Japanese governments to fund commission projects might have to do with the name of the commissions. This led into a discussion of the possibility of changing the name from United States Educational Commission to something that would more adequately convey the binational nature of the commissions. There was also discussion about program priorities, which included the sharing of information about TEFL programs in both countries and inquiries by the Japanese representatives about the contribution of U.S. Peace Corps volunteers to English teaching in Korea. At the time of this meeting, there were about 350 Peace Corps volunteers teaching English in Korea. The joint meeting included extensive discussion of the sharing of Fulbright scholars and other scholarly exchanges between Japan and Korea. The meeting discussed the possibility of a joint resolution to send to Washington, expressing mutual feelings about the need for adequate program funding. However, instead of drafting such a resolution, the meeting concluded with a discussion of alternative sources of program funds.56

One-Way Exchange: American Education as a Route to Success

During the early years of the Fulbright Program in Korea, education in the United States came to be viewed as an avenue to success. Although the strict class distinctions of the Yi Dynasty were affected by the 36 years of Japanese rule, scholars have observed that social mobility in a real sense did not arrive until U.S. influence prevailed in Korea. 57 The Americans introduced land reform in Korea, following the examples of Japan and Taiwan. As political scientist Lee Hahn Been later observed, the reform did much to

The 1960s

Revolution, Development, and Formation of the Fulbright Commission nullify traditional class patterns and gave birth to a new ruling class formed on the basis of education. This did not lead to the collapse of the yangban class. Rather, as David Steinberg put it, the former landlords retained their social, if not economic, standing, and many of them invested in the modern equivalent of the imperial examination system of the Yi Dynasty—modern Westernized education for their children and urban real estate.58 From its inception, the main focus of the Fulbright Program in Korea was to provide “opportunities for individual Korean students and scholars to study at American universities and for American scholars and students to study in Korea and/or lecture at Korean universities or other higher educational institutions.” Senator Fulbright had once suggested that the purpose of the program was “less to educate outsiders than to educate Americans about the outside world,” and one way to accomplish this purpose was to have foreign students come to the U.S. for study. And during the 1960s, Koreans helped to educate Americans as they clamored for opportunities to study abroad. Their most popular destination was the United States. For those who could qualify, then, Fulbright grants provided one means to satisfy this demand. A U.S. embassy analysis of patterns in Korean study abroad from July 1961 through June 1962, pieced together from Ministry of Education, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ministry of Justice sources, showed the following numbers departing for leading destinations: • USA • Germany • France • China • UK • Canada • Italy

3255 200 148 77 30 29 2359

Beyond the sheer numbers, the following excerpts from the 1964 program plan seem to indicate that the focus of the Fulbright Program early on was directed more toward educating Koreans about America than educating Americans about Korea: The commission is continuing with the following guidelines for its third program: • To help Korean universities train their students in the basic practices and requirements of a democratic nation. • To introduce and further the use of modern techniques in scholarship, research and instruction.

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History • To further the study and understanding of Korean culture and civilization among American scholars. The top five projects of 1964 were as follows: • American Studies • English Teaching • Science and Technology Education • Economics of National Development • Comparative Government As noted by Lee Sang-Dawn,60 the Fulbright Program in Korea followed the law of supply and demand—more Koreans wanted to experience America than Americans wanted to experience Korea. And the real purpose of the program—though not expressed in formal documents—was, as scholar of American foreign policy Frank Ninkovich wrote, to favorably influence Koreans’ “attitudes and opinions” toward the United States. The United States wanted to help Koreans acquire what Americans believed the Koreans should know. Since what the Koreans wanted and needed from the United States and what the United States wanted Koreans to learn dovetailed, there was no noticeable grumbling about the program in Korea.61 USEC/K conducted a survey in 1968 that confirmed quite clearly how important American education was to getting ahead in Korea. The commission sent questionnaires to grant returnees. When asked how important they considered their American education for professional advancement in Korea, eighty-three of the 104 respondents answered either “very important” or “somewhat important.” Only two said it was “not important” in succeeding in their professions.62

American Indifference and Ignorance

Of course, most Americans in the 1960s actually knew nothing about Korea except for the fact that the U.S. had fought a war there. Moreover, most Americans had no feeling for or interest in Korea. The Fulbright Program had a hard time finding students and scholars interested in Korea and willing to go there. During some years, money in the program was given to students who wanted to go to Japan or Taiwan. The Fulbright grantees who did go to Korea went with little awareness of cultural differences and with a lot of misperceptions. Some of them expected to have their own cars as they did in the U.S. A 1963-64 grantee with diabetes wandered off into

The 1960s

Revolution, Development, and Formation of the Fulbright Commission

1963-1964 American grantees and their families.

the boondocks with only enough insulin for two days, apparently thinking there was a Walgreen’s growing in every hamlet. Again and again, the Fulbright Commission in Seoul had to repeat, “Korea is not California.”63 The Korean sense of time frequently frustrated Americans, who were accustomed to living by Western time and clear schedules. Joseph S. Chung, an American Fulbright lecturer at Seoul National University from August 1966 to July 1968, was shocked to find that students generally “resisted punctuality, regular attendance, homework assignments, and tests.” Another Fulbrighter, Barbara Mintz (September 1967 to June 1968), reported that Korean professors “typically” came to class late and left early and that students were sometimes “shocked” if American lecturers called upon them to keep class hours exactly.64 In the 1960s, Korea was still undergoing a transition from its traditional agrarian culture to a manufacturing economy. Exactness in timekeeping was far less needed in the former than in the latter. In fact, although wristwatches were one of the consumer items that became fashionable in Korea during the 1960s, cultural patterns themselves changed more slowly.

Difficulty Recruiting American Grantees

Given the circumstances in Korea and the lack of awareness about Korea in the U.S., it should be no surprise that the commission experienced difficulty recruiting American grantees. At the commission meeting of March 17, 1967, executive director Donald Frantz, Jr. explained that the 1966 program had a surplus of $13,034 in the American

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History grantees category. Therefore, although only three inter-country lecturers were budgeted for initially, there were funds to include a much larger number. The commission discussed procedures for reprogramming these surplus funds and agreed that Korean universities and scholarly organizations should be informed in advance of the possibility of getting American scholars from Japan and other Asian countries to participate in special lecture programs and seminars. The board voted to authorize Frantz to explore the use of available funds for additional inter-country lectureships.65

Discussion of Possible Name Change and Host-Country Cost-Sharing

At a commission meeting and workshop at Haeundae on May 10-12, 1968, there was discussion of the possibility of changing the name of USEC/K. Dr. W. Kenneth Bunce, the commission chairman, stated that he knew of no other name for USEC except in Malaysia, and this was likely because they paid a substantial amount of money to finance the program. This brought up the point that the State Department had requested all commissions to look into the possibility of the host country sharing the costs. Bunce said he did not know of anything in the legislation that required the commission to carry a particular name, that he did not have strong feelings one way or the other, and that in most countries Fulbright was considered a binational program. A discussion then followed on cost-sharing. Bunce asked the Korean members of the commission how they felt about the possibility of changing the name of the commission, and an agreement was reached to postpone any decision–the conclusion was that the matter should be discussed further at a later date.66 As it turned out, that date would not be far off, due to the recommendations of long-range planning teams. On May 11, the very next day of the commission meeting and workshop, Dr. Carl F. Bartz, Jr., the cultural affairs officer, shared with members of the commission a report on the purpose of the long-range binational advisory team being sent to Korea that year. The Bureau of Educational Exchange Affairs had decided that the Fulbright Program and other elements of international educational programs had been in existence long enough and that it was time to consider them a permanent part of the landscape and to think of long-term binational planning. A four-man Korean counterpart team had already been selected by the Korean Ministry of Education.67 The U.S. ad hoc long-range planning team consisted of George M. Beckmann of the Claremont Graduate School, Bowen C. Dees of the University of Arizona, Walter H.C. Laves of Indiana University, and Edward W. Wagner of Harvard University. They published their report to the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs in September 1968. It contained several major recommendations, summarized as

The 1960s

Revolution, Development, and Formation of the Fulbright Commission follows. First, it recommended enlarging the number of commission members to ten: five from the Korean side and five from the American side. Two (and only two) of the American representatives should be employees of the U.S. foreign service or other U.S. government employees resident in Korea. One of the three remaining U.S. positions should be filled by an American resident in Korea who was not explicitly involved with U.S. or Korean academic life (a banker or representative of an American airline or manufacturer, for example), and the other two by individuals with experience in or substantial knowledge of colleges and universities in both countries. Of the Korean representatives, two (and only two) should be from the Korean government, and one should be an individual who was knowledgeable concerning the United States as well as Korea, but who was drawn from circles outside of higher education (a publisher, banker, or other businessman, for example). The planning team also recommended that at least one Korean citizen from outside the Seoul area be appointed to the commission.68 Second, the long-range planning team said, “Our concept of the future status and role of the binational commission extends somewhat the traditional role of such bodies.” It expressed the hope that the commission might take a position of leadership in the area of the exchange of ideas and materials, while continuing to serve the function of administering its exchange of persons program.69 Third, noting that the commission had already given consideration to changing its name, the long-range planning team suggested the change take place quickly, stating that “it is our judgment that this step should be taken in the relatively near future. The binational nature of the commission has been recognized from the outset; the inter-governmental agreement under which it operates leaves no doubt that this is a program intended to involve activities of mutual interest. In our view, a name more clearly indicative of the binational nature of the commission should be adopted and made part of the intergovernmental agreement through the usual mechanism for amending that agreement.”70 Fourth, the long-range planning group suggested that the binational agreement should be amended to specifically include mention of financial contributions from the South Korean government. They noted that Korean institutions were already making in-kind contributions to the program and expressed the hope that “by the time the program for 1974 is formulated, the ROKG contribution would have risen to at least 50 percent of that of the United States government.” 71 Fifth, the long-range planning study suggested that “it would be highly desirable to clarify and unambiguously state the nature of the obligations of the commission and its

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History secretariat to the U.S. governmental representatives in Korea. The problem, as we see it, is not so much that there is currently a major difficulty of any kind, but that the lack of specificity in the degree of review authority exercised by the U.S. embassy over the work of the commission may in the future become more significant, especially if the commission moves toward a position of greater reliance on Korean funds and participation.”72 About a year earlier, in September 1967, the Department of State sent an Airgram to all diplomatic posts, containing a set of guidelines prepared by the Board of Foreign Scholarships and setting out the BFS views concerning the ways in which the affairs of the binational commissions might best be conducted. The Korea long-range planning team quoted and endorsed one of the comments from that document as follows: While a close working relationship and a spirit of mutual confidence are essential between the commission and official representatives of the United States and the host country, the Board of Foreign Scholarships considers it desirable that some degree of detachment exist on the part of the commission if true binationalism is to be fostered. This applies equally to the daily working relationship of the commission secretariat.73 Viewed from today’s perspective and the subsequent evolution of the Fulbright Program in Korea, the recommendations of the long range planning team seem remarkably appropriate to the circumstances and farsighted. Most, but not all, were adopted over the ensuing decades.

Funding and Budgeting

During the early years of the Fulbright Program, questions arose not only about the overall level of annual funding but also about local currency versus dollar funding and currency conversion. The post report to Washington for the 1963 exchange year noted, “A specific allocation of a dollar supplement to the won salary of the Executive Director of USEC/K is badly needed. The ROKG refuses to make conversion for this purpose and, indeed, refuses conversion for any purpose except as provided for in section 104 (h) of the P.L. 480 (Food for Peace) agreements. Dr. William Strauss, the Executive Director, has two teen-age daughters who will be attending American universities next year. Should this problem of dollars for him not be solved then he may not be able to continue with USEC/K.”74 The first annual report of the USEC/K indicated that “the funds for the 1961 Program Year were provided under Section 32 (b) of the United States Surplus Property Act of

The 1960s

Revolution, Development, and Formation of the Fulbright Commission 1944 as amended by Public Law No. 584, 9th Congress (the Fulbright Act). A small portion of the funds available under this Act are allocated for educational exchange programs of which Fulbright is just one program. Included in this also is the SmithMundt Program, PL402, and the IIE program.” 75 Annual expenditures by USEC/K from its first year through 1968 were as follows: • 1961 - $220,000 • 1962 - $220,000 • 1963 - $250,000 • 1964 - $250,000 • 1965 - $250,680 • 1966 - $218,600 • 1967 - $189,573 • 1968 - $170,50676 The effects of the appropriations cut in 1967 were acutely felt by the Fulbright Program in Korea. The executive director wrote, “IIE has written that all USEC/K nominees are ‘placeable.’ This normally would be good news–that none of the candidates submitted by USEC/K this year were ‘not placeable,’ that is, rejected. It means that USEC/K’s screening procedures—testing and interviewing—were effective. It means that the USEC/K language training program was effective. It means USEC/K sent an excellent slate of Korean candidates. But all this constitutes another illustration of tragic irony, for the secretariat has had to tell twelve (12) of these candidates that their grants are postponed. USEC/K does not have the $58,000 originally programmed to send them to the States for graduate study.”77 By 1968 the Fulbright Program had sent 289 grantees to America. The significance of major budget decreases in 1967 and 1968 was addressed in a report by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences. That report put matters this way: Recent budget cuts have caused a sharp decline in the two-way intellectual traffic between Korea and the United States previously supported by the Fulbright and State Department educational and professional exchange programs. The resulting sense of isolation and abandonment enveloping the Korean intellectual and professional community gives timely warning of what may be expected, on a much larger scale, if provision is not made for a bridge to be kept open between the two countries. Most important, we believe that this will require a long term

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History commitment on the part of the United States well beyond the next decade. We cannot emphasize strongly enough the need for the United States to recognize and accept the fact that no developing country—especially one of the low-income type that Korea represents—can stand a total severance of aid from the United States without jeopardizing the progress already made and serious harm to the effort it must maintain in the years ahead.78 The National Academy of Sciences report took the situation so seriously that it included a rather detailed recommendation for establishment of a bilateral KoreanAmerican Development Institution.79 In the 1960s, USEC/K established the precedent of benchmarking Fulbright Commission staff salaries against those of U.S. embassy staff. Therefore, in keeping with decisions made by the commission at its June 1966 meeting, the executive director authorized the accountant to make adjustments in staff salaries in order to meet rising costs due to inflation. Staff salaries were increased 41% annually and 35% biweekly. This was the same compensation plan established for USIS/embassy/USOM employees effective January 29, 1967.80 In a report dated March 17, 1967, Donald H. Frantz, Jr. included a lengthy section on “New Directions in Program Proposals” that addressed some of the recent budgetary problems of the commission. He noted that he had tried to figure out some way to assist the commission in putting more flexibility into its program in order to prevent disasters such as had occurred over the previous two years, namely extensive surpluses and, conversely, extensive cuts in funds. Frantz put forth a proposal for a more flexible program. In his words: “The question in the Executive Director’s mind is over use of funds. Is it possible to build into proposals a means of transferring funds from the grant program to the in-country program81 and vice-versa? If it were possible, USECK could counter cuts in appropriations, make effective use of surplus funds, and combat the ‘brain drain.’”82 Frantz’s specific proposals included one that suggested USEC/K be established as a Fulbright House, as a center of activity for science, social science, and humanities. Although the possibility that Fulbright Korea would become a center of support for all U.S.-Korea scholarly exchanges had been discussed in commission meetings, this appears to be the first mention of a “Fulbright House.”83 This idea of a Fulbright House would eventually become a reality, first through the long-term lease of a building by that name and later through purchase of the Fulbright Building in Mapo. How this came about is a story for subsequent pages and chapters of this book. Frantz’s proposals also included 1) that there be a closer relationship of the grant

The 1960s

Revolution, Development, and Formation of the Fulbright Commission program and the in-country program, 2) that alumni activity be stimulated by establishing research grants for Korean Fulbright alumni, 3) that these grants be related to the American graduate student program in order to enable graduate students to do field work with young Korean scholars and to identify research centers and Korean mentors for Fulbright, EWC, and HEW, and 4) that these grants have the backstopping of summer grants for American professors to initiate or follow up on research projects in Korea that were already under way.84

Infrastructure

During the 1960s, there were two types of infrastructure required to carry out the mission of Fulbright Korea. One, of course, was the need for office space to accommodate an expanding Fulbright Commission secretariat and apartments or houses for American Fulbright grantees who came to Korea. The second requirement was that of vehicles for transportation of both Fulbright Commission staff and grantees.

Office Space and Apartments

As already noted, upon the establishment of USEC/K on September 1, 1960, office space was made available in the cultural affairs office of the U.S. embassy in Seoul. That arrangement was only temporary, and after much negotiation an office was acquired near the embassy. The secretariat moved into Room 702 of the Won Chang Building in December 1960. As more staff were added, the need for larger quarters arose. In addition to the enlarged staff, other problems existed. Toilet facilities were inadequate, electrical and elevator service was undependable, heating was provided for only four hours each day, and so forth. Consequently, the commission decided to seek other quarters that would be more suitable. After negotiation with the commission’s lawyers, the secretariat jointly occupied with the Asia Foundation the third floor of a new office building within walking distance from the embassy. The move took place on September 21, 1961. Although the secretariat found the new quarters adequate for the time being, it anticipated that enlargement of the program would necessitate the acquisition of additional space.85 In 1965, the commission offices were relocated to the Sungbo Building in Jung-gu, Seoul. In addition to locating adequate office space for the secretariat, the commission faced quite a challenge in securing proper housing for American Fulbright grantees. In the planning stages of the first-year program, the commission adopted the policy of asking Korean host institutions to provide adequate housing facilities for a stipulated amount of rent, which would be paid by the commission directly to the university or landowner.

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History Only one of six host institutions was able to do this, forcing the secretariat to seek housing locally, with varying results ranging from completely Korean-style to modified Western and modified Japanese.86 Equipment, Supplies, and Transportation Along with the matters of office space for the secretariat and housing for grantees, the provision of equipment, supplies, and transportation posed great challenges from the beginning. At first, the embassy generously loaned certain surplus furniture to the commission so that it could set up its own office. However, in 1960-61 the commission locally procured one used Remington adding machine, two new Royal standard typewriters, one new Royal portable typewriter, one used Royal portable typewriter, and one new metal supply cabinet at a total cost of 935,000 won.87 This cost was higher than stateside prices, but the commission was in great need of these items and, limited by won purchases, could not obtain them from any other source. During this early period, a change in Korean government policy regarding the importation of foreign goods greatly hampered the commission in its daily operations due to the loss of access to such necessary supplies as letterhead and stencils. The annual report noted, “There are available a limited amount of locally produced office supplies, but these are of a sub-standard quality, and those U.S. or Japanese made items which are still available have risen, in some cases, in cost to 200% of the original price. The American embassy continues to give certain small consumable supplies when absolutely necessary. The commission, though it prefers not to, is forced to buy necessary office supplies through black market sources at exorbitant prices. There seems to be no way to get around this without MPC privileges which would allow the commission to purchase supplies through US Army sources.”88 The initial group of American grantees was advised to bring typewriters with them if they wanted access to one. The commission’s only access to such typewriters was through local dealers who imported them at extremely high rates and attempted to sell them at a profit. Since the American grantees said the baggage allowance was not sufficient to bring a typewriter, the commission decided to raise it the next year specifically for this purpose. 89 The first annual report of USEC/K also noted, “The executive director was promised an official vehicle upon taking up his position last September.” It detailed the need for such a vehicle and the high cost of continuing to rely on buses, streetcars, hapseung (shared taxis), and taxis. A Jeep station wagon had been donated by the Asia Foundation and was ready to be transferred to the commission at any time. However, the problem was how to get a tax-free license plate for it.90

The 1960s

Revolution, Development, and Formation of the Fulbright Commission During Fiscal Year 1964, USEC/K personnel were admitted as members of the American Embassy Club commissary. This reportedly resulted in a material improvement in morale.91 Fulbright House At the commission meeting of September 19, 1967, executive director Edward Wright reported on the possibility of obtaining office and apartment space in a new building being planned for the area near Shin-A Ilbo and Embassy Compound I. He noted that the present office space was totally inadequate and that it was increasingly difficult to find adequate housing in Seoul. Further, he pointed out that it would be advantageous to have centrally located housing for couples and single persons under commission auspices. The building could provide two floors for office space, at 53 pyong (approximately 1,886 ft2) per floor, and up to five floors for apartments with two apartments per floor. The cost, if “key money” were used, would be $19,630 per floor of offices, and $23,234 per floor of apartments, with rent-free occupancy for as long as the commission desired; the money would be refunded on departure from the building. If paid in annual rent, the cost would be $11.00 per pyong (approximately 35.6 ft2) per month. The executive director recommended that the commission try to obtain two floors of offices and five floors of apartments for a key money cost of $157,040. He suggested that both the Korean and American governments might contribute funds for this purpose. After some discussion, the commission agreed that it was desirable to look further into the question of office and housing space, and a committee was appointed.92 The topic of office and housing space came up again at the next commission meeting on October 17, 1967. David Steinberg said that the Asia Foundation headquarters had approved his exploring the possibility of obtaining space in the same building. The chairman was doubtful that the State Department could provide funds for the new building, but the commission confirmed that it was desirable to move to the new building under one financial agreement or another, and that the commission could rent two floors of office space and three floors of apartments under its present budget.93 On January 6, 1969, the Fulbright Commission offices moved into a new building in Soonhwa-dong, thereafter known as Fulbright House. The commission leased seven floors in this small eleven-story building: two floors of office and conference space and five floors of apartments for American grantees (twelve apartment units including official guest quarters for visiting scholars and officials). In 1973, the annual report noted, “The use of this facility has greatly facilitated and enhanced the scope of the Korea program in every respect. American grantees continue to be pleased with their centrally located

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History apartments, as well as with the study and reading areas available to them on the third and fourth floors. The commission’s meeting facilities—a second floor conference room and an eleventh floor meeting and reception room—have been extensively utilized.”94 The multiple moves made by the commission during the 1960s foreshadowed a problem that it would deal with over the ensuing decades. As its programs expanded, so did its need for office space and housing for American grantees. The need to move was often connected with either the uncertainty or the cost—or both—of rental and chonsei (key money) arrangements in Seoul. At the same time, the decision to name the building rented in 1969 the “Fulbright House” indicated the commission’s need for stable, longterm space from which to operate an expanding program. At the commission meeting of February 15, 1968, executive director Edward Wright reported that the original proposal on office and housing space had been approved by Washington. However, the owner, in agreeing to the draft contract, had added the provision that the amount of key money be revised every four years. The contract, including this provision, had been submitted to Washington, but approval had not yet been received. Because of this uncertainty, Wright had looked into possible alternatives. One was building on the property of the Korean Institute of Science and Technology (KIST), with property donated by the Korean government. Details were presented, and this option was thoroughly discussed.95 At the very next commission meeting, Wright announced that legal technicalities prevented KIST from offering land to the commission and that a reply was expected from Washington within the next week on the pending proposal.96 At the commission meeting of September 18, 1968, Wright presented a proposal, including a budget, for program priorities for Program Year 1969. The chairman, Dr. Daniel E. Moore, questioned him on the difference of $25,000 between the tentative budget of $131,000 and the proposed expenditure of $156,000. Wright explained that the monetary difference was expected to be derived from renting part of the living and office spaces of the building then under construction. Carl Bartz asked Wright to explain more specifically his plans for renting the space in the new commission building. Wright responded by going into detail as to the market prices for apartments, the types and the sizes of space available for renting in the new building, and so forth. Preference would be given to visiting scholars. Moore asked if Wright did not expect legal problems to arise in the commission’s relationships with the Korean government on this issue. Bartz and Wright responded by saying that this was a temporary situation and that whatever additional money the commission might raise through rentals would go into scholarships for Korean students, since the first program priority of the commission was for Korean graduate students to study in the United States.97

The 1960s

Revolution, Development, and Formation of the Fulbright Commission

Fulbright Commission Vehicles

To place the Fulbright Commission’s need for vehicles to transport commission staff and grantees in proper perspective, it is necessary to remember the situation in Seoul during the 1960s. Public transportation consisted of city buses and taxis. Construction of the first subway line in Seoul did not start until 1970. Back in the 1960s, it could be timeconsuming and frustrating to get from one place to another in Korean cities by public transportation. Today’s public norms about forming a line to wait at taxi or bus stops were not yet widely observed. Only the well-to-do could afford a private automobile, and almost everyone who had an automobile also hired a driver. Most drivers wore white gloves and kept the cars clean, and most cars were black. It was apparent from discussion at Fulbright Commission board meetings that access to automobiles and drivers was viewed as a necessity, given the status of visiting American Fulbright scholars and their need to get from one place to another efficiently. At its meeting of June 5, 1968, the commission was reminded that it had been authorized to purchase three U.S.-made sedans and two Volkswagens for grantee use, but W. Kenneth Bunce reported the misgivings of ambassador William J. Porter about USEC/K expenditures on non-U.S. vehicles, even if it meant a saving for the commission. The ambassador had suggested substituting one additional American car for the two Volkswagens. After due consideration, the commission decided not to push the question at that time.98

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

Chapter 3

The 1970s

Fulbright During Korea’s Rapid Industrialization

During the 1970s, the Fulbright Program in Korea continued to operate in a context of occasional political turmoil. Near the beginning of the decade, President Park Chung Hee imposed the Yushin (“revitalizing reforms”) system of government in order to prolong his authoritarian rule. While he managed to stay in power under that system of government for most of the decade, in October 1979 he was assassinated by the chief of his own intelligence service. The Korean economy continued its development in the 1970s, but at a more rapid pace than before. Between 1972 and 1978, the economy grew at a rate of more than 10 percent, and per capita GNP surpassed $1,000 for the first time. This growth was achieved largely through long-term plans that emphasized development of the heavy and chemical industries (HCI), including steel, machinery, shipbuilding, petrochemicals, and automobiles.1 Notably, although electronics are included in the HCI industry group and there were efforts to develop the semiconductor industry in the 1970s, the electronics sector overall was rather stagnant during the decade. That would change dramatically in the 1980s.

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

A Brief Description of Life in Seoul Edward Schultz As a Ph.D. candidate, I moved with my wife into Fulbright House in the fall of 1973, with a grant to carry out dissertation research on Goryeo history at Sogang University. Little did I realize that during that one year, I would not only renew old acquaintances with former fellow Peace Corps volunteers and East-West Center grantees, but meet and work with others as well, all of whom have remained close friends to this day. In part because of Fulbright support, I have had the privilege of growing up with a whole generation of scholars of Korea, both Korean and American. To this day, we continue to meet, study, and learn together. Living in Korea in the early 1970s posed all sorts of challenges, from watching soldiers march out to check student unrest, to racing home before the midnight curfew, to traversing town and country on crowded buses. Despite the travails, even a casual observer could not but be impressed by the Korean spirit and the Korean commitment to build their country. The “Miracle on the Han” that we enjoy today was predictable and is a testament to the tenacity, the diligence, and the sheer will of the people of Korea.2 Not only economically but socially as well, the pace of change quickened in Korea during the 1970s, and the Fulbright Program in Korea adapted to the new environment. As noted in the commission’s program plan for 1972, in its social science project the commission continued to seek ways to encourage and support American and Korean scholars who wished to engage in teaching, study, and research in the social sciences, with particular focus on the process of national development. “Korea is an ideal place for such an endeavor, given the rapid and dramatic change in Korean society in recent years,” the annual report stated.3 The 1970s ushered in several changes for the Fulbright Program in Korea and set some precedents that have continued as part of the program to this day. The decade began

The 1970s

Fulbright During Korea’s Rapid Industrialization under the leadership of Edward Wright, who served until 1977, becoming one of the two longest-serving executive directors in the history of the program. Student counseling formally began during this decade, as did the Fulbright Forum, a public lecture series that provided an opportunity for American Fulbright Scholars to share their research with other Fulbrighters and the Seoul academic community more widely. Also, it was in this decade that the commission was enlarged and its name changed to the KoreanAmerican Educational Commission to more accurately reflect the binational character of the Fulbright Program in Korea.

Leadership Changes in the 1970s

At the board meeting of November 14, 1977, the commission decided to endorse the executive director’s hiring of Shim Jai Ok as administrative officer. Until then, Shim had worked as budget and fiscal officer/program officer for the Peace Corps. On an initial interim basis, her work was to be divided between East-West Center liaison work, budget planning and reporting, and general administrative work. These duties would be reconsidered at such time as funding or staff adjustments might allow.4 At the end of that same year, KAEC executive director Edward Wright notified chairman of the board James Hoyt of his intention to resign, effective either April 1, 1978, or September 30, 1978, in order to pursue a research project in Japan. In response, a special commission meeting was called for January 20, 1978, to discuss the letter of resignation. The commission formally approved acceptance of Wright’s resignation as of April 15, 1978. An ad hoc personnel committee was formed to a) articulate the qualifications for the executive director position and b) receive applications from candidates, which would then be submitted to the commission as a whole.5 The search for a new executive director was successfully concluded during the summer of 1978. At the commission meeting of September 20, 1978, Hoyt extended a welcome to the new executive director, Mark Peterson, who was asked if he had a statement. Peterson replied that he welcomed the opportunity to serve and was looking forward to working with the commission. At a November 1978 workshop held at Soraksan, an ad hoc committee on the commission’s bylaws recommended several changes, including changing references to the Department of State to the International Communication Agency wherever applicable. Also, the following sentences were added: “The executive director shall prepare an administrative budget to be approved by the commission. Non-budgeted expenditures must receive prior approval of the Treasurer.”6

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

Program Priorities

The 1970s began with a continuation of the emphasis on national development that had characterized the program during the previous decade. The program proposal for the year 1971 was discussed at the board meeting of February 18, 1970, and passed unanimously. It included a section on national development that, as noted by chairman of the board Daniel Moore, suited the aspirations of the Korean people and government as well as the country plan of the U.S. embassy.7 In its annual workshop and meeting at Soraksan in October 1970, the board established the following program priorities: 1. Social Sciences–particularly as they relate to various developmental programs, 2. Area Studies, including both Korean Studies and American Studies,

3. Science Education, with every effort being made to provide grants in the basic and applied sciences, and to find related sources of funding for other candidates in technical fields, based on MOE emphases. (This latter effort was particularly geared toward training persons in modern electronic data processing and similar fields.)

4. Language Skills, Humanities and Fine Arts. (It was felt that the commission had played an integral role in the 1960s in encouraging the adoption of modern methods of English language teaching and that this focus could now be relegated to last priority position, along with humanities and the fine arts.)8 As the decade unfolded, the Fulbright Commission adjusted its program goals from its focus on development to a new attention to rapid industrialization. At the workshop and meeting at Soraksan on October 25-26, 1974, a committee on project priorities suggested that the Fulbright Program in Korea be devoted to “the study of man in a rapidly industrializing society” and that emphasis be given to non-developmental fields that were not receiving substantial support from government and international agencies. The committee recommended that social sciences remain the first priority, with humanities given virtually equal attention as second priority. Business administration would be dropped from the program. Art would be made the third priority project, as distinct from the humanities. Language skills would be eliminated, with linguistics being retained as a field of study under social sciences. The report was unanimously accepted.9 At the board meeting of November 13, 1975, the following draft statement was introduced: “The Korean Commission in Program Year ’76 established a program theme related to the study and problems of man in a rapidly industrializing society. In the selection of grantees, therefore, preference will be given to applicants whose proposed

The 1970s

Fulbright During Korea’s Rapid Industrialization fields of study in all appropriate disciplines are oriented in direct and indirect ways to the investigation of problems unique to man in a rapidly industrializing society.” The statement was adopted for inclusion in in-country scholarship announcements, and the commission recommended it be sent to CIES for inclusion in any information sent to prospective American candidates for KAEC programs.10 At the board meeting of March 10, 1976, there was consideration of a State Department suggestion that the commission consider broadening its perspective from grants to persons only in higher education to inclusion of grants in the professions. Explaining the general background of the State Department suggestion, Edward Wright pointed out that evidently any professional field would be acceptable provided that it was not technically within the realm of academe. The discussion then proceeded to address the administrative aspects of such a grant. The chairman polled the members on their opinion on giving a grant opportunity to professionals in addition to academics. The feeling was positive, and the suggestion would be given serious consideration. A decision was reached that the chairman and one other commission member would study the question and make a report at the next commission meeting.11 At the workshop and meeting of October 15-17, 1976, the board, after considerable discussion, authorized the executive director to seek approval from both BFS and the Department of State to amend the Program Year 1977 program proposal to include grants for professionals. A decision was finally made to try to offer two grants for professional development in PY77. There was also thorough discussion of the thematic approach to the program. Wright explained that the commission had, in reality, established a dual approach in its programming, namely a thematic approach and program priorities. He offered the opinion that the latter had been more successfully implemented than the former. Clyde G. Hess suggested the idea of maintaining the theme while also recognizing a different emphasis of its application in various award categories. That is, it would be more applied in the senior/professional grant selection and less adhered to in the student selection. A general agreement was reached to continue with the program theme of “the place of man in a rapidly industrializing society” in a flexibly applied manner, as suggested by Hess. On October 16, 1976, the workshop discussion opened with the topic of the place of the natural sciences in the general program. Hess stated that due to the availability of funds from the Korean government and other sources for programs in the natural sciences, he would not object to the elimination of the field from the program altogether. A final decision was reached to exclude the natural sciences, including mathematics, from the program henceforth. In addition, the program priorities were reordered in the following manner: 1) Social Sciences, 2) Humanities, and 3) Arts.12

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History One years later, at a workshop and meeting at Chungmu on September 30-October 2, 1977, the executive director presented a three-page report concerning changes in the KAEC program and focus over a ten-year period. The projects funded in 1967 had included, in order of priority, American Studies, English Teaching, Science and Technological Education, Mass Communications, Asian Studies, Comparative Law, and unspecified grants. As of 1977, the project priorities were Social Sciences, Humanities, and the Arts. The rationale behind the changes was that over the preceding ten years it was felt that fewer and broader project areas could provide greater flexibility in programming. Some of the 1967 fields were still in the program, but were contained under the three broader fields. More specifically, English Teaching and Science and Technological Education had been dropped. This was because those fields had attracted the attention of many government and private agencies. In the case of English teaching, the commission, in its efforts from 1961 to 1973, had provided an infrastructure of educators for Korean colleges and universities through its scholarship programs. The commission also helped to set up the Language Teaching Research Center, which was headed by a former American Fulbright grantee. Science education had been a major area of focus by both the Korean and American governments, and the commission felt that its relatively modest funds might be devoted to areas not receiving such extensive attention from other sources. As of 1977, most Korean grants went to persons involved in higher education. This was to allow concentration on the Fulbright Program’s goals and objectives, which were related to educational exchange. In 1976, a “Professional Enrichment” grant was created for persons in professions other than higher education. In 1967, the program proposal had indicated that American lecturers in general were underutilized and not as effective as might be wished. One means of coping with this “problem” was to require Korean host institutions to contribute to the American lecturer’s funding. By 1977, this contribution was a minimum of 200,000 won monthly in Seoul. Another means was to establish closer liaisons with about 20 leading colleges and universities, as well as with a variety of academic and professional associations. Edward Wright’s 1977 report noted that “money is always a problem.” However, on the positive side, funding from Korean sources had increased over the preceding ten years. Total funding in 1977 was about $350,000 from all sources, with about $40,000 of that coming from Korean sources. In 1967, the major emphasis had been on “the training of Koreans in the United States rather than on bringing Americans to teach in Korea.” In 1977, by contrast, the numbers of new grantees were approximately the same. However, funding for Korean grantees

The 1970s

Fulbright During Korea’s Rapid Industrialization was about double that for American grantees because some of the latter were on partial stipends with research funding from other sources. Also, there were about 35 Korean renewal grantees in the U.S. on partial or full support from Fulbright funds. In 1967, there had been few in-country activities sponsored by Fulbright. By 1978, activities co-sponsored by the commission included the Fulbright Forum, Korean Studies Forum (a print journal that grew out of the Fulbright Forum lecture series), the American Studies Workshop, and the Fulbright Counseling Center for Study in America.13 Also at the October 1977 workshop, the commission decided to continue its policy of favoring Korean provincial candidates for grants, when all other factors were equal. For the eleven years preceding the October 1977 workshop, KAEC program level personnel had been encouraged to teach one course at a Korean university. The discussion strongly endorsed continuing that policy as a means for providing greater connections with the academic community and greater respect for the academic credentials of the KAEC staff.14 The commission also discussed the policy of helping non-sponsored individuals and groups with academic/scholarly interests in Korea. The commission members concurred that this policy should continue. The next such endeavor was a monthlong Korean Studies group of 29 persons from the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma, Washington. This activity was in line with the BFS guidelines encouraging commission support for nonsponsored scholars.

American Studies

After considerable debate at the board meeting of February 18, 1970, there was approval of a compromise proposal to support an American studies seminar on “Youth in America,” to be held in Chunchon.15 At its October 1970 meeting in Soraksan, the commission recommended that a revocable trust fund be set up with commission funding of the Korean currency equivalent of $2,000-$3,000 to support on a continuing basis the administrative organization of the American Studies Association of Korea. A special board of directors would be set up on a binational basis to control the funds. The accrued interest would be used to support an office operation for the association.16 The board meeting of June 28, 1971, included discussion of a request by the American Studies Association of Korea for $1,500 for an autumn seminar on “Democracy in America Revisited.” The request was rejected after a majority of those present indicated opposition. The reason was that given the commission’s present funding shortage, there were other projects that might receive higher priority consideration during the program

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History year. It was also indicated that the association’s structure and continuity were not as strong as might be expected for an organization founded six years before. The chairman suggested that USIS funds might be available for the seminar and that the president of the association should be encouraged to call him at the earliest possible date.17

English Teaching

At the board meeting of January 19, 1971, there was lengthy discussion of a proposal that the commission receive funds for the operation of an English Education Research Center. Funding for the project was to come from the William Benton Foundation and would be disbursed through the office of Encyclopedia Britannica (Korea), Inc. The proposed center would concentrate on research and development in the field of teaching methods in accordance with the proposals and priorities of the Ministry of Education and on setting up model teaching programs to be used in teacher retraining workshops. The board’s discussion centered around such matters as income-generating activities, tax status, the locus of administrative responsibilities, and the relationship between the proposed center and the commission.18 The board meeting of September 2, 1971, included an item on “revision of the binational agreement to allow acceptance of funds for the Language Teaching Research Center.” As a separate item, the commission unanimously approved a request by Dale Enger that the Language Teaching Research Center (LTRC) be approved as a cooperating institute with USEC/K. In 1973, the commission continued to pay close attention to the newly established LTRC. At its January 31 board meeting, the commission approved continued Fulbright affiliation with the LTRC after a study by Edward Poitras and a committee. Later that year at the December 3 board meeting, Lee Hai Kyung and Poitras made another report. The commission voted unanimously to continue its logistical support of the LTRC.19

Support for the Sciences

At its meeting of April 27, 1970, the Fulbright Commission approved a grant for an American lecturer in science education, subject to approval by the Ministry of Education. As noted the previous year by executive director Edward Wright, the board had awarded the only available lectureship to a TEFL lecturer, and it was understood then that if only one grant were available this year, it should be in Science Education. Wright noted the commission’s long history of supporting science education grantees who had worked with the Ministry of Education.20 The board meeting and retreat of November 13, 1971, included an extensive discussion

The 1970s

Fulbright During Korea’s Rapid Industrialization of the natural sciences, the social sciences, and program priorities. A major question was whether the natural sciences should be downplayed in the Korea program, as they were being emphasized other agencies such as those of the United Nations, USAID and World Bank-financed projects. After discussion, the board decided that American lecturers would continue to be invited to Korea in the pure and applied sciences, partially financed by Korean institutions and partially by Fulbright. In the Korean student category, applications would be accepted only from individuals in the pure sciences, defined as chemistry, biology, physics, geology, and mathematics. Excluded were the applied sciences, including engineering and science education. Furthermore, an effort would be made to limit the Korean student program in the sciences to no more than 20% of the Fulbright student program.21 At the November 1978 workshop and meeting at Soraksan, the Ministry of Education representative on the board presented a letter from his ministry asking that the commission recruit and partially support three professors in the engineering and natural sciences areas. In the ensuing discussion, it was pointed out that professors in engineering/ natural sciences commanded higher salaries and that the commission would probably have to pay about $2,000 per month. The Korean government indicated an interest in developing the natural science areas and recruiting more foreign professors. The difficulty of recruiting professors in those fields was discussed. Professors in that area usually tried to get grants to support their laboratory research on campus, not trips to distant, developing countries. James Hoyt pointed out that the financial burden of picking up the request as submitted would virtually eliminate the present program. He explained that they would be gaining three professors in the natural sciences and losing ten professors in the social sciences. Edward Taapken moved that they accept the proposal in principle and then try to work out a cost-sharing method of carrying out the program in such a way as to not diminish its current program level.

Emphasis on Seoul versus Outlying Regions

At the commission’s 98th meeting and workshop held at Soraksan in October 1970, there was considerable discussion about its focus on the provinces. It was decided that at least 30% of graduate student nominees in each of the next three program years (1972-1974) would be from provincial educational institutions, provided that they could meet the commission’s minimum selection standards. A related topic of discussion was whether Korean applicants should only be those engaged in educational or academic pursuits. A decision was made to continue the commission’s two-year-old policy of giving emphasis to applications from individuals

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History then employed with or guaranteed future employment by educational institutions or scholarly research organizations.22

Politics

At the board meeting of November 6, 1972, there was a review of academic areas of prime interest to the commission for Program Year 1974. There was lengthy discussion of the first priority project in the 1973 program proposal: Social Sciences. It was pointed out that meaningful social science research was not always possible under the climate of political crisis that existed periodically in Korea. At the board meeting of April 9, 1973, the first two items dealt with American graduate student Bernard Wideman. There was consideration of a protest from the Korean Ministry of Education concerning an article Wideman had written on the Korean economy for the Far Eastern Economic Review.23 A letter received by the commission from Korea’s Minister of Education, dated March 28, 1973, was translated into English and distributed to commission members at the meeting. It noted, among other things, that Wideman’s article, entitled “Korean Chauvinism,” not only “damnified the prestige of our country” but had given rise to public criticism internationally. “We sternly protest and urge your commission to take proper action,” the letter stated, adding that “we find it regrettable that this impedes the promotion of friendship between the United States and Korea.”24

The International Liaison Committee for Research on Korea

In 1970, the Korean headquarters of the International Liaison Committee for Research on Korea (ILCORK) was established within the Fulbright Offices. The Committee was formed with financial backing from the Agency for International Development. Its aim was to provide for the equal involvement of Korean and American scholars in the promotion and conducting of research and the sharing of information. 25 At the board meeting of April 28, 1970, the commission agreed to let ILCORK use one of the Fulbright House studio (one-room) apartments rent-free, noting that its program fit in well with the national development objectives of the commission. Expressing some doubts about how well ILCORK was organized, Daniel Moore suggested letting them use the commission’s mailing address and, temporarily, part of the commission’s administrative space, with the understanding that the question of private office space would be considered again later. This suggestion was accepted with the understanding that the relationship would be on a businesslike basis once everything was well under way.

The 1970s

Fulbright During Korea’s Rapid Industrialization

East-West Center

At the meeting of November 10-11, 1973, there was discussion of affiliation and support of the East-West Center. Early the previous spring, KAEC had reassessed the demands of the EWC program on its staff and concluded that a larger budget was needed from EWC for functions performed. In April 1973, the commission requested additional funds from EWC, but no answer was received until deputy director Jai-Ho Yoo visited EWC in August. After some discussion, the commission voted to reduce service levels, in effect providing only student grantee services for the remainder of the fiscal year, ending June 30, 1974.26 At the board meeting of August 29, 1977, the commission considered a cable received from the East-West Center informing it of a decrease of over 50% in the amount of commission salaries paid by EWC for FY78. It was unanimously decided that chairman James Hoyt and executive director Edward Wright would be empowered to draft a response to the EWC cable, to be transmitted through the U.S. embassy in Seoul, expressing the consensus of the KAEC board members that only EWC activities commensurate with the EWC budget allocation would be performed. The commission went on record as deploring the proposed budget cut as a step that would give EWC less professional servicing than other exchange programs between the two countries.27

The Start of Student Counseling at Fulbright

The Fulbright Student Advisory Service was launched in 1970 with a half-time counselor, Catalog and reference collections were also initiated. 28 From the beginning, the U.S. government showed its ambivalence about whether counseling was a proper role for the Fulbright Commission. Marita Houlihan, director of the Non-Sponsored Foreign Student Programs Staff, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State, was a guest at the board meeting of February 26, 1971. In her remarks, she mentioned that she hoped the commission would, in the future, expand its non-grant programs and solicit support from other organizations and foundations. She noted that the vast majority of foreign students in the United States were unsponsored and that the expertise and prestige of the commissions could be used in providing counseling support for these students.29 At a mid-year board meeting the following year, Sol Schindler, cultural affairs officer at the U.S. embassy, reported that a visiting team of counseling experts sent by the U.S. State Department had recommended that the commission’s counseling service be abolished. It was indicated that the support funds for this service might be given to the AmericanKorean Foundation to help support that organization’s counseling program. After a short

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History discussion, the chairman appointed a two-man committee composed of Kim Chin-Man and Schindler to study the matter and report back to the commission at its next meeting.30 In November 1974, Fulbright formally opened the Fulbright Counseling Center for Study in America in order to offer more assistance to highly qualified, self-supporting Koreans studying in the U.S. Executive director Edward Wright said that the center would be headed by Yoo Jaipho, John Pint, and Thomas Shroyer, who would aid Koreans who wished to study in the U.S. for intensive research work. A press report stated, “The Center maintains the largest collection of U.S. university and college catalogs in Korea and distributes test bulletins of TOEFL, ATGSB, GRE, ACT, CEEB and CFMG. It also counsels Koreans on selection of careers and distributes informations (sic) regarding U.S. visas.”31 At the board meeting of August 29, 1977, Wright explained that a half-time student counselor’s position had been vacant since January due to budgetary problems and that it was now possible to fill this position. He suggested for the commission’s consideration the appointment of Genell Poitras to this position. It had been determined that she had already served quite well in this position during Joseph Nowakowski’s period of home leave, and that there was a severe need for help in the counseling center at that time. The recommendation was unanimously endorsed subject to the receipt of a satisfactory curriculum vitae and letters of reference.32 At the board meeting of April 10, 1978, Poitras’ resignation was accepted and appreciation expressed for her report on the counseling record from September 1977 to February 1978. Candidates were encouraged to apply for the position of counselor as of Poitras’ departure on May 31. The salary of $500 per month was listed for the half-time position. At the KAEC workshop and meeting at Soraksan on November 10–12, 1978, Mark. Peterson explained a request from the National Liaison Committee (NLC) clearing house that KAEC support a computerized student counseling program. The program required that Fulbright’s student counselor collect $8.00, of which the commission would keep $1.00 for its trouble and forward the balance to NLC. This would have required a great deal of work by the counselor in helping to fill out long, complicated forms, and the NLC clearing house represented only one-third of American universities. The board voted to turn down the request on the grounds that it would be more of a burden to the center and little help beyond what the center could currently do.33 At the board meeting of February 27, 1979, consideration was given to expanding the Student Counseling Center. Kathleen Smith, Fulbright’s counselor, outlined several areas of service the counseling center could provide if she were to work on a full-time basis.

The 1970s

Fulbright During Korea’s Rapid Industrialization In addition, the Ministry of Education had recently indicated that it would encourage greater use of the counseling center by its grantees. At that board meeting, commission members were presented with counseling center statistics for the year from July 1977 to June 1978. They showed that there had been 16,377 inquiries by phone or mail or in person, nearly double the number for the same period one year earlier. Some 5,419 students had visited the center, compared to 3,461 a year earlier. The notable increase was attributed to the closing of the American-Korean Foundation counseling center on December 13, 1977, which had made Fulbright the only alternative source of information and counseling. While the number of student visitors increased, the actual number of those counseled decreased from 237 in Program Year 1976 to 130 in Program Year 1977 due to the loss of a half-time counseling position for lack of funds. The commission was also informed that past practice had been to take counseling center information and material out to the high schools and universities as well as the American Cultural Centers throughout Korea. In the preceding year, however, it had been impossible to maintain such programs to their former degree, although Smith had continued the lecture tours in Pusan, Kwangju, Taegu, Chonju and Taejon ACOs.34 Despite these recommendations to expand Fulbright’s student counseling service, for reasons of fiscal austerity the commission decided that the counseling operation would not be expanded and that the current half-time counselor would not be hired on a fulltime basis. By mid-year, Smith had resigned her position as Fulbright student counselor, and the chairman was authorized to sign a contract with Frederick Carriere, with the same terms and benefits as the previous contract for the position. By that point in time, the number of visitors to the counseling center had recently risen sharply, and its facility was generally overcrowded, with standing room only conditions. At its meeting of July 11, 1979, the commission authorized the executive director to expand the space by removing the kitchen adjoining the counseling area.35

The Fulbright Forum

The final commission meeting of 1973 on December 3 featured a discussion of comments made by two American student grantees. They had mentioned in their final reports that they felt the commission had paid insufficient attention to their research projects. After a brief discussion, Sol Schindler suggested that a Fulbright lecture series be organized, with the lectures to take place every three to four months. This suggestion was passed unanimously.36 At the board meeting of January 9, 1975, executive director Edward Wright presented

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History a proposal for a publication to be called Korean Studies Forum. Its purpose would be to provide articles on Korea, primarily by Fulbrighters, for the program’s nearly 500 alumni and other interested scholars. Most of the content would be derived from Fulbright Forum presentations, and the executive director would be the editor. A binational advisory board would be formed for this semiannual publication. Reaction to this proposal was generally positive, and an agreement was reached to make a final decision at the February board meeting.37 At the board meeting on February 27, 1979, consideration was given to a contract for translation services for Korean Studies Forum. Mark Peterson was authorized to utilize Carriere, or any other appropriate translator, in translating articles for Korean Studies Forum on an ad hoc basis. The idea of making a long-term contract for the purpose of translation services was rejected.38

Funding and Budget Concerns

As already noted in Chapter 2, levels of U.S. government funding for the Fulbright Program were cut significantly in 1968 and 1969. By 1970, as indicated in the title of an article in The Korea Times, the Fulbright Program was “in financial havoc.” Government backing of the exchange program was at a ten-year low. The number of Americans studying and teaching under the program had been cut in half in two years, and in some countries, such as the United Kingdom, the Fulbright grants had practically reached extinction. Senator Fulbright himself said the program was “in havoc, with elaborate

Reception following Edward Shultz’s talk on Korean history at the Fulbright Forum. Summer 1974, Fulbright House.

The 1970s

Fulbright During Korea’s Rapid Industrialization supervisory bodies concerned with controlling a mere handful of grants.”39 In 1970, after pleading unsuccessfully with congressional appropriations committees for restoration of the program, Fulbright found a way of retaliating. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he pushed through an amendment to the foreign aid authorization bill that would force the Defense Department to cut its training program for foreign military leaders that year from 5,026 to 4,428—the number of exchange grantees coming to the United States. The Committee said the restriction would “tell the world and our own people that the Senate is taking steps to reorder our national priorities to reflect our true national values.”40 Not surprisingly, then, budget matters were a priority item at the first meeting of the Fulbright Commission in the 1970s, which took place on February 18, 1970. The chairman, Daniel E. Moore, counselor for public affairs, called the meeting to order at 2:15 p.m. at the commission office. During a discussion of graduate student Fulbright awards, Albert Barr, manager of the Chase Manhattan Bank, Seoul Branch, and a board member, emphasized that people should be made aware of the fact that they were not required to spend their entire incidental allowance. A resolution was passed unanimously stating that incidental allowances were not to be used for lifetime memberships in the Royal Asiatic Society.41 Another agenda item for the February 18 board meeting was the “Department of State’s Response to the Commission’s Letter Inquiring about the Basis for Deciding the USEC/K Budget Level (Attachment F).” Albert Barr expressed the opinion that the letter was remarkably detailed and forthright for a Department of State letter. It was noted that it had nonetheless avoided the essential question of what was the basis of the original allotment of funds to various countries.42 In a discussion of non-grant program priorities, Wright stressed the need to weigh priorities very carefully because of cuts in the budget. Funds for a high school science workshop were eliminated, as was a proposed joint meeting in Japan and an American studies seminar in India, unless a cost-sharing arrangement could be worked out with the Indian commission. At its very next meeting on March 10, the commission approved a recommendation by Carl Bartz, the cultural affairs officer, and appointed a standing committee to look for new sources of money and to explore new ideas for generating funds for appropriate programs within the Korean context. At its October 1970 workshop and meeting, held at Soraksan, the commission decided to investigate the possibility of using PL480 (better known as the Food for Peace program) funds as a possible source of Korean government contributions to the

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History commission’s program. Those funds were subject to yearly negotiations between the governments of the United States and Korea.43 The commission also discussed cooperative lecturer grants. At the meeting of January 19, 1971, Wright explained that on his recent trip to Washington he had discussed ways of bringing American lecturers to Korea, given the present shortage of funds. The commission approved of further exploring the idea that the countries in the East Asian region (except Japan) cooperate in bringing lecturers over on a circuit arrangement. Wright was authorized to make a proposal to the State Department.44 At the board meeting of September 21, 1972, consideration was given to a request by American grantee Cynthia Ong for additional kindergarten tuition for her son Paul. After a long discussion, it was decided that it would be inequitable to pay additional tuition for Ong’s child while not doing so for other grantee children. Ong had included in her request the cost of a maid and taxi fares. At the board meeting of July 15, 1975, it was reported that the East-West Center had submitted only $15,000 of the commission’s budgeted amount of $17,722 for support of EWC programs. The board instructed the executive director to write to EWC specifying that the commission needed EWC funds before expenditure, that it needed a definite understanding of EWC’s budget level, and that EWC should be aware of the costs for running an independent administrative operation without subsidies from KAEC.45 As a follow-up, the commission voted at the September 26 board meeting to reduce its EWC services in accord with the reduced funds received from the center. At the board meeting of December 19, 1977, the commission expressed continued concern over what it deemed to be inadequate financial support by EWC for KAEC representation in Korea. After extensive discussion, the treasurer and executive director were asked to meet and draft a letter for submission to the chairman based on the premise that services received would be based on the EWC budgetary support level. However, because of conflicting schedules in December, this could not be done before the executive director’s home leave beginning December 30, 1977. The executive director instead stopped in Honolulu on February 20, 1978, to personally represent the commission’s views. A tentative oral agreement was reached with EWC’s executive administrator for academic programs, Arnold Lieberman.46 At the board meeting of July 5, 1978, Edward Taapken, the KAEC treasurer, gave the commission a brief report on KAEC’s financial status based on a KAEC-prepared flow chart and the recently completed audit. These documents showed that KAEC would have a large deficit in meeting all commitments made through the end of Program Year 1978. Based on the audit report, fund shortages in the amount of $52,636 derived mainly from

The 1970s

Fulbright During Korea’s Rapid Industrialization three factors: 1) KAEC had never received $20,000 of its Program Year 1972 allocation, a fact supported by State Department documents; 2) the unexpected resignations of Edward Wright and local employees necessitated unbudgeted expenditures; and 3) overcommitments were expended beyond the Program Year 1977 grant program budget allocation.47 At the board meeting of September 20, 1978, Mark Peterson stated that he had observed, and the ICA auditor who had visited recently had concurred, that KAEC financial procedures were too cumbersome and inefficient. Based on Shim Jai Ok’s recommendation and supported by the ICA auditor, George Beams, it was proposed that the current system of several charts and ledgers be replaced by one large flow chart backed up by two ledgers. The commission approved this change. Peterson pointed out that the auditors had found a stipulation in the handbook that commissions be given a two-year lead time in allocating funds. He stated that most of the financial problems were now a matter of cash flow and that he would investigate the matter further. Regarding the eleventh floor apartment in Fulbright House, the chairman also reported that Washington had cabled authorization allowing the key money returned in the event that the apartment was given up to be used for the program. Peterson suggested that the apartment be given up, since the money used in the program could offset the deficit created in the current year’s budget for two Program Year 1978 American Lecturer grantees.48 The third session of the 1978 annual workshop at Soraksan on November 11 included a review of the 1979 program proposal. Goals were examined, including 1) greater participation from the Korean side, 2) binationality, and 3) fundraising. Several aspects of the prospect of gaining more Korean participation and cooperation were discussed. It was concluded that fundraising from private sources was a worthy goal that should be pursued by the commission. But as was noted by Benjamin J. Kremenak, who in his role as Asia Foundation representative had experience with fundraising in Korea, the task would not be easy. 49 The Fulbright Korea Program Plan for 1980 contained the following summary of the budget situation during the 1970s: Small increases in support from the American government have helped to keep the program viable but do not begin to keep up with the rising costs of living in Korea. The Korean government contribution has also increased slightly, but still, if KAEC had to rely on government contributions alone, the program would have had to be cut back in recent years. The factor that has kept the program alive is the participation of the local institutions. Wherever possible, the local institution

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History is asked to pay a regular salary, and the commission pays the difference. The commission is hopeful that both governments will continue to increase their support and that the local institutions will continue to show active interest in the program. A breakdown of Korean government contributions to the KAEC program from 1971 to 1977 is as follows: PY1971 PY1972 PY1973 PY1974 PY1975 PY1976 PY1977

$7,951.00 $8,843.00 $7,500.00 $6,228.00 $10,416.00 $12,454.00 $39,369.00

TOTAL

$83,401.00

Infrastructure

During the first part of the 1970s, the commission’s operations were based in Fulbright House, which was established during the 1968 program year. The commission leased seven floors in this small eleven-story building: two floors of office and conference space and five floors of apartments for American grantees (twelve apartment units). The use of this facility greatly facilitated and enhanced the scope of the Korea program in every respect. American grantees continued to be pleased with their centrally located apartments as well as with the study and reading area available to them on the third floor. The commission’s meeting facilities—a second-floor conference room and an eleventh floor meeting and reception room—were extensively utilized. Early in the decade, comments concerning the Fulbright House by American and Korean scholars alike were very positive. The following comment made by one grantee on his grantee report form was considered generally reflective of the views of other grantees as well as short term visitors and non-sponsored individuals who, in one way or another, had come into contact with the Fulbright House operation: To me, the most remarkable accomplishment of the Fulbright Program in Korea

The 1970s

Fulbright During Korea’s Rapid Industrialization has been the establishment of the Fulbright House in Seoul. This facility has made it possible for American visitors to settle in with remarkable speed and become effective that much more quickly. It also makes possible short-term visits of a month or so of experts for participation in specific programs where the housing problem otherwise would have prohibited their visit. I can attest to two very major cultural projects that would surely have floundered or ended up of only minor note had it not been for the presence of American Fulbright scholars who came only because of the facilities afforded by Fulbright House. It is clearly in the best interests of both countries to continue such a farsighted establishment as Fulbright House.50 Despite such grantee satisfaction with the Fulbright House, the issue of rental costs arose as early as 1970. At the April 28 board meeting, Edward Wright brought it to the attention of the commission that in spite of his verbal agreement to let the commission use the basement free of charge, the landlord was now insisting on 30,000 won per month in rent. Wright also noted that the figure was this low only because of several

Donald Clark gives a talk on Korean history at Fulbright Forum. Spring 1976, Fulbright House.

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History difficult months of negotiating. After some discussion, the commission accepted this new arrangement for recommendation to the State Department.51 The original contract signed by KAEC with EZOO Co., the owner of Fulbright House, called for a renegotiation of the key money (chonsei) after five years. Accordingly, at its meeting of January 31, 1973, the commission approved a 5% increase in the chonsei, as negotiated with EZOO Co.52 Later that year, during the meeting and workshop at Songnisan on November 10-11, 1973, the use of the Academy House Annex for program purposes was discussed. The Academy House, a hotel and conference center located at about a 30-minute drive from downtown Seoul, was offered to the commission for its program use for the equivalent of $81.50 per month. It could be used for official visitors, to supplement Fulbright House housing, and as a seminar and reception facility. After discussion, the board voted to approval a trial rental for one year.53 Some time in the mid- to late 1970s, an issue arose with the water supply at Fulbright House (see inset reminiscence by Don Clark), which would prompt the KoreanAmerican Educational Commission to move to new quarters. When executive director Edward Wright asked the building owner to repair or correct this problem, the owner balked, suggesting that it would be necessary to increase the amount of chonsei if such repairs were to be done.54 At that point, the decision was made to seek other quarters for the commission. At the board meeting of March 29, 1977, Wright explained that there were tentative plans to vacate the Fulbright House as early as August 1977. 55

Remembering Life in Fulbright House Donald N. Clark 1975: Junior Researcher Department of History, Korea University 1983: Senior Lecturer/Researcher Department of History, Yonsei University 1989: Senior Researcher Department of History, Yonsei University

Korea Fulbrighters of a certain age will remember Dr. Edward Wright, KAEC executive director and the program’s leader in the 1970s. In those days, the Fulbright Program leased most of a ten-story apartment building in Sunhwadong, near Seosomun in downtown Seoul. The first three floors were used by the building’s owner, but the rest were used by Fulbright. Grantees got their mail,

The 1970s

Fulbright During Korea’s Rapid Industrialization

read newspapers, traded paperback books, and received visitors in the KAEC grantees’ library/lounge on the fourth floor, which also housed the KAEC offices. My generation of American scholars of Korean Studies, many of us having discovered Korea during Peace Corps service in the previous decade, drafted our doctoral dissertations in the fifth floor work room. The sixth through ninth floors were for grantees’ apartments. The top floor was a penthouse reserved for Ed Wright himself, used partly as a sometime dwelling—for he had another apartment elsewhere—and partly as a place to store his Dr. Clark spent much of his life as the son of missionaries, a Peace Corps volunteer, a extraordinary collection of Korean furniture. Social Science Research Council fellow, and It was a privilege to be invited to this place at a Fulbright scholar. the pinnacle of the building. Wright hosted early versions of the Fulbright Forum here, and from time to time we would listen to distinguished scholars, and occasionally peers, delivering research reports, events that always ended with the consumption of moderate amounts of alcohol and the passing around of exquisite hors d’oeuvres made by Wright’s housekeeper— morsels of rare quality for Seoul in the seventies. Indeed, scholars from all over the city would converge on the tenth floor of Fulbright House on these occasions for culinary as well as intellectual nourishment. Residents of Fulbright House were well aware of our good fortune in having furnished habitations waiting for us when we arrived in the city after enduring the rigors of travel from America and passage through the inspections and interrogations of Yushin-era Kimpo Airport. The building was located a short walk from City Hall Plaza, easily accessible to Seoul’s first subway line, a few paces from a steady taxi supply, and near a stop on the #8 bus line that seemed to go to most places of any consequence in the city. Up the alley beyond Fulbright House was the old Seoul Union, the city’s erstwhile expat swimming and tennis club. (A unique feature of the Seoul Union was a pair of bowling lanes transplanted from Unsan, in North Korea, where they had been in the gold miners’ staff club of the Oriental Consolidated Mining Company before the OCMC was forced out

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

of business by the Japanese in 1939.) A stone’s throw away in the other direction was a military police building, where one imagined, and occasionally even heard, dark happenings under the Park dictatorship. And next to Fulbright House, at about the level of the eighth floor, was the steeple of a Protestant church whose bells went off at 4 a.m. every day and multiple times on Sundays. In other words, Fulbright House seemed to be in the middle of everything, and to live there was to experience the fast-changing urban landscape on many levels at once. Fulbright House had many conveniences, including an elevator that worked most of the time. The scale of the building was such, and we were young enough, that if the elevator was out of order we could still get up to wherever we were going. However, it did have one notable design flaw. The building’s oil tank was installed on top of the concrete cistern in the sub-basement that was part of the water intake. In time, spilled oil leached into the cistern, enough to give the running water in Fulbright House, whether hot or cold, an oily sheen. Indeed, you could run a dandy bathtub full of hot water, but it would have a diesel smell and a yellowish cast—just barely acceptable for bathing.... The old Fulbright House looks small today, but in those days it seemed tall, and it had great views of downtown Seoul. Across the Seosomun-dong main drag was the JoongAng Ilbo, and beyond it Namsan, with the newly-built Namsan Tower. From the north windows you could see the Blue House, with its barrage balloons and anti-aircraft emplacements atop buildings to enforce the no-fly zone over the center of the city. Deoksugung Palace was visible beyond Paichai Boys’ High School (cf. the present Russian embassy site), and one never tired of the majestic Bukhan Range sheltering the city on its northern side. After Fulbright House, KAEC moved to the Garden Tower near the front gate of Changdeokgung Palace, then again to a building next to the Cheondogyo headquarters temple (Su’un Hoegwan), and much later to the present site near Gongdeok Station. The cement tower formerly known as Fulbright House still stands, but it looks forlorn and far outclassed in size and style by everything around it—a metaphor for its heyday, still deserving of a grateful backward glance.56 At the board meeting of September 20, 1977, Edward Wright reported that the owners of Fulbright House would be in a position to repay the KAEC key money in full after receiving properly notarized documentation related to original registration of the key money contract of 1968 and the building mortgage now being held by KAEC. This

The 1970s

Fulbright During Korea’s Rapid Industrialization

meant that payment to the Garden Tower management for new Fulbright offices would be made on schedule.57 At the November 1978 annual workshop and meeting at Soraksan, there was a thorough discussion of housing, office space, key money, and rent. Mark Peterson introduced the subject by pointing out that rents were increasing sharply and that the current lease on the office space and the apartment unit for most of the grantee housing would expire in the summer of 1980. He noted indications that the key money contract for the office space would be changed, at the building management’s insistence, to a rent contract, and that even if the contract were up for renewal at that time, the key money required for the office space would be double its current level.58

My Association with the 1970-80s Fulbright Forums Song Joon Man Emeritus Professor, Education Ewha Womans University

My association with the Fulbright Program goes back to 1971, when I took the screening test for a Fulbright scholarship at the office located in Soonhwadong. The Fulbright scholarship helped me complete the Ph.D. program at the University of Missouri in 1976. From that point on, my association with the Fulbright Program continued and served to stimulate my growth as a scholar. I maintained a personal relationship with Dr. Edward F. Wright, executive director, until he retired. He was a kind of meticulous, quiet, and warmhearted person. The Fulbright Program played a pivotal role connecting me to American scholars from various fields and their dependents, the Peace Corps staff, and American embassy people. It gave me opportunities to converse with them on a variety of issues, providing fertile ground for my growth. Meeting foreign scholars provided intellectual stimulus and widened my horizons. As they had come to conduct research but had little knowledge about Korea, we were able to talk to them on a daily basis and help them understand

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

things about which they had no previous knowledge or that were difficult for them to understand. The Fulbright-sponsored forum invited a variety of scholars in various fields of study, including not only visiting scholars but also foreign residents in Korea and members of the Royal Asiatic Society. Traveling with them was also very instructive since it gave me an opportunity to dig deep into the customs and life patterns of Koreans, though these were not related to my own major. Of particular interest was the colloquium, which was known for being modest in the number of participants—around ten or so. It provided a forum for in-depth discussion and was well suited to providing intellectual stimulus. Sometimes, the discussions carried on deep into the night. It was somewhat like a brainstorming session without a time limit. There were snacks and soft drinks made available to stuff empty stomachs. Korean scholars remained late at night, and one of them, as I recall, was a professor from Hankuk University of Foreign Studies named Ahn Byung Man. Some of the foreign scholars knew more about Korea than their Korean counterparts. We were caught off guard when they talked about the transition of social status, land granting, and the tax system of the Choson Dynasty following the Imjin ( Japanese) invasion of Korea. Their interests did not stop there. Their broadbased knowledge of the humanities, society, folklore, religion, and art stunned the Korean participants. Most memorable was Professor Feldman, a psychologist at the University of Massachusetts, who taught at Ewha Womans University. Simply because we taught at the same university, I had many more talks with him and learned a lot from him. His eagerness to understand Korea left an indelible mark on me. At the board meeting of October 9, 1979, it was reported that the telephone system in the commission office, which had long been in need of replacement, could no longer be repaired. On the advice of the secretariat and with approval by communication specialists and the administrative officer of the U.S. embassy, chairman James Hoyt and the financial committee agreed to purchase a system made by the Gold Star Co. for less than $2,000.59

The 1970s

Fulbright During Korea’s Rapid Industrialization

Formation of the Korean-American Educational Commission

As discussed in Chapter 2, the United States Educational Commission in Korea (USEC/K) had formally discussed the possibility of changing its name as early as May 1968. The actual change of the commission’s name took place through the exchange of diplomatic notes in Seoul on June 1 and July 10, 1972. The notes amended Article 1 and Article 4 of the June 18, 1963 Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Korea for Financing Certain Educational Exchange Programs. The new Article 1 essentially stated that the United States Educational Commission in Korea (USEC/K) would henceforth be known as the Korean-American Educational Commission. The reference to funding was changed from “to be financed by funds made available to the commission by the Government of the United States of America” in the 1963 agreement60 to “to be financed by funds made available to the commission by the Government of the United States of America and by other sources for purposes of the present agreement” in the amended version.61 Article 4 in the old 1963 agreement had stated that the commission “shall consist of eight members, four of whom shall be citizens of the United States of America and four of whom shall be citizens of Korea.” The 1972 amendment increased the total commission membership to ten members, five of whom were to be U.S. citizens and five Korean citizens. At the board meeting of December 11, 1975, the commission unanimously approved an amendment of its bylaws to reflect a change in the commission’s official name to the Korean-American Educational Commission, with a membership body of ten. Previously, there had been only eight members.62

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

Chapter 4

The 1980s

Korea’s Domestic and International Political Transformation

The 1980s were a revolutionary decade for South Korea, both politically and in terms of the revolution in computing and communications technology that was under way around the world. Politically, Korea experienced a transformation both at home and also in terms of its place in the world. The decade began as the military, led by General Chun Doo Hwan, seized power after the assassination of President Park Chung Hee in October 1979. The Kwangju Uprising in May 1980 bore some similarities to the Tiananmen Square episode in China, except it was far bloodier, relative to population, and became far more central to Korean politics. Political tensions in the wake of Kwangju kept building until there was a breakthrough toward democratization in June 1987, with the prospect of successfully hosting the Seoul Olympics at stake. The 1988 Seoul Olympics were highly successful and heralded the success of South Korea’s “Northern Policy” of reestablishing diplomatic, economic, and cultural ties with the socialist bloc nations of Eastern Europe, Russia, Vietnam, and China, from which it had been cut off during the long Cold War. These political transformations inside Korea and in its relations with other countries took place in the context of a global revolution in digital information technology. Indeed, many would argue that the new digital communications media were a major factor in political liberalization. South Korea’s case is noteworthy in that it was a military government under President Chun Doo Hwan in 1980 that chose to liberalize the

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History nation’s telecommunications sector and revitalize the electronics industry. In 1980, relatively few people in Korea had basic telephone service, but by 1987 the nation had built what was then one of the most modern public switched telephone networks (PSTNs) in the world. Along the way, it had entered the semiconductor industry and gained the capability to manufacture its own electronic switching systems. These accomplishments became known in Korea as the “telecommunications revolution of the 1980s,” and they laid the foundation for later strides in broadband internet and mobile communication that would characterize Korea in the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century. In addition to the sweeping political changes and the communications revolution, there were continuing improvements and development in Korea’s own system of tertiary education and growth in the number of students seeking to study abroad in the United States and other English-speaking countries. In such an environment, the demand for counseling services and English testing, especially the TOEFL, could only increase. Although the demands for English teaching and testing would increase in the 1980s, South Korea was no longer considered a developing country. As of Fiscal Year 1982, the U.S. Peace Corps, whose major activity in Korea for more than a decade had been English teaching, began its withdrawal. The official reason given for its withdrawal was that it had completed its work because of Korea’s rapid economic development.1

“Fulbright Korea’s Contribution to the Field of Korean Studies” Carter Eckert, 1981 Junior Researcher, Korea University

Today’s young scholars of Korean studies can look forward to a bright future. Interest in the field is high, more and more universities have added or are adding Korean studies positions to their faculty, and many of the larger institutions like Harvard have established Korean studies centers within the university community to support students and faculty in the field. Indeed, funding for undergraduate, graduate, and faculty study, research, and publication has never been more abundant, thanks in no small part to the emergence of organizations in South

The 1980s

Korea’s Domestic and International Political Transformation

Korea such as the Korea Foundation that have made it their strategic purpose to assist in the development of Korean studies programs abroad. Such was not always the case. When Ed Wagner began his career in the late 1950s, or even when I started graduate work in Korean history about 20 years later, the interest and infrastructure described above scarcely existed. There were few if any jobs on the horizon, and even if one gritted one’s teeth and determined to forge on in the blind hope that somehow, somewhere, a job opportunity would eventually Carter Eckert, Ph.D., Professor of appear if one could get through the eight or so Korean Studies, Harvard University years of graduate study, there was little in the way of public encouragement and financial support to help one actually get to that point. But there was Fulbright Korea. And what a difference it made. Without Fulbright support, I, like many if not most of my peers at that time, would most likely have had to abandon the idea of field research, if not continuing as a scholar in the field itself—it was just too expensive without that support. And the support that Fulbright provided was not just financial. Having brought us to Korea and provided us with comfortable housing and a stipend for food and other necessities, the Fulbright office, which in my time was headed by the superb team of Mark Peterson, Frederick Carriere, and the legendary Mrs. Shim, was also a welcoming home away from home and a center of valuable information and assistance on everything from pots, pans, and laundry to useful and important contacts in Korean academic, corporate, artistic, and government circles, depending on what one needed and where one wanted to go. More than that: Fulbright Korea was also an intellectual gathering place, where one could meet and mingle with other scholars of like interests, Korean and non-Korean alike, hear presentations of new research, and even tentatively present one’s own work to a group of people who were really and truly interested in what one was doing. Particularly in those earlier days of Korean studies, it is impossible to underestimate the significance of Fulbright Korea not only in keeping the field alive but also in laying the basis for the thriving field we see today.2

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

Leadership Changes at Fulbright

There were also leadership changes in Fulbright during the 1980s. At its meeting of July 28, 1983, the commission accepted the resignation of executive director Mark Peterson. His letter to William Maurer, chairman of the Korean-American Educational Commission, read in part: Dear Bill, It is with a great deal of mixed emotion that I write to inform you and the commission that I plan to leave my post as executive director in order to accept a position at Brigham Young University.... I have tremendously enjoyed my association with the commission and the fine staff we have. It is hard to think about leaving; the position of executive director does not have the permanence of many jobs and I have always planned to develop my career at a university when the time would be appropriate. BYU has made a fine offer and will be a stimulating place to work.... It will be a good place for me to make a contribution to Korean studies.... As to my successor, I would only ask the commission to consider the current job market and to hire a Korean studies specialist.3 Before year’s end, some 50 applications for the vacant position had been received and distributed to members of the search committee.4 By the time of the board meeting of January 9, 1984, sixty-six applications had been received, and the résumés of the four finalist candidates, those who had been approved by the search committee, were distributed to the members for their consideration. Each commission member ranked the four in descending order of preference, and Bill Maurer contacted the members individually to record the rankings, which were tabulated and presented to the commission at its next meeting. At that meeting on January 23, commission members were advised of the results of rankings in the search for a new executive director. The search committee was authorized to start at the top of the list and interview candidates until a suitable candidate was decided upon. At its meeting of March 13, 1984, the commission welcomed the new executive director, Frederick Carriere, who was formally introduced to the commission and received congratulations. His tenure officially began on March 1, and he would become, along with Edward Wright, one of the two longest-serving executive directors of the Fulbright Commission to date. Another leadership transition during the 1980s occurred with the departure of board

100

The 1980s

Korea’s Domestic and International Political Transformation chairman Bernard Lavin. The commission bid farewell to Lavin at its board meeting of March 11, 1986. During an earlier stay in Korea some 25 years before, he had witnessed the establishment of the commission, and during his last tour in Korea he had devoted his time and energy to fostering its development.5 Also in the 1980s, the board received a recommendation that Shim Jai Ok be given a meritorious step increase in light of her recent completion of an M.B.A. This training was appropriate, as Shim would serve for many years as, in effect, the commission’s chief financial and personnel officer.6

Program Priorities

Fulbright Korea’s program priorities in the 1980s needed to shift away from its earlier focuses on development and, later, rapid industrialization. New priorities would need to account for the impact of the communications revolution. In the 1980s, the commission spent considerable time discussing and defining its new priorities. At the board meeting of December 15, 1982, KAEC considered a request from the Board of Foreign Scholarships for more specificity and direction in its program orientation. The CIES advisory committee, on the other hand, continued to argue for opening the program to recruit the best possible candidates from all fields. After considerable discussion of various issues and alternatives, it was decided that the program proposal would be written in much the same form as in previous years, with the exception of putting more emphasis on Korean Studies and American Studies. Several commission members indicated that Korea’s program should never have been portrayed as being without focus. It had the broad objective of improving the higher educational system in Korea, and it limited applications to those who were in the university system. It was also mentioned that the academic breadth of the program was its greatest strength. For the upcoming program proposal, it was agreed, in consideration of Washington’s interests and suggestions, that there would be an attempt to arrange some specific affiliations, particularly in areas that had been successful the preceding few years, but to ask Washington to realize that in the Korean context it would be impossible to do so to any great degree.7 One of the best indicators of Fulbright Program priorities during the 1980s is contained in a memo sent to board members by chairman Bernard Lavin prior to the board meeting of January 9, 1984. In it, he outlined five suggested areas of concentration for the 1985 program plan, as follows:

101

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History 1. Korean Studies in the United States One of the most important ways to nourish better understanding of Korea and its culture is through long-term educational programs in the United States. The commission should consider the initiation of a specific project which would involve exchanges between a consortium of universities in Korea and a consortium of universities in the United States interested in advancing Korean studies, which would involve Korean history, its culture, traditions, values, and accomplishments as a modern nation, particularly through its strong educational system. Within this overall concept could be included the development of textual materials to be introduced into social science courses, particularly in the American secondary school system. Although the primary focus of this program would be academic and scholarly in nature, it would provide a bridge to strengthen contact with institutions in the United States as the Department of Education and the National Educational Association for educational exchanges of teachers, materials, and learning resources. 2. American Studies in Korea Corollary to the Korean studies program would be a long-term American studies program in Korea. The commission might consider supporting such a program at one of the major universities, or perhaps a consortium of major universities. Through this project, American cultural values, ideals, and history, e.g. the Constitutional history of the United States, could be studied in depth over the long term. The program could include literature and arts, anthropological studies, and other disciplines in the social sciences. One of the goals of the commission might be to encourage, with private funding f rom American sources, the establishment of a chair in American studies at one of the major universities. 3. Education One of the most fruitful areas of exchange between Korea and the United States could well be in the field of education. Historically, educational ties between our two countries have been strong. However, in both our countries there has been more progress in some areas than in others. The commission might well play an important role in supporting comparative studies of education in Korea and the United States, including research on effective methods of education, the present and future role of computers, and an evaluation of their effectiveness at the secondary and university levels. A project of this type could be considered with a consortium of universities, Korean and American, or by concentrating efforts with

102

The 1980s

Korea’s Domestic and International Political Transformation institutions such as the Korean Educational Development Institute and special universities in the United States. 4. International Finance and Trade Korea and the United States have become important trading partners—as demonstrated by the fact that Korea is now the United States’ eighth largest trading partner. This relationship is expected to develop and grow in important ways far into the future. Although the relationship is basically sound, there are important areas where greater understanding—political, economic, and cultural— will be required if the relationship is to prosper to the fullest extent. There is need to study and evaluate the international economic environment, which would include studies on international trade liberalization, the free enterprise system, finance, monetary policy, and policies on foreign investment from the points of view of both countries. The vital element in this relationship is that of economic interdependence and a clear understanding of what that interdependency involves. Both Korean government officials and educators are well aware of the strong influence which the Third World Dependency theory has on the campuses in Korea. A basic misunderstanding of the theory and its application (as many students apply it to Korea) produces negative results which can be seen clearly by Korean government officials when university students enter the bureaucracy. This problem was clearly pointed out as a problem area for the Korean government by the late Dr. Kim Jae-ik, who suggested that Korean and American educators should turn their attention to it. The commission could play a unique role in fostering studies and exchanges between major universities and scholars in both countries with special interest and expertise in the field of international trade and finance. 5. The Communication Revolution Within the past quarter century, both Korea and the United States have experienced the effects of the revolution in communications technology. This field promises greater revolutions yet to come. It is important that critical studies be done on the effect which communications technology has had, and can have, through cultural influences on traditional societies and on the enhanced role of public opinion and its effect on governments. Conversely, such studies should include an analysis of the issues involved in the rights and obligations of nations with regard to the free flow of information for the protection and development of individuals within nation-states. Some universities in Korea are well on the

103

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History road to developing departments and institutes in the communications field. The commission should consider ways which might enhance mutual understanding between Korea and the United States in this important area over the long term.8 Not all of Lavin’s suggestions were accepted by all commission members. In fact, one of the most active members of the commission, Horace G. Underwood, took issue with Lavin’s emphasis on applied projects, in particular the fourth point about finance and trade. Upon receipt of Lavin’s memorandum, Underwood wrote a one-page letter in reply for distribution to the board. It read, in part: Intentionally or not, the proposal emphasizes the pragmatic and applied studies rather than the academic, and I believe that this represents a change from past practice. We have of course always included some very pragmatic projects, and you yourself state at one point that the “primary focus...would be academic and scholarly in nature.” Nevertheless, the overall tone of the proposal seems to cater to a demand for specific applicability of the projects. This may be necessary in the mood in Washington, but in the past the commission has (I believe) been very reluctant to select candidates with narrowly focused professional (applied) goals and has deliberately favored those with broader academic aims. Whether or not I am correct in my overall analysis, I do object to the specific emphasis on finance and trade in Sec. 4. Emphasis on Korean studies (in the U.S.) and American studies (in Korea) is excellent, and education and communications are important vehicles for building understanding. In a similar way, I would hope that Sec. 4 could be rewritten in terms that would encourage exchange and understanding through the medium of the other disciplines—economics, natural sciences, etc. Phraseology stressing the internationalization of knowledge, the prevention of lopsided understanding and/or the need for a broad spectrum of relationships would both be a “focus” such as Washington is demanding and also leave some latitude for meeting needs and interests both of Korean universities and American scholars. Such matters as the Third World Dependency Theory that you mention could well be included as an example of the need for such broader academic exchange.9

Treatment of Korea in American Textbooks

At the board meeting of November 21, 1989, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) representative on the commission introduced the subject of the description of Korea

104

The 1980s

Korea’s Domestic and International Political Transformation in American textbooks. At that time, distortions and errors about Korea in American textbooks were an issue receiving considerable attention in Korea. The MOFA representative suggested that Fulbright might consider funding research like that proposed by Gari Ledyard of Columbia University. There was considerable discussion of this issue, as reflected in the minutes. Horace G. Underwood moved that a subcommittee be appointed to look into the matter and come up with a specific proposal for consideration at a later meeting. This was passed unanimously. Before turning to the next item, John Reid noted that there were similar problems in Korean textbooks and suggested that the commission should consider addressing both sides of the issue in the interest of reciprocity. In responding for the Korean side, Chung Chung-Kil once again stressed the need for caution in raising such sensitive issues, since open discussion of them almost surely would elicit a very negative reaction. Chung also remarked that a powerful nation need not worry about its image, and the issue was dropped without further discussion.10

Hah Seong Ho Professor, History The University of Alaska Anchorage

A Fulbright Degree Study Award financed my master’s degree course at the State University of New York, Buffalo, f rom autumn 1989 through the 1991 summer session. At the time I graduated from the university, every student was agonizing over a future career. I was one of them and made a fateful decision in favor of graduate study in American history. The United States was an important partner country with Korea, and there were supposed to be many specialists on the United States. In reality, however, I could not find anyone who could

105

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

guide my footsteps to this area of study. As my interest in the United States was aroused, I was primarily concerned with such issues as the fundamental basis of American politics, the system of resolving racial issues, and the like. I could hardly find answers to questions concerning these issues. One of the books that most impressed me at that time was A Daunting Journey, authored by Professor Kim Joon Yup of Korea University. Although this book had to do with the modern history of China, my curiosity was developing over the part of his nationalist activities that moved him to become a specialist in Chinese studies. He presented himself as someone worthy of emulation. Moved by his story, I made a decision to become a specialist on American studies. I set my eyes on a goal and have assiduously carried out academic pursuits toward this goal. My family was not in a position to finance my study at a Korean university. My application for graduate study at the State University of New York at Buffalo was accompanied by the honor of receiving Fulbright scholarship. Starting with a master’s degree, I advanced to the Ph.D. program. Upon the completion of my doctoral degree, I was given an opportunity to teach in Canada and Colorado for one year each. It was in the autumn of 2005 that I was tenured to teach history at the University of Alaska Anchorage. It was my great honor to see my book The Rise and Fall of the American System: Nationalism and the Development of the American Economy 1790-1837 published in England. After the book was published, I was invited to give lectures, and local newspapers carried articles about the book. Seven years of study on the United States, I feel, have brought me up to the level where I can claim myself to be well versed in America. I am on the road to becoming an American specialist in the true sense. Whether you like it or not, the United States is a country of great importance to Korea, and thus I believe that we must continue to encourage American studies within Korea. When we talk about American society and culture, there are a lot of things to be discarded; at the same time, there are just as many things worthy of learning. The more you understand America, the better your chance of grasping Korea in an objective light. In this sense, the Korean-American Educational Commission was of crucial importance in its role in the promotion of mutual understanding.

106

The 1980s

Korea’s Domestic and International Political Transformation

Fulbright Forum Named in Honor of Edward Wright

At the board meeting of September 15, 1988, the commission noted the passing of former executive director Edward Wright, who died of cancer in August. It approved a recommendation that the Fulbright Forum be dedicated to his memory. Frederick Carriere knew from conversations with Wright and several of his friends that he regarded the forum and its related publications as one of his most important achievements, and it had in fact been an important stimulus for promoting scholarly interest in Korea among Fulbrighters and other scholars. The lecture series would thereafter be known as the Edward R. Wright Memorial Fulbright Forum Lecture Series.11

Formation of Korea Fulbright Alumni Association

At the board meeting of September 20, 1985, one item dealt with preparations for the formation of a Korea Fulbright Alumni Association. It was noted that the roster of alumni of the Fulbright Korea program had been maintained with less than full devotion throughout the preceding twenty-five years. As a result, the commission maintained current addresses for only 501 of its 685 Korean alumni and alumnae. The board was given a roster of the remaining 184 alumni, whose current whereabouts were unknown, in hopes of contacting these “lost” alumni.12 The creation of a Korea Fulbright Alumni Association was a significant event in the evolution of Fulbright in Korea. Therefore, a later chapter of this book is devoted almost entirely to its formation and the founding of the Korea Fulbright Foundation. In retrospect, it is natural that an alumni association would be created for Korean alumni of Fulbright Korea many years in advance of similar developments for American alumni of the program. For one thing, the Fulbright Commission operated out of offices in Seoul, and this development took place in the era before the rise of the internet and even routine use of e-mail. Also, culturally speaking, alumni groups and loyalties are probably stronger in Korea than in the U.S.

Fulbright Agrees with ETS to Supervise TOEFL in Korea

As touched on in earlier chapters, both the teaching of English and the testing of Korean grantees for English proficiency were concerns of the Korea Fulbright Program from its very inception. More specifically, as noted in Chapter 2, both the U.S. embassy and the Fulbright Commission recognized in the early 1960s that the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), created by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) in Princeton, New Jersey, would inevitably have an impact on educational exchange activities. However,

107

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History it was only two decades later, in the early 1980s, that Fulbright first considered becoming directly involved with large-scale English testing in South Korea. The topic of a possible agreement with ETS to administer the TOEFL in Korea first came up at the board meeting of February 19, 1982. The chairman, James Hoyt, explained the background of TOEFL administration and said there had been discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of KAEC administering the program. Hoyt indicated that the embassy would like to see KAEC handle the program in Korea. Chung Chung-Kil stated that the Ministry of Education fully supported KAEC’s application to administer the TOEFL and that it saw no need to endorse any other organization, nor would it grant educational foundation status to any other organization seeking to enter Korea to handle TOEFL at that time. The commission unanimously recommended that KAEC make a formal application to ETS to administer the TOEFL in Korea.13 There were related considerations behind this decision. At that time, the Council on International Educational Exchange was administering the TOEFL in Japan and naturally assumed it would be most likely to get control in Korea, too. But in Korea in 1982, it was much better to have the test administered by an agency such as KAEC with government relationships on both sides. This was correct, and, even more importantly, ETS came to understand that it was correct. At the board meeting of May 12, 1983, the commission was formally informed that ETS had sent a letter indicating its interest in having KAEC carry out responsibilities for the administration of the TOEFL in Korea. It indicated that arrangements could be made to initiate the program with the Fulbright Commission’s cooperation beginning in April 1984.14 At the board meeting of November 21, 1983, the TOEFL was again discussed. Mark Peterson’s memo to board members in advance of this meeting included all of the detailed correspondence between KAEC (Frederick Carriere, director of the Fulbright Student Advisory Service) and ETS regarding KAEC beginning administration of the TOEFL in Korea. At the board meeting of December 12, 1983, the members spent about 90 minutes discussing the TOEFL project. Carriere was present to answer questions and elaborate on the written materials that had been distributed to all of the members one week before the meeting. The commission voted unanimously to undertake the administration of the TOEFL agency for Korea with two provisos: that the chairman ascertain that administering such an agency was indeed within the scope of KAEC activities, and that the TOEFL agree to increase its level of financial support of the agency should costs exceed those agreed upon initially between the secretariat and the TOEFL. With the additional space requirements of the TOEFL, it was apparent that the commission would need larger quarters. The chairman suggested that a market survey

108

The 1980s

Korea’s Domestic and International Political Transformation be conducted expeditiously, and the commission agreed that such a survey should be conducted as quickly as possible. On May 1, 1984, the Korean-American Educational Commission initiated a contractual relationship with ETS to administer TOEFL activity in Korea. The TOEFL was widely used by American colleges and universities for the admission of foreign students whose native language was not English, and for that reason it related directly to the central Fulbright mission of promoting educational and intercultural exchange between the U.S. and Korea. This was recognized from the very beginning of the relationship with ETS, and consequently KAEC, along with ETS, paid particular attention to matters of test security. The agreement with ETS was implemented smoothly, and delivery of TOEFL tests in Korea took place without a glitch until 1986. At the board meeting of September 9, 1986, the executive director provided the board with background on a recent delay in delivery of TOEFL score reports. They had been delayed due to problems in the DHL distribution system, which had reportedly been corrected. He also noted that the number of Korean students purported to have been affected by this delay was grossly exaggerated by the local mass media.15 On July 1, 1987, KAEC assumed administrative responsibilities for the Graduate Record Examination (GRE). The GRE was, and still is, widely used for admission to a broad range of graduate programs in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences. Exactly one year later, on July 1, 1988, KAEC took over administrative responsibilities in Korea for the Graduate Management Admissions Test (GMAT). That test was the most widely used requirement for admission to MBA programs in the U.S. and other nations.

A Deep But Short Bond with the Fulbright Program Kim Kyong Dong Emeritus Professor, Sociology, Seoul National University

My memory of association with the Fulbright Program is hazy. As I recall, it goes back, if I am not mistaken, to the late 1950s, when I was engaged in a study of

109

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

rural communities under the guidance of Professor Lee Man-gap. This empirical study, I came to realize later, was made possible through Fulbright support. My direct association with the Fulbright Program included participation in interviews and assessment of Fulbright candidates, both students and scholars. I recall having attended meetings at the office of the Fulbright Commission in Ankuk-dong. When I was invited as a research fellow for the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, my travel was supported by the Fulbright Program. Through that connection, I became a member of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association. Being engrossed in other things, I have rarely participated in the Fulbright events. To my regret, I have not provided any service or contribution to the Fulbright Program. From my personal viewpoint based on my experience with it, I can proudly say that the Fulbright Program has stood Korean society in good stead and made a remarkable contribution to the consolidation of the relationship between Korea and the United States. The advent of the Fulbright Program coincided with the take-off stage of the Korean economy in the early 1960s, and the scholarships it made available to Korean intellectuals were like manna from Heaven. There is no denying that the Fulbright Program was the forerunner in producing Korean elites who assumed leadership in various fields of national development. The Fulbrighters in Korea were not confined to scholarly endeavors; a considerable number have been entrusted with key positions in politics, business, and public service. My study on Korean elites discloses that these elites have been in a position to lead the tasks of national development. The major feature of the Fulbright Program is a two-way flow of scholars and students. In addition to the opportunities for Koreans to study in the United States, a considerable number of American scholars and students have been invited to engage in education and research in Korea. They have educated Koreans and served as a window onto American society and culture. Their contribution to this aspect of the relationship is something worthy of special attention. On their part, the American counterparts endeavored to understand Korean society and culture. Their research on various aspects of Korean society helped to enhance the visibility of Korea in the world, thus making so many contributions to a better understanding of Korea. In a nutshell, the Fulbright Program has played a leadership role in cultural diplomacy, thereby holding the two countries close together. On the Korean side,

110

The 1980s

Korea’s Domestic and International Political Transformation

there are organizations that were established much later with their own goals of promoting international understanding of Korea. Although their roles are not the same as those of the Fulbright Program, many of their activities were the result of benchmarking the Fulbright Program. It is hoped that the Fulbright Program will be a trailblazer in a new innovative program contributive to the mutual benefits of the two countries.

Development of the Fulbright Student Advisory Service

Educational advising began developing as a profession in the mid-1970s, stimulated by the growth of international educational exchange between the U.S. and other countries.16 By the start of the 1980s, this growth had begun to impact the counseling activities of the Fulbright Commission in Seoul. At the board meeting of January 8, 1980, the commission authorized the executive director and chairman to negotiate an amendment to the contract of Frederick Carriere, the student counselor, allowing him to work more than the twenty hours specified under the current contract. The motion was passed unanimously. At the board meeting of June 27, 1980, the commission authorized the secretariat to spend up to $3,000 to improve the facilities in the counseling center. A new counter system was installed, with the result that a clerk had to be hired to man the counter and handle mundane requests while referring specific questions to the student counselors. The motion passed unanimously. At the same board meeting, a negotiating committee was formed to work out contract renewals with the executive director and the student counselor.17 As the activities of the Fulbright Student Advisory Service expanded, so did the importance of participation in the annual conferences of NAFSA: Association of International Educators. The NAFSA conferences provided a valuable professional networking and information-gathering opportunity to learn about practices at other Fulbright Commissions and advising centers around the world. At the meeting of October 16, 1981, there was consideration of travel by KAEC staff members to Manila for a conference on U.S. higher education. Carriere, Nahm Chunghee, and Kim Sunsook were authorized to attend the conference as proposed, as well as to visit appropriate centers in Hong Kong and Tokyo on the way to and from Manila.18

111

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

Introduction of Computerized Counseling

At the commission meeting of February 19, 1982, the board approved a proposal for the counseling center to begin a computerized counseling program, and the chairman was authorized to sign the proposed contact. It was further agreed that the fee should be set at 7,000 won initially, to be reviewed later if appropriate. The computerized counseling service operated through the Foreign Student Information Clearinghouse, a service of the College Board. It helped students select an appropriate college from over 2,000 in the computer, based on criteria selected by the student. At the board meeting of May 6, 1982, the purchase of a copier for the counseling center was approved in principle, and the secretariat was asked to investigate the matter and establish a contract with the approval of the fiscal committee. An agreement was reached to postpone the decision on the purchase of a microfilm reader/printer until the matter could be studied more.19 At the board meeting of October 6, 1982, counseling was again on the agenda. In a memo to board members prior to the meeting, executive director Mark Peterson noted, “The demand for accurate counseling has skyrocketed with the easing of regulations for Korean students to go abroad to study. The Counseling Center has seen a steady increase in visitors. Recently, several commercial centers have opened and, while charging fees, provide questionable service. We have responded by increasing services such as copying, the microfiche catalogue, and the computer counseling service. We recommend that a committee be formed to recruit, interview, and hire a counseling assistant.” The board formed a committee as recommended. In his memo, Peterson noted that “Fred Carriere has brought a new level of expertise and professionalism to the student counselor position. He has greatly rationalized the operations of the center and has been recognized at international conferences for his competence.” The commission voted to renew the student counselor’s contract with a 10% increase in salary.20 Upon assuming the position of executive director nearly two years later, Carriere proposed that the position in the counseling center be offered to Joseph Nowakowski, with the proviso that the initial contract be written for one year only with renewal conditional upon satisfactor y job performance during that initial year. The recommendation was that Nowakowski be offered a beginning salary of $18,000 a year and that the position be titled “associate director for student advisory and TOEFL services.” Of the salary, $12,000 was covered by ETS through the TOEFL agency agreement.21 Although the associate director’s title referred to both advising and testing, in reality

112

The 1980s

Korea’s Domestic and International Political Transformation the two activities have always been closely related. The advising or counseling of students for study in the U.S. includes the provision of information on how to prepare for, register for, and take the TOEFL and other high-stakes academic admission tests. In 1985, a video viewing room was constructed in Fulbright’s counseling center.22 By that point in time, U.S. colleges and universities were beginning to use video materials to promote their educational opportunities. At the board meeting of September 22, 1987, the executive director noted that a fulltime internship position in the counseling service for an American student had been included in the last program proposal and announced by IIE. He proposed to offer part-time internships to three Yonsei University International Division students to fill the position. Several commission members voiced serious reservations regarding the suggested length of the internship, the amount of the stipend, and various other aspects of this new concept. However, Carriere was authorized to make the three internship offers proposed, but only on a trial basis for a period of no more than three months.23 At the board meeting of February 16, 1988, the commission accepted the secretariat’s recommendation to create a new position for a full-time Korean counselor and to retain one half-time internship position in the Fulbright Student Advisory Service (FSAS) after careful review of the current and proposed staffing arrangements and their relative costeffectiveness.24 At the board meeting of December 1, 1988, the commission accepted with regret the resignation of Joseph Nowakowski. He gave informal notice of his intention to resign as

Kim Nam Hyeong counsels a student at the Fulbright Student Advisory Service.

113

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History associate director and indicated he would be leaving around mid-January 1989. A search committee was appointed to fill his position.25 At the board meeting of January 26, 1989, the board members approved the appointment of William H. Drummond, Jr. as associate director for advising and testing on the recommendation of the search committee. It was further agreed that Drummond would be offered a two-year contract, with the standard salary adjustment at the beginning of the second year, after a probationary period of three months. Considering exchange rate trends, the board also agreed, at Douglas Short’s suggestion, to fix Drummond’s salary in won at the prevailing rate on the day the contract was signed.

Funding

At the board meeting of March 18, 1983, the level of contribution from the two governments was discussed. The commitment from the Korean government was the same as the previous year in Korean currency, at 255,834,000 won ($340,000). The U.S. contribution was to be at least $475,000, which was less than its final allocation for the prior year ($620,000). Adjustments to balance the number of grants available for Koreans versus Americans were discussed. At the board meeting of December 12, 1983, the tight budget situation was discussed. The possibility was raised that no senior researchers would be able to go to the U.S. that year. Various ways to obtain additional funds were discussed, including approaching both governments about the possibility of year-end fallout funds and setting up an alumni association that could be tapped for donations.26 At the KAEC board meeting of August 31, 1984, attachments presented to the board included a cable to Washington summarizing funding for KAEC in Program Year 1984.27 At the board meeting of November 21, 1986, the executive director advised the board that the Korean won appeared virtually certain to continue appreciating against the U.S. dollar. As a substantial portion of the commitments against U.S. dollar funds currently held by KAEC were to be paid in Korean won, the commission was in danger of suffering an exchange loss in the range of $10,000 to $20,000 during the coming year. The board approved an immediately conversion into won of the portion of current U.S. dollar funds to be expended in that currency, as well as its investment in such a way as the treasurer deemed appropriate.28

114

The 1980s

Korea’s Domestic and International Political Transformation

Infrastructure

At its meeting of June 24, 1982, the commission considered an invitation from the U.S. government to move into space in the International Communication Agency building. The invitation was outlined in a June 23 letter to the KAEC chairman from Bernard Lavin, the public affairs officer. It read, in part: “President Reagan has consistently taken the position that the cost of government should be reduced and ways and means found to effect savings to the United States Government and the American taxpayer. As we experienced this past year and may anticipate for the foreseeable future, funds for the programs of the International Communication Agency are increasingly under pressure for reductions, just as so many other U.S. programs are being similarly affected.”29 Lavin went on to detail the results of a cost-savings study that the embassy had undertaken in cooperation with KAEC. The government would offer rent-free space to KAEC on the third floor of the building, which had housed the American Cultural Center. In addition to rent, savings would be realized on parking, utilities, telephone charges, and custodial salaries. The study estimated that the total measureable savings to the Fulbright Commission would be approximately $1,500 per month, a considerable sum in the early 1980s.30 In response to Lavin’s proposal, it was moved, seconded, and approved that the commission offices should remain in their current location until and unless financial conditions warranted reconsideration.31 The matter of office space for Fulbright Commission operations would not come up again until early 1984, when additional space was needed to accommodate TOEFL operations. At the board meeting of January 9, 1984, there was once again discussion of a proposal to move to new office space. A survey conducted on behalf of the commission revealed that the KOHAP space proposed at the last meeting was financially attractive. An agreement was reached to hold negotiations with KOHAP until Professor Nah Gun-sok could examine another possibility behind the government’s integrated office building.32 At a meeting later in January, the commission authorized the treasurer and chairman to sign a contract with the KOHAP Building when all terms were acceptable and the commission’s lawyer had approved them. At its meeting of March 13, 1984, the commission was informed about the signing of a rental contract with the management of the KOHAP Building for new office space. Notification was also given of the removal of the secretariat to the new quarters, scheduled for March 19, 1984. The new address would be KOHAP Building 403, 89-4 Kyongun-dong, Chongno-gu, Seoul.33 KAEC was to remain in this location for 16 years, by far the longest stay in any leased quarters, and only moved out in 2000 with the

115

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

Fulbright testing agency and educational services at the Fulbright Commission headquarters in the KOHAP Building in Jong-no, Seoul.

purchase of its own building. At the board meeting of May 18, 1987, the secretariat presented a recommendation regarding housing for the executive director, since the lease on the house he was currently occupying had expired two months before. The recommendation suggested that the commission seriously consider buying a house, rather than renting or making a chonsei arrangement. After a lengthy discussion of the pros and cons of the housing option recommended by the secretariat, a decision was made to enter into a rental agreement for this housing on the proposed terms subject to the following conditions: receipt of a satisfactory engineering report on the house; official confirmation of the appraised value of the property; and favorable legal review of the terms of the rental agreement. In addition, the commission decided to seek formal approval of its right to hold real property and determine the procedure to be followed in disposing of such property should the activities of the commission ever be terminated.34 At the board meeting of December 9, 1987, as permission to purchase the house provided for the executive director’s use in the commission’s name had not been obtained, KAEC’s lawyer and other experts suggested the problem might be resolved by registering ownership of the house in the name of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association. The board instructed the secretariat to resolve the housing issue in as advantageous a manner

116

The 1980s

Korea’s Domestic and International Political Transformation as possible. It also empowered John Reid, Kim Suhng Dohng, Paek Ki Moon, and Frederick Carriere to work out an appropriate legal solution. The information revolution mentioned at the outset of this chapter affected not only Fulbright Korea’s program priorities but also its day-to-day administrative operations. In his executive director’s report at the board meeting of January 26, 1989, Carriere described the progress being made in the computerization of the office, and the board agreed to his request for authorization to spend up to $12,000 for IBM hardware. He also noted that it was time to replace one of the commission vehicles and that the estimated cost of a suitable replacement vehicle was $11,000-$13,000.35 At the board meeting of September 28, 1989, the executive director, in his report to the board, noted that with the beginning of the new fiscal year the secretariat’s administrative and fiscal record-keeping would be completely computerized. This marked a major advance in efforts to upgrade and streamline fiscal operations.36

117

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

118

Chapter 5

The 1990s

Mobile Communications, the Web, and Surging Interest in English

The 1990s were a decade shaped by the communications revolution, globalization, and the shock of the Asian economic crisis, or “IMF Crisis,” as it became known in Korea. Thanks to the invention of the World Wide Web early in the decade, the internet began its rapid growth. Later, the continued development of smaller and more powerful semiconductors drove the worldwide spread of mobile communication. Generally, the communication revolution took place unevenly around the globe, occurring first in the advanced, industrialized nations and months or years later in the developing nations of the world. In South Korea, not only did the information revolution occur more rapidly than in most other nations, but information and communications technology (ICT) was a major factor that propelled the nation’s overall economic growth. By the end of the 1990s, South Korea led the world in broadband internet penetration, was a major player in the semiconductor, display, and television industries, and had become the first nation in the world to commercialize CDMA technology and build a nationwide mobile network based upon it. During the 1990s, Korea established itself as one of the world’s advanced industrialized nations. If any formal certification of this status were needed, it came in 1996 when Korea formally joined the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a group of thirty of the world’s leading market economies. Politically, the 1990s ushered in South Korea’s first democratically elected civilian governments. Kim Young Sam took office as President in February 1993, and Kim Dae

119

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History Jung prevailed in the next presidential election and took office in February 1998. During Kim Young Sam’s term in office, two former presidents, Roh Tae Woo and Chun Doo Hwan, were tried and sent to prison for their role in the 1979 coup that brought Chun to power. After the election of Kim Dae Jung in December 1997, the two former presidents were pardoned after spending about two years behind bars. By December 1997, the nation was in the teeth of an economic crisis that led to a $57 billion-plus rescue by the International Monetary Fund, and Kim Dae Jung reportedly agreed to the pardon to help unify the country and allow it to concentrate on the economic crisis.1 The “IMF Crisis,” as it came to be widely known within Korea, had a dramatic effect on South Korea’s economy. It caused widespread unemployment and the bankruptcy of many businesses. Fortunately, the effect was limited to the short term and hastened some needed reforms. Consequently, the country’s economy experienced a sustained period of growth during the first decade of the 21st century. As in earlier decades, the changing character of the times had an impact on Fulbright Korea. Both the advances in digital communications and globalization more generally were factors in the continued increase in study abroad by Korean students, along with the study of English and taking of the TOEFL, the TOEIC, and other English tests. The private sector institutes, or hagwons, for both study abroad counseling and English language testing burgeoned during this decade. South Korea’s rapid adoption of digital information and communication technologies had a direct effect on Fulbright Korea. During the 1990s, the commission continued to network computers in its student advising center, introduced computer-based testing for the GMAT and GRE, and published its first web sites. The decade began with heavy use of fax machines and ended with almost exclusive use of e-mail for routine administrative communication with New York and Washington, as well as in-country and internal communication. The broadly based growth of interest in English instruction in Korea also influenced the Fulbright Program. Most notably, in 1992 the commission started the Fulbright English Teaching Assistant (ETA) program, one that would grow to become the largest single American grant program before the turn of the century.

The 40th Anniversary Commemoration

As noted at the beginning of this book, the decade of the 1990s began with a very special event in the history of Fulbright Korea. Senator J. William Fulbright and his wife Harriet Mayor Fulbright visited Korea on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the program,

120

The 1990s

Mobile Communications, the Web, and Surging Interest in English

Fulbright alumni Lee Byong Ho and former Prime Minister Han Seung Soo attend the 40th anniversary of the Fulbright Program in Korea.

which was celebrated in Seoul on September 20-21, 1990. Prime Minister Kang Young Hoon, Korea Fulbright Alumni Association president Hahn Sang Joon, and numerous Fulbright alumni attended the various functions. Senator Fulbright’s address at the 40th anniversary commemoration was a highlight of the event.

Reflections on the Exchange Program: An Address to Commemorate the 40th Anniversary of the Fulbright Program in Korea

The Korea Fulbright Alumni Association Newsletter account of the 40th anniversary event noted that “after a very heartfelt introduction by U.S. Ambassador Gregg, former Senator Fulbright delivered an eloquent congratulatory address in a deep, healthy voice.” Senator Fulbright began his address with the following words: I am honored to be here with you at this 40th anniversary celebration of the Fulbright Program in Korea. It is especially pleasing to see the arms race recede and cooperation among the major powers dramatically increase. We may now turn our thoughts toward visions of life in a peaceful world, and I am pleased to be invited to share some of my thoughts with you, especially in regard to the goals of

121

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History the educational exchange program I helped to establish over 40 years ago. My special interest in international education began during my three years as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University in the twenties. Before going to England, I had never been to the East or West Coast of the United States, and the scholarship transformed my life. That experience, together with the horror of the unprecedented nuclear destruction of the Japanese cities, prompted me to introduce the educational exchange legislation in 1945 in the United States Senate.2 Later in his address, Senator Fulbright noted that “conflicts between nations result from deliberate decisions made by the leaders of nations, and those decisions are influenced and determined by the experience and judgment of the leaders and their advisers. Therefore, our security and the peace of the world are dependent upon the character and intellect of the leaders rather than upon the weapons of destruction now accumulated in enormous and costly stockpiles.” Regarding the impact of new technology in the future, Senator Fulbright had the following to say: “It is clear that the steady increase in international trade and cooperative ventures in all fields will continue. The future will surely bring faster flights, more television channels, and better phone systems, but none of these symbols of progress automatically create greater empathy or cooperation among us. International educational exchange has forced many thousands to try on foreign shoes, to see the world through another’s eyes. Advanced science and technology are no substitute for the slow process of learning to walk differently, to see clearly from another perspective.” The Senator concluded his address in Seoul as follows: There is a “multiplier effect” in international education, and it carries the only real possibility of changing our manner of thinking about the world, and therefore of changing the world. For every university professor whose outlook has been broadened by study in another country, many thousands of students will gain some measure of intercultural perspective. For every business person who has studied abroad, many associates are likely to gain some appreciation of the essential futility of nationalistic economic policies and of the way in which an international division of labor benefits all countries. For every politician or diplomat who, through study elsewhere, has gained some appreciation of the world as a human community, untold numbers of ordinary citizens, as well as their leaders, may be guided away from parochialism and narrow nationalism to broader, more fruitful perspectives.

122

The 1990s

Mobile Communications, the Web, and Surging Interest in English Senator Fulbright’s remarks about the “multiplier effect” of international education have a particular resonance in Korea. Based on sheer numbers, more Americans have experienced Korea while in the military service than in any educational capacity. However, the impact of those who have come to Korea and Koreans who have gone to the U.S. under Fulbright and other educational exchange programs may be larger over the long run than the numbers alone would indicate.

Establishment of the Korea Fulbright Foundation

In conjunction with the 40th anniversary of the Fulbright Program in Korea and Senator Fulbright’s visit, the Korean Fulbright Alumni Association announced the establishment of a tax-exempt foundation. The aim was to promote more active educational and cultural exchanges and to encourage closer relationships among all Fulbright alumni in Korea and throughout the world. A committee was formed to prepare for establishment of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Foundation. Initial funding for the foundation totaled about $70,000, made up of money from the “centennial fund” established by the Korean-American Educational Commission to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Korean-American diplomatic relations in 1983, alumni dues, and money raised during the commemoration of the 40th anniversary of Fulbright in Korea. The Korea Fulbright Alumni Association and the Korea Fulbright Foundation will be dealt with in greater detail in Chapter 8.

The Hawaii Conference of the Fulbright Association

As if all of the events in Seoul were not enough, the Fulbright Association, a membership organization of U.S. Fulbright alumni, held its 13th Annual Conference in Honolulu, Hawaii on October 5-7, 1990, on the theme of “Pacific Focus 1990: Change and Challenge.” The conference was co-sponsored by the University of Hawaii and the East-West Center, underscoring the importance of educational exchanges in the future development of the Asia-Pacific region. The sixteen participants from Korea and eight from Japan constituted the largest national delegations from the Asia-Pacific region. The conference attracted nearly 200 participants from 14 countries, including most of the Asia-Pacific nations and Peru, Mexico, Kenya, Hungary, and West Germany. For the Korea participants, the conference offered a chance to see Senator Fulbright and his wife again in one of the more pleasant settings on U.S. soil. The Fulbright alumni who participated in the Honolulu conference passed the following resolution: “In 1945, after the end of the painful Second World War, a scholarship foundation was established through Senator Fulbright’s ceaseless effort

123

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

The Hawaii Conference of the Fulbright Association held its 13th annual conference in Honolulu, Hawaii from October 5 to 7, 1990, on the theme “Pacific Focus 1990: Change and Challenge.”

and persistent endeavor. Participation in this meeting left us with a renewed sense of responsibility as recipients of this award. We must therefore be pioneers who contribute to ending wars and to solidifying world peace.” 3

Leadership Changes in the 1990s

On September 18, 1990, just days before the 40th anniversary of the Fulbright Program in Korea, Shim Jai Ok became the first woman to hold the position of deputy director of the Korean-American Educational Commission. Shim had started work in the administrative offices of KAEC in December 1977 and served there for 12 years. The Fulbright Korea Alumni Newsletter noted, “In preparation for the visit of Senator Fulbright and his wife, Shim showed sincere responsibility and devotion, scheduling and planning related events, including the fundraising dinner, and working past midnight for over ten days. She married Chun Ha Yong, M.D., an alumnus of Seoul National University Medical School, and has three sons.”4 The Fulbright Commission experienced two other major changes in leadership during the 1990s. The first of these came following Frederick Carriere’s medical evacuation to the U.S. on January 14, 1993. At the January 20 meeting of the Fulbright Commission,

124

The 1990s

Mobile Communications, the Web, and Surging Interest in English chairman John A. Fredenburg explained to the members about Carriere’s sudden illness and subsequent hospitalization for viral meningitis and encephalitis. Carriere had informed the board, through his memorandum of January 14, 1993, that the doctor had advised him to seek extended medical treatment in the U.S. On that same date, he had departed Seoul for New York, accompanied by a nurse. In his memo to the board, Carriere requested a working leave whereby he could carry on certain responsibilities to allow for essential managerial continuity. Those areas of responsibility were outlined in his memorandum. The board passed a motion accepting Carriere’s offer to work on important KAEC matters to the extent possible while on sick leave and expressed its appreciation for his willingness to continue to fulfill some duties despite his illness.5 In another memo to the board prior to the very next board meeting in February, Carriere wrote, “When I left Seoul, I thought there was only a slight chance that I would be able to return. Based on the results of the additional tests and medical consultations I have had since arriving in the U.S., I can now say with certainty that I will not be able to return and continue in my position. Under the arrangements approved in the last meeting, I will continue to perform as many of my duties as feasible. At Mr. Fredenburg’s suggestion, I will submit a formal letter of resignation around the time my ‘working sick leave’ period ends or when my successor is hired, whichever is sooner. Now that my situation is clear, I recommend that a search be initiated both in the U.S. and in Korea at the earliest opportunity.” 6 By the time of the next board meeting in April, the search committee had met, ads had been placed in two successive editions of The Chronicle of Higher Education, and thirty applications had been received. USIA had been asked to form a panel to do the initial screening. Carriere and members of CIES were included on the panel.7 An early June board meeting was devoted entirely to review and discussion of the candidates, and the pool was narrowed down to eight finalists.8 At its June 23 meeting, the Fulbright Commission endorsed two candidates, a principal and one alternate. At the same meeting, Fredenburg explained to the board that Mark Peterson, former executive director and now a professor of Korean history at Brigham Young University, would be available to serve as a short-term executive director if needed and if approved by the board. At the time, the commission not only was dealing with the task of finding a new executive director but had also experienced difficulties with the incumbent associate director. After an extended discussion of Frederick Carriere’s recommendation that associate director Leonard Trudo be dismissed, the board voted to hire Mark Peterson as

125

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History executive director for the short term and to extend a contract to Trudo that would include a 90-day probation period.9 The commission meeting of July 2, 1993, dealt largely with changes in key staff positions at the secretariat. Carriere participated in this board meeting, his last as executive director, via teleconference. Fredenburg reported that the principal candidate had agreed to serve as executive director and that a contract should be ready within two weeks. The contract was to be similar to that of the present executive director, except for the salary. The board also approved offering a contract to Peterson to serve as interim executive director for four to six months starting in late July. Finally, the board passed a motion to request Trudo’s resignation under six specific terms: two months’ salary, return travel for him and family, continuing insurance coverage, use of an apartment for up to two months, visa sponsorship for two months, and reimbursement for moving costs similar to his relocation to Korea.10 As it happened, unexpected problems arose in the final negotiation of contract terms with the principal candidate, and he declined the offer to become the next executive director. By September, Mark Peterson had assumed the position of executive director on an interim basis. At the commission meeting of September 21, 1993, chairman Bill Maurer reported that. an offer had been presented to the alternate candidate, Ray Weisenborn. He added that Weisenborn had accepted the contract offer and signed and returned the contract, indicating that he would be available to start in December. 11 Weisenborn actually began work with the commission around the first of the year and attended his first board meeting as executive director on February 24, 1994. Shortly after Weisenborn’s arrival, the commission initiated a search for an associate director to fill the vacancy left by Trudo’s departure. The search resulted in a decision to hire Gary D. Walter, who began work as associate director on October 3, 1994.12 In 1996, the commission conducted a search and interviewed three candidates for the position of associate director, since Walter had announced his intention to leave that position by year’s end. In November 1996, James F. Larson was hired as associate director, with major responsibilities for managing the commission’s technology, its advising center, and the introduction of computer-based testing, which had begun under Walter. After nearly four years of service as executive director, Weisenborn resigned in November 1997, and the search began for a new director. By the time of the commission meeting of March 4, 1998, twenty-six applications had been received. Interviews took place during the latter half of that month.13 Meeting in executive session on March 30, 1998, the search/interview subcommittee reported that a total of 26 applications had been received for the executive director

126

The 1990s

Mobile Communications, the Web, and Surging Interest in English position. Following interviews, two candidates were recommended to the entire board for consideration. In the ensuing discussion, the board members discussed the merits of the two principal candidates and selected as the new executive director Horace H. Underwood, Professor of English at Yonsei University. The decision was unanimous thanks to Underwood’s excellent qualifications, thorough knowledge of Korea, and fluency in the Korean language.14

Program Priorities

The 1990s saw both innovation and continuity in the commission’s overall program priorities.

Grant Programs

The major innovation that affected Fulbright Korea’s program priorities during the 1990s and beyond was unquestionably the introduction of the Fulbright English Teaching Assistant (ETA) program. The Fulbright ETA Program At the commission meeting of February 1, 1991, discussion and approval of the Program Year 1992-93 program proposal centered on the new English Teaching Assistantship (ETA) program, which was the only significant innovation planned for the program year. The Ministry of Education representative on the board initiated the discussion by indicating that the MOE would cooperate with KAEC in implementing this new program. For lack of a better expression, it was agreed that the announcement should specify that the applicant should be a “native speaker of standard American English” to discourage candidates with strong regional accents or unusual speech habits from applying. Concern was also expressed about the high probability that some of the cooperating schools might not accept Korean-American candidates, but the members were not able to reach a consensus on the proper response to this controversial issue. The commission approved forwarding the program proposal to the Board of Foreign Scholarships and United States Information Agency.15 At the commission meeting of February 4, 1991, Frederick Carriere sent a memo to board members that outlined the new ETA program. It began as follows. The Korean-American Educational Commission (KAEC) and the Republic of Korea’s Ministry of Education (MOE) recently agreed to collaborate in providing a new type of opportunity in Korea for younger American students who are either

127

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History graduating seniors or recent college graduates. KAEC will manage this program on behalf of the MOE beginning with the 1992-93 program year. A student selected for the program will receive the benefits established for KAEC’s “Fulbright Graduate Intern” category, which include roundtrip travel, a monthly living allowance from a sponsoring institution, and some in-kind benefits incidental to Korean language study and cultural orientation activities.16 The memo went on to specify that up to twelve American students would spend one or more years in Korea as English language teaching assistants in Korean primary and middle schools. The basic teaching assignment of an ETA would be approximately 12 hours per week and involve co-teaching with a certified Korean teacher as well as taking the class over periodically for conversation lessons. The ETA would be required to spend an additional two to three hours per week assisting the teachers in preparing lessons, correcting homework assignments, and performing other related tasks. Although the new internship was not a study award per se, independent study and research that did not interfere with assigned responsibilities was encouraged from the start of the program. Due to the less than half-time nature of teaching responsibilities, it was envisioned that an ETA would have sufficient time to undertake formal Korean language study, which was strongly encouraged. Other formal study opportunities were also encouraged. In most cases, ETAs were to be assigned to schools located in major urban centers such as Seoul, Pusan, Taegu, Taejon, and Kwangju where there were universities with programs of study for international students. Apart from the basic academic qualifications required of all students involved in Fulbright-sponsored programs, including graduation from an accredited institution by the beginning date of the award, the only specific eligibility requirements established for an ETA were that he or she must be 1) unmarried and not over 30 years of age, and 2) a well-rounded and articulate native speaker of English with the initiative necessary for teaching conversational English and basic writing skills to Korean schoolchildren. ETAs were required to participate in a two- to three-week orientation/training workshop prior to beginning their assignments. Also, participation in at least two more in-service training institutes during each year of the assignment were made mandatory. An ETA was to receive a monthly stipend of 600,000 won (approximately $800) from the participating school as a basic living allowance. The costs of meals and lodging were to be covered from this allowance, but the schools were asked to help in arranging affordable lodgings. Normally, an ETA would live in a boarding house or with a host family, often under conditions that were spartan by typical American standards.

128

The 1990s

Mobile Communications, the Web, and Surging Interest in English Although the most obvious immediate objective of the program was to enhance the teaching of English in Korean primary and middle schools, from KAEC’s point of view several long-term objectives deserved attention. Most importantly, KAEC believed that the program, over a period of several years, would help to foster the development of a “critical mass” of young Americans who would have a firsthand knowledge of Korea and at least some basic Korean language skills. With such qualifications, KAEC believed that these young Americans would be prepared to make more meaningful contributions to the development of U.S.-Korea relations throughout their future academic and professional careers. Also, along with developing a greater capacity to use English for international communication, KAEC believed that the young Koreans exposed to an American at an early age were likely to form a more objective impression of the U.S. than might be the case otherwise.17 At the commission meeting of November 19, 1991, an agenda item dealt with Fulbright ETA pre-departure training and orientation. Fully concurring with the secretariat’s assessment of the importance of pre-departure training and orientation for the ETAs, the board approved a proposal on such training from the American Cultural Exchange. Frederick Carriere reported that he had just learned from IIE that 24 applicants had been recruited for the program.18 At its meeting of December 15, 1992, the Fulbright Commission considered a proposal to adjust the ETA program benefits. After clarifying that this proposed adjustment in benefits was intended solely as a stopgap measure for that year’s ETAs, the board approved the request to provide them with a Korean language study allowance comparable to what Fulbright student or junior research award recipients received. The need for a long-term solution was recognized in the discussion. Carriere indicated that he had been working on a proposal that would be offered to the board for its consideration at a later meeting. He noted in advance that the core of the proposal would be an expansion of the pre-service orientation program to include eight weeks of intensive Korean language study. There was also a discussion of adjustment problems. Carriere reported that one ETA had just requested early termination and that there was a chance that at least one other might do so as well.19 Problems with the ETA program were also discussed at the commission meeting of February 23, 1993. Everyone agreed that the ETA program was a worthy one, but that it needed to be improved. The secretariat’s view was that KAEC needed to recruit a consultant to review the program. The secretariat proposed that the board retain the

129

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History services of Andrea Heiss. This was approved with no objections. The consulting service would target the following year’s ETA program.20 A year later, the ETA program was again on the commission’s agenda. In his February 16 memo to board members in advance of the meeting, Ray Weisenborn presented information about two memos received from the Ministry of Education regarding the ETA program. The first asked for an accounting of how additional ETA funds would be used. The second mentioned MOE plans to expand the conversational English program into the latter three grades of primary school.21 The commission meeting of September 6, 1994, was attended by Craig Morris, the new assistant education counselor, who helped with the report on the 1994 ETA training program.22 As of 1995, a two-week language training program was conducted at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma, Washington. ETAs departed Tacoma as a group, and for the second year a three-week training program was conducted at Kangwon National University in Chuncheon.23 At the board meeting of December 17, 1998, the commission considered participation in the Fulbright Summer Institute by a Korean high school teacher. In the summer of 1999, USIA’s Branch for the Study of the United States would offer a “Fulbright Summer Institute for the Study of the U.S. for Foreign Secondary School Teachers and Teacher Trainers.” This was a six-week graduate-level seminar that provided a multidisciplinary examination of U.S. society to enhance teaching focused on the U.S. Fulbright commissions were urged by USIA to nominate participants. At that time, the ETA program was having a positive impact on the middle and high schools involved. There would be a multiplier effect if an ETA co-teacher, or another teacher from an ETA school, could be sent to the U.S. for this six-week program. The schools were already favorably disposed to learn about the U.S. because of their relationship with Fulbright. In addition, the availability of such an institute grant would be a powerful motivating factor to keep schools involved in the ETA program in the future. Also, since most Fulbright grant programs involved both nations and travel both ways, such a summer institute would be a first step in providing binational balance to the ETA program. The secretariat would solicit nominations of, screen, and recommend at a future board meeting the person to be sent. The cost, $8,300 for that year, could be met from the budget as had been recently augmented. After consideration, the board voted to accept the secretariat’s recommendation to participate in the USIA Summer Institute program.24

130

The 1990s

Mobile Communications, the Web, and Surging Interest in English

The Study of Korean Religiosity DON BAKER When Fulbright invited me back in the early 1990s, Korea was a much more peaceful place. So instead of watching battles between prodemocracy demonstrators and those who were violently opposed to democracy, I instead wandered around the peninsula looking for evidence of both traditional spirituality and the ways in which that spirituality had been transformed in recent decades. I could have found books in U.S. university libraries on Korean Buddhism, shamanism, Confucianism, and Christianity. But to actually understand what Korean Buddhists, shamans, Confucians, and Christians do, I had to talk with them and watch them engage in their various religious practices. A Fulbright research grant made such direct contact and personal observations possible. The result was a series of articles on various religious organizations in Korea today and in the past, culminating in the 2008 publication of a broad survey of Korea’s pluralistic religious environment, Korean Spirituality (University of Hawaii Press). I would never have been able to write that book, informed as it is by personal encounters with religious Koreans, if the Fulbright Program had not invited me to Korea to research Korean religiosity.25

131

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History Establishment of the IEA Program Another innovation in Fulbright grants during the 1990s was the establishment of the International Education Administrators program. Until 1994, Fulbright Korea had participated jointly with Japan in the Japan-Korea International Education Administrators grant program. It was a three-week program, with only one week taking place in Korea. At the commission meeting of October 6, 1994, executive director Ray Weisenborn reviewed the IEA program for board members and focused on the limited time participants had in Korea and their suggestions that the program time be lengthened. He noted that it would be feasible to withdraw from the program with Japan and administer an independent program in the summer of 1995. The commission authorized the secretariat to proceed with planning a proposal and budget and corresponding with USIS/DC and CIES.26 At its meeting of January 17, 1995, the commission voted to discontinue the collaboration and initiate its independent program of 16 to 18 days for Americans coming to Korea. As the success of the Japan program was marked by two-way exchange, the KAEC secretariat believed that a two-week program for Koreans traveling to the U.S. should also be initiated. The preliminary proposal also stated that the goal of the program would be for American and Korean lEA participants to visit the respective host country and interact with government, education, and private organization personnel to become acquainted with the philosophy, organization, and management of higher education with specific regard to international programs. Participants would attend small group and individual sessions with in-country persons as identified above; visit colleges, universities, and government and private sector agencies; and attend educational conferences when available. Participants would be responsible for making brief subject presentations regarding their home country jobs and responsibilities. American applicants would be recruited and initially screened by CIES, with final selection by the KAEC board. Korean applicants would be recruited and screened by the KAEC secretariat, with final selection by the KAEC board. The respective schedules for Korean and American grantees were arranged so that each group would attend the NAFSA: Association of International Educators conference in the U.S. and meet there, with funding by KAEC.27 After consideration of the proposal, the board authorized the secretariat to proceed with 1) identifying and bringing forward to the board American applicants for the IEA program for the summer of 1995, and 2) identifying and presenting to the board Korean applicants for the IEA grant program. The board would then select final American and Korean grantees at the April board meeting.28

132

The 1990s

Mobile Communications, the Web, and Surging Interest in English American Roving Lecturers At its meeting of December 18, 1996, the commission approved a three-year plan that included the trial of an American roving lecture series. The plan was approved by the board with the understanding that annual review and modifications might be necessary.29 At the commission meeting of March 4, 1998, the secretariat reported that decreased contributions from the Ministry of Education would cause a decrease in the commission’s budget in won. KAEC would also experience decreased revenues from testing. The main effect of these budget shifts would be on the number of American Fulbright grantees. Because of this budget situation and staffing patterns, the secretariat recommended suspension of the American Distinguished Roving Lecturer program, along with the Korean and American IEA programs. The board voted to suspend both programs for one year.30 The Fulbright-MOE Fellowship Program By the early 1990s, the need for study abroad experience in the U.S. was felt even within the Ministry of Education. In particular, those responsible for administering a growing number of Fulbright grants felt the need to upgrade their own experience in order to work more effectively with the Fulbright Commission and U.S. organizations involved with the Fulbright Program. In 1992, the Ministry proposed creation of a Fulbright-MOE Fellowship Program. The purpose of the program, as described in the official written proposal by the MOE, was to “enhance and fortify the cooperative relationship between Korea and the U.S. in the area of education, especially of educational administration or policy making, by securing more American trained or experienced MOE officials who would be familiar with American education and have in-depth understanding of the Korea-U.S. relationship” and to “respond to the growing number of applicants within the MOE who want to have an opportunity to study or practice professionally abroad for his/ her career development as a public official.” 31 In 1994, Kim Wang-bok, director of the International Cooperation Division of the Ministry of Education, wrote to the chairman of the Fulbright Commission concerning the selection process for that year. In his letter, he noted, “The FulbrightMOE Fellowship is exclusively offered to officials in the MOE, and the required fund is independently provided from the Ministry, being separated from the other fellowships of the KAEC.”32 The letter noted that the MOE had reserved some $60,000 to support two Fulbright-MOE Fellowships. Furthermore, the Ministry had tried, but failed, to recruit four candidates for the two awards. Therefore, Kim wrote, “Considering that the Board allowed modifications in the selection process if circumstances warranted, it is my

133

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History opinion that the two semi-finalists, Mr. CHUNG Bong-gun and Miss UM Hye-yean, be interviewed as stated in the Selection Process.”33 The selection process became a critical issue for the Fulbright-MOE Fellowship program, to the extent that executive director Horace H. Underwood in 2003 recommended to the commission that the program be discontinued. The recommendation he made for discussion at the September 19, 2003, meeting of the commission went as follows: “One of the Fulbright grant programs in Korea has been the MOE Fellow program. Despite many years of effort, this program has been unable to meet the worldwide Fulbright criteria of open competition and transparency. When it was begun, it fulfilled a need as there were few opportunities for government officials to study overseas. Now, however, the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs sends almost 200 Korean government officials overseas each year, including five through the Fulbright-related Humphrey program. The Ministry has reduced Fulbright funding in an amount almost equal to the amount of the MOE Fellow grant, based on changes in the dollar-won exchange rate. Furthermore, all Fulbright programs are open to government officials, and KAEC has increasingly emphasized the selection of such professionals in the Korean graduate student program. Thus, the Secretariat recommended that the MOE Fellow program be included in the Korean ‘graduate student’ grant program, and that special efforts be made to urge government officials in the MOE to apply for Fulbright programs.”34 The board discussed the secretariat recommendation at length and accepted a formal written proposal from the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development committing the Ministry to recruiting more openly and to seeking multiple applicants for the MOE fellow in the next recruitment cycle. The board decided to accept the Ministry proposal for the next recruitment cycle. From the program’s inception in 1992 through 2008, the Fulbright Commission awarded a total of ten Fulbright-MOE Fellowships. The Lucent Global Science Scholars Program On December 7, 1999, the commission voted to approve in principle participation with the Institute for International Education (IIE) in a scholarship program funded by Lucent Technologies. The binational agreement that established KAEC did not limit the commission to the Fulbright Program but authorized KAEC to be involved in a broad range of educational exchange and scholarship programs. As one example of such an effort, the commission had for eight years worked with the GE Fund in selecting recipients for GE Scholarships in Engineering and Natural Science. Now, IIE,

134

The 1990s

Mobile Communications, the Web, and Surging Interest in English a cooperating agency in the U.S., had proposed that KAEC cooperate with itself and Lucent Technologies in selecting recipients of Lucent Scholarships. The Lucent program was administered by the same U.S. agencies that administered Fulbright, was firmly in accord with KAEC principles, would give some additional visibility to KAEC, and would provide some financial support as well.35

Non-Grant Programs

South Korea’s rapid economic growth and globalization and the information revolution exerted a strong effect on the Korea Fulbright Commission in the 1990s, especially on its student counseling center and testing activities. At the same time, South Korea’s education sector witnessed the continued strong growth of commercial activities by study abroad institutes, banks, and other corporations. By the 1990s, the role of private institutes in the study abroad process and in afterschool tutoring had become a major public issue and a kind of double-edged sword in Korea. Many parents felt that they needed the private institutes to give their children an edge in the competition to enter a top university, but at the same time many felt that the growing reliance on private institutes represented a failure of the public education system. Student Counseling: From Computerization to the Internet At the commission meeting of March 7, 1996, associate director Gary Walter reported on the AT&T “USA Study” Seminar. The board took the position that KAEC should not be affiliated with events where it would be possible for an organization/agency to obtain “commercial gain” from the event. In other words, KAEC should not participate and thereby give formal or suggested “sponsorship” to a commercial organization. There was also detailed discussion regarding use of the Fulbright name and logo.36 At the commission meeting of March 3, 1997, associate director James Larson made a brief report on the Fulbright Student Advising Service’s information resources. He noted that the 1997 goal was to install additional student advising computer stations, with equipment contributions made by USIS and AT&T Korea. He pointed out that the completed advising center would be an 80% electronic and 20% print information resource.37 During the summer of 1997, the FSAS library was developed into a student information resource equipped with ten computer stations. KAEC received donated equipment from USIA (1), USIS (4) and AT&T (5). Several other Fulbright student advising centers around the world had developed similar computer facilities and were providing internet access for a nominal annual fee.

135

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History The secretariat proposed an annual “user fee” of 25,000 won, which would cover expenses as opposed to recovering costs. In support of the proposal, it presented to the board results of a user survey showing willingness to pay for such services. Of the respondents, 49.5% said they had internet access and 50.3% said they did not. The “user fee” would provide: –Two hours of internet connection “per fee” (in 30-minute modules); –KAEC staff assistance for internet access and use; –Printing of internet information on a cost basis (150 won per page); and –Individual internet online advising sessions with counselors. After extensive discussion on the issue, the board voted not to approve a user fee. The main questions were about how the 25,000 won was determined, whether there should be a fee at all, and what the actual costs and numbers of client users were.38 There was also discussion of a motion regarding the possible implications for KAEC’s “tax-free” status, the desirability of providing free service, and whether this would change the nature of the commission. Larson noted that at a recent USIA Regional Education Advisers (REAC) conference in Singapore, posts and commissions had been encouraged to pursue means to generate “recovery” funds to support student advising. This could include pay-for-service, subscription for student user name lists, and actual contracting of advising services. The motion to consider approval of a 15,000 won user fee for 12 hours of internet access at the FSAS was tabled. The secretariat was asked to 1) investigate the “tax-free” regulations, and 2) report to the board in six months to describe internet usage in the Student Advising Library.39 Although Fulbright Korea continued to enhance its student counseling operations, the status of the U.S. government-affiliated network of advising centers around the world was a matter for debate in Washington, D.C. In 1998, a report to Congress by the General Accounting Office on “Addressing the Deficit” said the following about the overseas advising network supported by the State Department: One activity we believe merits review is USIA’s student advising operation. USIA spends about $2.6 million annually to subsidize more than 400 educational advisory centers worldwide that provide information about the U.S. system of education. Some of these centers are housed in USIA offices and are fully funded by the U.S. government. Others are operated by host country universities or U.S.

136

The 1990s

Mobile Communications, the Web, and Surging Interest in English nonprofit organizations and are partially funded by USIA. An additional $1.4 million is spent annually for training materials and other activities. Proponents of the student advising operation believe that it is in the best interests of the United States to support student advising because international students spend nearly $7 billion dollars a year in the United States, contributing substantially to the U.S. economy, and American students are introduced to different cultures, enhancing diversity. Critics have concluded, however, that new worldwide trends to internationalize higher education, advancements in communication technology, and the increased sophistication of non-U.S.government-sponsored educational advising institutions indicate that a guidance and oversight role for USIA is more important than an operational one. They argue that the increase in private sector counseling services coupled with dwindling USIA resources suggest it is an appropriate time for USIA to turn over its educational advising role to the private sector. CBO estimates that eliminating student advising would result in savings of $15 million over 5 years.40 The Introduction of Computer-Based Testing In February 1996, the first contract for computer-based testing (CBT) was signed with Sylvan Prometric. ETS had chosen Sylvan Prometric as a partner in the introduction of computer-based versions of the GMAT, GRE and TOEFL. Then, in April 1997, KAEC signed a contract with Prometric to operate a Regional Registration Center (RRC) for Korea. The call center began on a small scale with just a few computers using Prometric’s registration software, and subsequently grew as the volume of CBT testing increased.41 Actual computer-based testing in Korea began in three phases, starting with the lowestvolume test. GMAT testing began in Korea in October 1997 in a Fulbright-Prometric CBT lab that had been built within a large lecture and test administration room in the space then leased by Fulbright in the KOHAP Building. In October of the following year, CBT administration of the GRE began in the KOHAP Building, using an expanded group of Fulbright-Prometric test centers. At the board meeting of December 17, 1998, the secretariat gave the board a background report on its educational testing activities with ETS and asked for approval to continue being the exclusive agent in Korea for TOEFL and other high-stakes academic tests. KAEC had been working since 1984 as the exclusive agent of ETS in educational testing in Korea, both registering test applicants and arranging for those applicants to take the tests. As testing became computer-based through the Sylvan Prometric Company, KAEC, with previous board approval, became the sole site in Korea for computer test

137

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History registration and built computer-based testing facilities at the commission offices. Now the question had arisen as to whether KAEC would continue to be the sole agent in Korea for testing as in the past. Unlike the pattern in most other countries, Sylvan and ETS seemed ready to work through a single agency—Fulbright—in Korea. The commission’s future exclusive administration of tests would involve a variety of test centers as in the past–at a minimum, several in Seoul and one in Taegu–but the test centers would be at separate testing sites directly administered by KAEC rather than at universities supervised by KAEC. The secretariat conveyed its strong feeling to the board that involvement in testing over the years had given KAEC an advantage in public exposure and immense financial benefits. The income from testing had completely funded the student advising office, with substantial funds left over for program support. The secretariat estimated that this financial benefit would continue to be the case in the future, but only if Fulbright remained the sole testing agent in Korea rather than competing for examinees with a variety of independent test centers. Therefore, the secretariat recommended that KAEC enter into the necessary agreements with Sylvan and ETS toward continued nationwide responsibility for educational testing in Korea. The board unanimously approved this recommendation.42 This action by the board was matched by equally significant and potentially controversial decisions at Prometric and ETS. The decision to give exclusive administration to KAEC was made in recognition of the years of superior testing administration on its part and was highly important to the future of testing in Korea, as Korea turned out to be the only country with high testing volume where all testing and registration were given to a single administrator.

The Transition from the PBT TOEFL to the CBT TOEFL

The introduction of the computer-based TOEFL in Korea in the fall of 2000 required a much larger build-out of test centers than for the smaller-volume GRE and GMAT. Happily, that coincided with the commission’s move into the new Fulbright Building in Mapo. Seven new CBT test centers were placed on two floors of the new building, along with a 25-station call center to serve as a Regional Registration Center for all Prometric CBT tests in South Korea. The call center opened for operation on August 1, 2000, mainly to handle registration for the CBT TOEFL.43 In addition to the Fulbright Building testing labs, six large labs were placed in leased space, conveniently located for student access in the Jongno district of Seoul. Also, two labs were constructed in leased space in the downtown area of Taegu to better serve students from southern regions of Korea.

138

The 1990s

Mobile Communications, the Web, and Surging Interest in English

Students line up outside the Fulbright Building in Mapo to register for the last paperbased TOEFL tests in Korea.

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

The volume of paper-based TOEFL tests in Korea dropped noticeably during the Asian economic crisis of 1997-98. However, by the final quarter of 1999 test volumes began to rise again, in anticipation of the introduction of the computer-based TOEFL and discontinuance of the paper test in October 2000. Unlike the paper-based test, the CBT TOEFL included a test of writing. Korean students were apprehensive about the new writing test, and there were countless commercial language institutes all over Korea willing to seize on this apprehension to market their courses. This simple fact ignited a surge of demand for paper-based testing during the first three quarters of 2000. There was extensive coverage of this situation by both the broadcast and print media. For example, the JoongAng Daily reported that on May 2, 2000, the application form distribution windows at KAEC in Seoul were severely crowded with applicants all day long. Disputes

140

The 1990s

Mobile Communications, the Web, and Surging Interest in English arose when applicants were given only three application forms, one for each remaining month of testing in July to September. Also, the Mapo Post Office near KAEC was reportedly overcrowded by more than 1,000 TOEFL applicants, despite the fact that the post office had opened windows especially for these applicants.44 In fact, on that day the queue of people standing in line to register for the TOEFL stretched down to the narrow southern tip of the Fulbright Building, east past the headquarters of the National Health Insurance Program, and beyond the neighboring Presbyterian church. It was simply the largest crowd of people ever to show up at the Fulbright Building seeking service, and several of the newspapers carried prominent pictures of the crowd. In a stroke of good fortune for Fulbright, its annual contracts with ETS since the early 1990s had called for an extra payment of $5 per test if the total administrations for the year exceeded a certain number. This clause in the contracts was never invoked and therefore did not become meaningful financially until near the date that the PBT was to end in Korea on June 30, 2000. The contract for 1997-98 called for the extra payments if test administrations exceeded 100,000. The IMF crisis struck Korea the next year, and TOEFL volumes plunged to 60,000. ETS consequently agreed to pay the extra $5 if tests during 1998-99 exceeded 90,000. The very next year, in 1999-2000, it lowered the threshold to 64,500, but during that year the surge of interest in PBT took place, and 121,521 students registered for the test! That resulted in extra income of $285,105, or 318,468,000 won, for the period from July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000. Also, because of the big surge in last-minute demand, ETS agreed to extend testing for three more months, resulting in a modest amount of additional income for Fulbright The significance of the additional income from TOEFL testing at that particular time can hardly be overstated. In order to purchase the Fulbright Building, the commission had to take out a loan of 1.6 billion won, the U.S. dollar equivalent of nearly $1.5 million, from KorAm Bank. An income of almost $300,000 made a significant contribution to reducing the debt and played an instrumental part in the purchase of the new Fulbright Building. The process of finding and purchasing the building will be described in the next chapter.

Funding and Budget Concerns

The decade began with a budget crisis of sorts at Fulbright. At the meeting of November 13, 1990, Frederick Carriere briefed the commission on the large salary increases just put in place by the U.S. embassy. In the file for this meeting is a letter from Carriere to Jeannette File-Lamb of ETS regarding these salary increases, in which he asked whether ETS was willing to renegotiate its contract with KAEC. This situation also led Carriere

141

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History to recommend adjustment and early renewal of Bill Drummond’s contract, since the staff salary increases would put his out of line with theirs. By 1994, the Fulbright Student Advisory Service had been experiencing a growing number of requests for service from American education institutions, in keeping with global trends. Executive director Ray Weisenborn had recently attended the Southeast Asia Advisors’ Workshop in Bangkok, where he learned that several commissions charged a “user” fee to American organizations that requested services. Such services might include personnel assistance for materials distribution to students, use of physical facilities for conferencing, and information briefings by commission personnel. Fees ranged from the nominal ($25) to the substantial ($125). As KAEC’s involvement with these activities was constant and increasing, the secretariat proposed initiating such a fee, to begin January 1, 1995. The commission approved such a user fee at its meeting of November 13, 1994.45

Infrastructure

As noted at the outset of this chapter, the 1990s were a decade during which the communications revolution transformed Korea, and with it the activities of the Fulbright Commission, including its administration of grants, student counseling, and testing. The early years of the decade featured computers, but they were not yet networked and internet connections were not yet available. Fax rather than e-mail was the norm.

The Arrival of Computers, Then the Internet

At the first commission meeting of the decade in February 1990, Frederick Carriere reported significant progress in the computerization of commission record-keeping since acquiring new computers the previous summer. After starting from square one with virtually no on-staff expertise, the commission now had the basic programs in place. All routine daily fiscal operations had been computerized since September 1, 1989, and staff members were increasingly relying on these programs for budgeting and other administrative tasks. None of this would have been possible without the services of Shim Jai Ok’s old friend Lee Jae Myung, who devoted over 100 hours to the development of these programs (Dbase III Plus) over the preceding ten months. Lee was the same person who had designed the interior of the Fulbright Commission offices, including drafting professional architectural plans for the carpenters, free of charge, when the commission moved to the KOHAP Building six years prior. Carriere proposed that the commission compensate Lee at the rate of 25,000 won per hour for up to forty hours of training for key commission staff and, further, that he be

142

the 1990s

Mobile Communications, the Web, and Surging Interest in English offered compensation for at least 80 hours of past services at the same rate. Carriere noted that due to an unexpected surplus of FY89 funds, the commission was in a position to make this expenditure of 3,000,000 won without any difficulty. The recommendation was approved.46 It was not until the middle of the decade that Fulbright installed its first administrative computer network. In October 1995, the commission purchased seven Pentium 75 Mhz computers, along with Microsoft Windows 95 and Office 95 software. In December of that year, eight computers in the Fulbright Commission offices were networked and connected to a Lexmark printer. This marked a big step forward in office efficiency, allowing administrative staff to share files, collaborate on projects, and print documents easily. Prior to installation of the network, all file sharing and most printing had been done by “swapping” floppy disks.47 Use of e-mail by Fulbright Commission staff began shortly after the network was installed, but it was initially handled in a UNIX environment, with a text-only communication standard, using terminal emulation software. This required the one staff member who was trained to handle e-mail to print out and hand-deliver all incoming e-mail and to personally handle outgoing messages.

A screen capture of the KAEC Website, 2010.

A screen capture of the KAEC Website, 2005.

143

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History By 1996, the volume of Fulbright e-mail had grown and the problems of delivery were increasing. In an effort to solve the problems, Fulbright e-mail accounts were moved to a commercial Internet Service Provider that provided a modem connection and POP3 e-mail accounts. Although an improvement over the previous arrangement, this system only allowed one user to download e-mail from the internet at a time. It was viewed from the beginning as a temporary solution.48 Faced with the explosive growth of the internet as a primary source of information and the need to reach a wider audience, the decision was made in 1997 to put Fulbright Korea on the World Wide Web. After negotiations with several ISPs, Fulbright chose one, registered the www.fulbright.or.kr domain, and was assigned a set of IP addresses. The commission purchased a Cisco router and related equipment and leased a line for direct connection to the internet through the ISP. In late 1997, the commission began publishing the Fulbright web site. That site, www.fulbright.or.kr, was published in both Korean and English and focused on the three major activities of the commission: grant programs, educational testing, and student advising. Associate director James Larson served as webmaster, and John Phillips, who worked for the commission part time, continued to supervise technical aspects of network administration. Following connection to the internet and publication of Fulbright’s web site, a second branch of the Fulbright network was created to serve the Fulbright student advising service. A total of eleven computers donated by USIS and AT&T were networked and configured to serve the needs of visiting students in the advising center. A high-volume laser printer and a CD-ROM server system were connected to the advising center network.49 These internet and networking developments at Fulbright Korea were roughly in keeping with worldwide trends. At the June 1997 quarterly meeting of the Board of Foreign Scholarships, a recommendation was made urging Fulbright Commissions to provide individual e-mail access to all American grantees going abroad. The KAEC board voted to approve such a policy in March 1997, and it became effective in September of that year.50 Anecdotally, it is noteworthy that the Educational Testing Service (ETS) in Princeton was officially urging Fulbright to use fax machines rather than e-mail in all ETS-related correspondence, for security reasons, as late as 1997!

First Steps Toward Purchasing a Building

Upon assuming the position of executive director, Horace H. Underwood quickly came to an agreement with deputy director Shim Jai Ok on one thing: the Fulbright Program in Korea needed its own building. The first moves toward purchasing a building took place

144

The 1990s

Mobile Communications, the Web, and Surging Interest in English in the late 1990s. At the commission meeting of December 17, 1998, Underwood discussed the secretariat’s long-felt desire to acquire a permanent home for Fulbright Korea, a topic that he had initially raised at a prior board meeting. The time was particularly advantageous that year, as the price of property had declined considerably. The secretariat was seeking a specific building and had already entered preliminary discussions with real estate agents, but it needed the approval of the board to enter into detailed discussions about price. Such specific details would be reported to the board when worked out. The board voted to authorize the secretariat to enter into serious and specific negotiations toward purchasing a building.51 By March 1999, it became necessary for Fulbright to establish itself as a legal entity under the Ministry of Education. KAEC had existed for 50 years as a binational commission without needing legal existence under Korean law. However, to regularize the status of KAEC under Korean law, to clarify its relationship with the Ministry of Education, and to act as a legal holding body for real property, it now appeared useful to establish such a juridical person. At its March 22 meeting, the board approved in principle the establishment of a nonprofit juridical person as a legal holding body for KAEC, if necessary. If and when such establishment was clearly necessary, the secretariat was asked to write a detailed proposal including the specific kind of holding body to be created, the relation of the board to the legal holding body, and the liability of the individual board members.52 The Fulbright Building in Mapo was formally purchased in 1999. The process of its location, purchase, renovation, and dedication will be described in the following chapter.

145

Chapter 6

The Fulbright Building A Resource for the 21st Century1

The Fulbright Building

On a bitterly cold but gloriously clear January morning in the year 2000, the fiftieth year of the Korean-American Educational Commission, U.S. Ambassador to Korea Stephen W. Bosworth stood in the parking lot of 168-15 Yeomni-dong, Mapo-gu, Seoul, and led the assembled dignitaries, staff, and grantees in the ceremony of dedication for the newly acquired building of Fulbright Korea. The acquisition of its own building after fifty years of renting, leasing, and wandering epitomized the growth and transition of the Fulbright Program in Korea from a fully funded development program of the U.S. government to a

U.S. Ambassador to Korea Stephen W. Bosworth leads assembled dignitaries, staff, and grantees in the dedication ceremony for the newly acquired building of Fulbright Korea.

147

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History widely supported and substantially mature program of international educational exchange. The period of 1998-2004, during which Horace H. Underwood was executive director and Shim Jai Ok was deputy director, was not a period of substantial change in the details of the traditional Fulbright programs involving the exchange of scholars and graduate students. If anything, with the maturity of Korea’s educational system and the growth of its economy, the relative importance to Korea of traditional Fulbright grants could almost be said to have declined. In fact, those grants did not decline—their numbers stayed stable—but other things were happening in KAEC in those years around the new millennium and the mid-century mark of Fulbright Korea. Those new things included a substantial commitment of funding by the Korean government to the Fulbright Program, a vastly increased amount of funding derived from educational testing, an almost complete shift to electronic means in educational advising, and an increased visibility and importance for the English Teaching Assistant (ETA) program. Changes (intentional and/or unavoidable) from this period not only have affected Fulbright Korea during its fiftieth through sixtieth years but will continue to influence the direction of KAEC for the rest of its first century.

The Need for a Fulbright Building

As it neared the fifty-year mark, it was becoming more and more clear that Fulbright Korea needed a building. KAEC had been leasing space for decades, and though the building in Seosomun-dong in the 1960s had been called “Fulbright House,” and the KOHAP Building near Insa-dong was the Fulbright building to many grantees for many years, KAEC had in fact been forced to move again and again as buildings were sold or torn down for new construction, as leases were not renewed, or as owners changed. To some extent, these travails have been recounted in earlier chapters of this history. KAEC was generally considered a good lessee, because Fulbright tended to pay the rent and brought educational prestige (though sometimes also annoying crowds of test applicants) to the location. But prices kept going up, and the chonsei system of leasing meant that more and more funds had to be poured into huge housing deposits instead of program operation.

U.S. Government Concerns

Beginning in 1998, KAEC began to take more seriously the long-held goal of acquiring a permanent home and initiated a triple effort of looking for an appropriate building, arranging funding for a possible building purchase, and obtaining the necessary permission by convincing the KAEC board and the two governments involved to give

148

The Fulbright Building

A Resource for the 21st Century their approval for the program to acquire property. The board itself offered no objection, nor did the Korean government through the Ministry of Education representatives on the board. However, there was some question about the U.S. government, which at that time meant the United States Information Agency (USIA), the source of U.S. funding and authorization. After checking with the U.S. government, Fulbright Korea received written confirmation that USIA and the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board had no objection to such a purchase, as long as no U.S. government funds allocated to KAEC for the Fulbright grant program were used.2 This, of course, was in keeping with a longstanding policy established early on by the Board of Foreign Scholarships, as noted in Chapter 1. That policy partly explains why Fulbright Korea is one of the very few commissions in the world to own its own building! USIA finally gave its approval based on the KAEC statement that no U.S. government money would go into the purchase of the building. Since the U.S. dollars provided by the U.S. government for KAEC had for many years gone almost in their entirety to CIES and IIE to provide funds for Korean students and scholars in Fulbright programs in the U.S., it was not difficult to give such assurances. In the end, USIA gave its approval and blessing, contingent on approval by the KAEC board chair of the specific property purchase.

The Challenge of Funding and Fortuitous Circumstances

The second challenge would be funding. Fulbright Programs are not supposed to amass funds from year to year for future use, so it would not be possible to “save up” for a building purchase. However, KAEC was fortunate in several factors that combined to help make the funding of a building conceivable. In the first place, the very difficulties KAEC had faced over many years in putting together funds for ever-increasing lease deposits (chonsei) meant that if all leases were closed and KAEC moved to its own building, that accumulated lease deposit, amounting to many hundreds of thousands of dollars, would be available for use toward the building purchase. A second positive factor was that there was an economic downturn in Korea in 1998, a downturn that hurt many Korean companies but provided a brief dip in property values and an opportunity to acquire a quality building that would normally have been out of the reach of limited KAEC funding. A third benefit was the beginning of Computer Based Testing (CBT), as previously discussed, under which KAEC would manage all TOEFL and other ETS testing in Korea. The plan was for continuous CBT testing, five days a week, which was particularly well suited to a high-volume testing nation like Korea. KAEC was particularly fortunate to be able to use its strong reputation and long experience to obtain the contract for

149

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History registering and delivering all ETS tests in Korea, providing a reliable revenue stream that would enable the repayment of loans for a building. A related benefit, as discussed in the previous chapter, was that apprehensions about the introduction of CBT in Korea substantially increased the commission’s testing income during the final year of paperbased TOEFL testing. By providing space for seven Fulbright-Prometric computer-based testing centers that could accommodate up to 102 examinees, and for a 25-station call center that served as a Regional Registration Center for Korea, purchase of the Fulbright building had several benefits for the commission. On one hand, ownership of the building reduced the required cost outlay to rent space for the test centers and call center. On the other hand, it eliminated the need to search for appropriately located space for such test centers and a call center. Fulbright would be able to locate seven of the fifteen computer-based test centers it required in its own building! Yet another positive factor was the building’s location—perfect for computer-based test centers and Fulbright’s U.S. Education Center. It was located at a five-minute walk from Gongdeok Intersection in Mapo, where the two newest lines of Seoul’s subway system intersected. This would also be the terminus of a future line connecting to the new Incheon International Airport, and it was on the edge of the big university district surrounding Sinchon, comprised of Yonsei, Ewha, Hongik, and Sogang Universities. Fourth, and perhaps most important, was the support of an immense number of Korean alumni—fifty years worth—who provided substantial funding for the building through a fund drive, and also offered immeasurably valuable support during the process.

The Search for a Building

Approvals were in hand, funding was arranged, but a building was still needed. Deputy Director Shim Jai Ok continually contacted many property brokers asking them to locate appropriate buildings. KAEC staff (Executive Director Underwood, Deputy Director Shim, and Cultural Affairs Officer Tom Haran) looked at a number of places, none of which were very inspiring as they were older buildings in odd locations, with no real opportunity for remodeling to fit the needs of the Fulbright Program in Korea. It was discouraging. Word was received of a building in Mapo owned by the Grand National Party (as a political party, not as the government). While it was a bit run-down and would need significant upgrading, it was in a good location and had good physical dimensions. KAEC decided to move ahead, and at the insistence of the board chair a building inspection with a formal written report was commissioned. Around the time the report was to have been

150

The Fulbright Building

A Resource for the 21st Century submitted, word came that the building had been sold—apparently the visible interest in and wandering around the building of a group of Americans pushed another potential buyer into deciding that the building must be a good buy, and that they had better buy it quickly. So they did. It was discouraging. Finally, quiet news arrived of another building in the Mapo area that had just come on the market–a relatively new building in a good location, not far from the subway, a nice hotel, and good restaurants. The building had been built as the headquarters of a construction company, but after it was completed their business had shifted, and most of their customers were located far away south of the river; they needed to shift headquarters. The executive director and deputy director quietly went through the building and were impressed with the quality of the construction and the condition. Naturally, most buildings are built by a construction company that is trying to make a profit, which in Seoul has often resulted in a fine outward appearance covering inexpensive wiring, plumbing, and heating systems. The building under consideration had been built by the construction company for its own headquarters, and the “unseen” bones of the building were of superior quality and showed good workmanship, giving the promise of lower maintenance costs down through the years. Keeping in mind the experience of having lost the previous building to a decisive buyer, the KAEC board chair and CAO took the extraordinary step of giving full trust to the recommendation of the executive director and deputy director, without requiring the kind of drawn-out consideration that might have led to the building being sold. In addition, Fulbright benefited because the seller was pleased to do business with a prestigious educational agency. There was a moment of panic when a substantial line-of-credit lien was discovered on the property, but it turned out that the line of credit had not actually been drawn on, and the lien was soon cleared up. Even the current leaseholders occupying the building were near the end of their lease periods or willing to move out. The building was bought. The purchase price was 2,680,000,000 won, or the U.S. dollar equivalent of $2,199,064.00.

The Fulbright Building: Like an Airplane Wing

Built on a narrow piece of land near the old Mapo railroad, the building is shaped like an airplane wing, long and tapering, six stories above ground with two underground stories. The lower basement contained legally required parking and machinery for the building’s electricity, heating, and cooling, but the other seven floors were available for use. It was quickly determined that the first floor would be the education center, the third

151

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History floor would house the administrative offices, the fourth and fifth floors would be grantee housing, the top floor would be half lecture hall and half storage, and the first basement level and second floor would be primarily dedicated to educational testing. In the event, the timing was perfect for the acquisition of building space that could be used for a call center and for educational testing, as computer-based testing would begin in the summer of 2000, a short six months after KAEC moved into its new quarters. In addition, the KOHAP Building, which KAEC had leased for a number of years, was itself soon vacated and torn down for new construction. Timing was right for moving the education advising office from a library-based system to an electronic one, as well as for basing Fulbright in a growing area with (soon) two subway lines intersecting nearby and the Mapo railroad, which had always depressed values in the area, being closed and torn down. Furthermore, the building of ten small housing units provided immediate relief not only for the housing budget for grantees but for the immense difficulty of finding appropriate housing in Seoul, particularly for American graduate students. In the information age, another advantage of the building was that Fulbright was able to install its own digital networks, making the structure every bit as “smart” as the ultramodern LG apartments that were constructed across the street just a few years after the commission moved into its new building. The internal networks, put in for the most part during remodeling of the building, formed an essential infrastructure for overall commission administration and were particularly advantageous for the activities of the U.S. Education Center on the Fulbright Building’s first floor. All in all, getting the building was a perfect end to fifty years of Fulbright in Korea, and a perfect way to ensure the next fifty years.

Nine years after its purchase, the Fulbright Building underwent a major transformation. The sandstone exterior was replaced with a combination of light and dark granite.

152

The Fulbright Building

A Resource for the 21st Century

Sugwon Kang Spending two years in the twilight of my professional life teaching Korean students has been a true privilege; I cannot imagine anything else I might have done during this time that would have been more rewarding. Watching some of these famously passive, incommunicative, and timid Korean youngsters slowly transform themselves into lively and inquisitive budding scholars, capable of an occasional free-for-all in the presence of their professor, all in the course of one semester, is certainly an experience to cherish. And that’s the reward that awaits any future Senior Fulbrighter who has something to share and knows teaching for what it is: a noble calling.

World Peace and the Fulbright Program: 50th Anniversary of Fulbright in Korea

On October 20, 2000, the Fulbright Program in Korea commemorated its 50th anniversary with a conference and banquet in the Grand Ballroom of the Radisson Seoul Plaza Hotel. The theme of the event was “World Peace and the Fulbright Program,” and it was sponsored by the Korean-American Educational Commission, the Korea Fulbright Foundation, and the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association. The conference program contained short congratulatory addresses by Korean President Kim Dae Jung and U.S. Ambassador to Korea Stephen Bosworth, the latter of whom spoke in person at the event. The keynote speakers were James T. Laney, former U.S. ambassador to Korea and former president of Emory University, and Kim Kyung-Won, president of the Institute of Social Sciences, who also served as president of the Seoul Forum for International Affairs, a private council concerned with Korea’s foreign relations. Dinner speeches were given by Mayor of Seoul Goh Kun and Minister of Education Lee Don-Hee.

153

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

On October 20, 2000, the Fulbright program in Korea commemorated its 50th anniversary with a conference and banquet in the Grand Ballroom of the Radisson Seoul Plaza Hotel. From top left: Dr. Lee Hae; Mrs. Lee Hiang Nan; Young Choi, KFAA member; Lee Dai Soon, Korea Fulbright Foundation chairman; Kim Kee Soon, KFAA member; Horace H. Underwood, KAEC executive director; Nancy Underwood; Shim Jai Ok, KAEC deputy director; Kim Moon Hwan, KFAA member; Kwon Oryang, KFAA member. From bottom left: Yoon Bokcha, KFAA president; Beth Nyhus, J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board administrative staff; Hoyt Purvis, J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board member; Ro Chung-hyun, 50th anniversary organizing committee chairman; Bernard J. Lavin, former public affairs officer; Alan Schechter, J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board chairman; Mrs. Alan Schechter; Ahn Byong Man, former KFAA president and former Minister of Education, Science and Technology.

154

The Fulbright Building

A Resource for the 21st Century Four individuals were recognized with special awards on the occasion of the 50th anniversary commemoration. One was Horace G. Underwood, who had been born in Seoul 83 years earlier and whose life had spanned momentous events in the history of Korea, moments of despair and hope, destruction and growth. During the Korean War, he had returned to active duty in the U.S. Navy and served for two years as the chief interpreter for the U.N. Command at the armistice talks at Panmunjom. He served on the first Fulbright Commission to be formed in Korea in 1960-61 and later served from 1980 to 1994. He is remembered as an active board member, always having done his homework and always asking penetrating and valuable questions.3 The second individual recognized was Bernard J. Lavin, who served as the director of USIS, and therefore as the chair of the Fulbright Commission, from 1983 to 1986. Lavin was particularly remembered for his role as peacemaker in the days of the student occupation of the USIS library in Seoul. Korean students, as part of their ongoing resistance to dictatorship and to the perceived U.S. support of authoritarian regimes, broke into and occupied the U.S. Cultural Center library, which at the time was across the street from the Lotte Hotel. The police were insistent that they should storm the building and arrest the students. Lavin resisted such precipitous and violent action, concerned that at least some of the students would carry out their suicide threats and jump from the building. He sent coffee and snacks to the students and went in person to talk with them, spending many hours discussing the situation in Korea and the position of the U.S., persuading the students that violence against the personnel and property of the U.S. Cultural Center would not further their aims. The situation was defused without loss of life.4 The third individual was Frederick Carriere, who spent more of his life working for the Korean-American Educational Commission than any other American in KAEC’s first fifty years. During the ten years that Carriere served as executive director, KAEC struggled through several very difficult years when the program’s budget was under enormous pressure. Eventually, KAEC emerged as a major agency for educational testing and developed as a result of the revenue generated by its testing activities the financial resources needed to expand its student and faculty grant programs. The key to the phenomenal growth achieved during the decade of the 1980s was the mutually affectionate solidarity developed and sustained even to this day between Carriere and the KAEC staff.5 The fourth person recognized at the October 2000 conference was Shim Jai Ok, who had worked for Fulbright for almost a quarter century, and for the preceding ten years as deputy director. Shim had worked for the Peace Corps in Korea and the U.S. from 1967

155

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History to 1977, and the ideals of that program had clearly left their mark on all she had done at KAEC. In particular, Shim was active in establishing and running the Fulbright English Teaching Assistant (ETA) program placing young Americans as English teachers in Korean regional middle and high schools. Her greatest achievement could be seen in the existence of the Fulbright Building. She was the driving force behind locating the building, negotiating the price, gathering the financing, confirming its tax-free status, and getting the building registered in the name of KAEC itself.6 The October conference was also the occasion for issuing of the “Seoul Statement,” which was printed in the formal program.

The Seoul Statement

The Seoul Statement by Fulbrighters in Korea declared in part: The Fulbrighters assembled in Seoul unanimously consented to affirm and renew the Fulbright ideal of world peace through educational and cultural exchanges. Based on such an ideal, the Fulbrighters proclaimed the following four points: • The world must be free from the fear of nuclear and military threats.

• Human beings must learn to live with and protect their fragile ecosystems. • Countries must combat poverty and alleviate socio-economic disparity.

• Human rights must be protected and human dignity in all societies must be respected. To realize such ideals as proclaimed, Fulbrighters must continue to preserve and enhance the existing friendly and peaceful relations between the peoples of Korea, the United States, and other countries in the world. As the Fulbrighters were marking the 50th anniversary of the Fulbright program in Seoul, the participants cherished a desire that a Fulbright program may also be initiated in Pyongyang in the near future. We firmly believe that 50 years in the future, when Fulbrighters in Korea celebrate their centennial anniversary, a united Fulbright program will be promoting the mutual understanding of peoples between the United States and a united Korea. October 20, 20007

156

The Fulbright Building

A Resource for the 21st Century

Leadership and Staffing

In August 2004, Horace H. Underwood completed his service as executive director and, with his wife Nancy, put in place a longstanding plan for “early” retirement that would allow them to be closer to their family in the southeastern United States. Underwood’s move is more accurately described as “semi-retirement,” since he continued to serve on the board at Yonsei University and with the Fulbright Commission, managing the International Education Administrators grant program. The search for Underwood’s successor ended with the selection by the commission of Shim Jai Ok to be the next executive director. She thereby became the first woman and only the second Korean to hold the post. Upon assuming the position, Shim asked the commission to approve appointment of James Larson as deputy director, a move that was formally approved in September 2004.

Program Priorities Grant Programs

The first decade of the new century saw continued growth of the ETA program and increasing recognition and development of the IEA grants. A significant new outgrowth of the ETA program was approved by the board in 2001 and put into effect in 2002, ten years after the start of the ETA program. This was the program to annually send selected high school teachers to Texas for a summer workshop. The Texas program grew out of the success of the summer institutes, which had sent Korean high school teachers of English to short-term programs in the U.S. for several years. But the demand was far higher than the Summer Institute programs could handle, and the timing in the summer, while beneficial to U.S.-based educators, was not as good for the Korean school year, where the major break is in January and February. It was eye-opening to learn how easy it was to implement the program. After obtaining approval in principle from the KAEC board and securing approval of a one-sentence concept summary from the FSB in Washington, it was simply a matter of putting out a brief request for proposals and evaluating those proposals that came in. In the event, over a dozen potential providers were contacted, largely in the southern U.S. (where weather would be tolerable in January and February); four actually submitted proposals, two were serious and almost equal, and the program at Austin, Texas, of the Texas International Education Consortium (TIEC) was selected.

157

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History A key element in the program was that it was intended to be not only a language program, but also an introduction to American culture. Furthermore, from the beginning two out of the seven weeks of the program were designed to send the Korean teachers out, two by two, to American high schools in Texas for observation, immersion, and cultural exchange. This element, while frightening to the teachers at first, has effected some of the greatest changes in knowledge and attitude. It is unfortunately the case that when this program first started, many such “study programs” to the U.S. were travel-and-tourism events where the Koreans selected were senior managers who sometimes spent more time on the golf course than in class. This first year of the program threatened to go in that direction, but the leadership of the TIEC had extensive experience with Korea and Koreans, and sent individual reports on each teacher to KAEC, which forwarded them to the individual school principal. Since then, there has been little trouble with non-participation, but also no lack of serious motivated teachers who value the challenging curriculum of this seven-week Fulbright Program; applications are always far ahead of the available spaces. The origins of this program came from the experience Shim and the secretariat staff had with ETAs and their co-teachers starting in the 1990s. ETAs would frequently comment to the commission staff that they could not understand what their Korean coteachers were saying to them in English! This lack of spoken English skills by many of the teachers led to the idea of creating a program for selected English teachers in the United States where they could put their spoken English to use and be immersed in an Englishspeaking environment, even if only for a short time. Because the focus of the program was on co-teachers and those who taught in schools where Fulbright ETAs were placed, the program placed a secondary emphasis on experiencing and learning about American culture. The idea, which turned out to be the case, was that this program for teachers would have a synergy effect with the ETA program and would smooth interactions between teachers and their ETAS. As the Texas program has matured, it has become very well known and popular among teachers from ETA high schools. The experience thus far has indicated that the period of several weeks in the United States does give a boost to English teachers’ understanding of American culture and to their use of English in the classroom. The long term outlook for this program in the future is good, looking toward the day when Korean teachers will take over the responsibilities currently shouldered by native speakers in the teaching of English.8

158

The Fulbright Building

A Resource for the 21st Century

Outreach to American Alumni of Fulbright Korea

The year 2009 marked a turning point for the Fulbright Commission when it came to outreach and contact with American alumni. Several developments were involved. First, with assistance from the U.S. government, the commission was able to hire a full time alumni coordinator. The financial assistance was given in recognition of the forthcoming commemoration of Fulbright’s 60th anniversary. Along with preparation for the events in Seoul, New York, and Washington, D.C., during 2010, Lisette Garza’s responsibilities included a systematic program of outreach to American alumni of the Fulbright Program in Korea. That outreach, needless to say, was greatly aided by the internet. Second, a group of five ETA interns came to the Fulbright office during their winter break and worked on alumni outreach, 60th anniversary publications, and related matters. Their focused effort during the period from mid-December through early February gave a big boost to all of the activities. Third, the commission initiated several new publications in both print and electronic formats. It launched a 60th anniversary section on its web site, with the intent that this would evolve by the end of 2010 into a permanent alumni section of the site. It also began publishing a new newsletter. On their own initiative, a group of former ETA grantees who had served as executive assistants in the Fulbright Office formed an alumni organization called the U.S. Fulbright Korea Alumni Association. This group began holding regular meetings in Seoul and encouraged all Fulbright grantees to attend and to stay active in alumni affairs. The outreach to alumni for Fulbright Korea’s 60th anniversary was the first such commemorative occasion on which both Korean and American alumni of the program were contacted. In addition to the gathering of contact information, alumni were encouraged to submit their written reminiscences of the Fulbright experience. Some of these recollections on the impact of the Fulbright Program were used in this 60th anniversary book, published for the occasion. All of them have been published on the 60th anniversary web site. While preparing to observe the 60th anniversary, the Fulbright Commission made a decision, in principle, to have a single Fulbright Korea Alumni Association, encompassing both Korean and American alumni of the program. As of this writing, the details need to be worked out, but it will probably be structured as a single association with two chapters, allowing the Korean and American chapters to operate smoothly according to their respective cultural norms.

159

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

Support for a North Korea Program: Syracuse University – Kim Chaek University of Technology Exchange Program

At the 281st meeting of the Fulbright Commission on December 5, 2002, a KAEC proposal for involvement and financial support for educational exchange between Syracuse University and the Kim Chaek University of Technology (KCUT) was reviewed and discussed. At that meeting, the board approved in principle KAEC’s support of Syracuse University-KCUT research scholars. However, it voted that such support should be contingent on the explicit approval of both governments, not on a “no objection” response, to be obtained through the representatives of both South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the public affairs section of the U.S. embassy. In January 2003, the Korean government indicated its approval of support for this exchange program, but the U.S. government, for reasons having to do with its governmental relations with North Korea, was not willing to give approval at that time. Five years later, in January 2008, KAEC received the U.S. government’s approval from Ambassador Alexander Vershbow. At the commission meeting of February 22, 2008, the secretariat sought the board’s ultimate approval of this long-pending program. In the original proposal submitted in 2002, Syracuse University had requested that KAEC make a minimum donation of $115,000. The secretariat suggested that, upon approval by the board to proceed further, KAEC would work with Syracuse University on securing the program details, with the outcomes to be reported to the board. This course of action was unanimously approved by the board. The vote was to “commit to the program and provide funds at the appropriate time.” The board recommended that “funds [be] committed but [be] released on confirmation that selected candidates have been approved for entry into the United States.”9

Thanksgiving Dinner with the ETAs

When Horace H. Underwood became executive director of the Fulbright Commission, a new tradition was started: that of hosting a Thanksgiving dinner for the ETA grantees each year. Initially, Horace and his wife Nancy would roast the turkeys, and Thanksgiving dinner was served in the Fulbright Building. Nancy supervised the Fulbright staff in fixing all of the trimmings, and it was quite a spread, to say the least! However, with 60 to 70 people to feed, it pushed the limits of the space and kitchen facilities in the Fulbright Building. In 2004, near the end of the summer ETA training program in late July at Gangwon National University, Underwood left the commission and Shim Jai Ok became executive director. Shim vividly recalls meeting with two ETAs on a visit near the end of the training program. They approached her and said they had heard that the Thanksgiving

160

The Fulbright Building

A Resource for the 21st Century dinner had been provided by the executive director and his wife; they then asked what she was planning to do. She was somewhat taken aback, not having prepared for such a question. However, after a moment she thought that there must be some way to host ETAs for Thanksgiving and to continue the tradition begun by Underwood. Her initial idea was to ask the U.S. ambassador to host such a dinner, with the cost being borne by the Fulbright Commission. In 2004, she forwarded such a request to Ambassador Christopher Hill through the embassy’s public affairs officer. Beginning in 2004, a new tradition began, with the U.S. ambassador hosting a traditional sit-down Thanksgiving dinner for the ETAs at the Habib House, the U.S. ambassador’s official residence. The dinner has been held continuously since 2004. If the two ETAs had not approached Shim in July of that year, she would never have thought of this. In fact, as she said publicly at the farewell dinner for Underwood, she did not know how to cook turkey, and her husband, being a Korean “yangban,” was certainly not going to help with such a meal, as he had never once even helped with washing the dishes at home all his life. The Thanksgiving dinner serves a very important purpose by providing the young ETA grantees with an opportunity to meet and network not only with the ambassador but also with other senior embassy representatives. Indeed, a certain number of ETAs each year are even influenced to pursue a diplomatic career based partly on such interaction.10

Camp Fulbright

One grant-related innovation deserves special mention. In 2005, Fulbright introduced a two-week English camp, called Camp Fulbright, into the six-week orientation program for new Fulbright ETAs. The main reason for establishing Camp Fulbright was to give ETAs actual English teaching experience during their orientation, so that they would be less nervous on starting teaching at their school. Camp Fulbright was also enthusiastically received by the incoming ETAs, who placed great value on the teaching experience and contact with students that the camp provided. The majority of the ETAs felt that the Camp Fulbright teaching experience gave them much more confidence entering into their school placements following orientation than would have been possible without the camp. A second reason for the start of Camp Fulbright was that there were still many students in Korea who had no opportunity to receive English instruction from native speakers like Fulbright’s ETA grantees. In previous years, Fulbright had sent the children of alumni to the U.S. under the LCP program, and a number of alumni had asked why an English program could not be offered in Korea. The camp was very well received in its initial year of operation. The recruitment of

161

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

students for the camp proved relatively easy, given the rising demand for such an experience in South Korea and the high level of interest among Fulbright alumni and among staff members at the schools around the country where ETA grantees were teaching. Finally, Camp Fulbright was able to effectively draw upon outstanding ETA alumni as staff members. Many of these individuals returned year after year, providing strong, experienced, and enthusiastic leadership. They formed a group of very highly skilled teachers who knew what to teach, effectively and by level. In 2009, the board approved the hiring of Vinnie Flores, the director of Camp Fulbright, as a full-time staff member of the commission. In addition to Camp Fulbright, Vinnie’s responsibilities included coordination of Fulbright’s efforts to develop its own test of English.

Fulbright Test of English

By the early 2000s, English education in Korea was burgeoning, and students undertook more extensive study of English at younger ages. English study at elementary and

162

Camp Fulbright campers and staff, summer 2010

The Fulbright Building

A Resource for the 21st Century secondary schools became commonplace, both in the school curricula and at private institutes. Consequently, and not surprisingly, the number of young students taking the TOEFL increased greatly. However, the TOEFL was designed for college and university level admission and not for elementary or secondary students. Around the start of the new millennium, it was clear that a gap had opened up in the South Korean market for English tests. There was a clear need for some sort of “junior TOEFL,” an English exam designed to meet the needs of upper elementary and secondary students. Fulbright became aware of this need early on because of its intensive work with elementary, middle, and high schools in connection with the ETA grant program. In fact, during 2005 and 2006, in the period leading up to introduction of the new iBT TOEFL, Fulbright introduced senior executives from ETS to the leadership of Daekyo, in part to discuss the possibility of introducing and distributing an English test more suitable than the TOEFL for younger students. Daekyo was, at that time, one of South Korea’s largest and most successful private education companies. Its chairman was a former Yonsei University professor who had briefly served as Minister of Education. In 2007, the Fulbright Commission asked the Texas International Education Consortium to assist it in the development of a new test of English aimed at middle and high school students. The test was developed by administering preliminary versions to the students of Fulbright ETAs in different cities around Korea. The development process was completed in 2008, and the test has been used for class placement purposes in Camp Fulbright. As of 2010, the Fulbright Commission had recouped approximately one-tenth of the money it invested in test development.11

Internet-Based TOEFL: The End of Fulbright Responsibilities for Nationwide Test Delivery

In December 2004, a group of ETS executives visited Fulbright. Their visit heralded the beginning of the end of the computer-based testing era in Korea. The group was led by Paul Ramsey, vice president in charge of ETS’s Global Division, and included Chris Nguyen, a former CEO of Prometric who had been hired by ETS as a consultant, and Krista Matthews, a lawyer employed by ETS who worked closely with him. Paul Ramsey opened the meeting in the third floor conference room of the Fulbright Building by informing the KAEC leadership that ETS thought Fulbright had legal problems because of its contracts with Prometric for CBT, and that it would therefore not be possible for ETS to continue working with Fulbright following introduction of the new internet-based TOEFL, scheduled for September 2006. The internet-based TOEFL, or iBT, tested the same language skills as the computer-

163

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History based test but was built on a dramatically different model of test delivery. The CBT involved more or less continuous daily delivery, both morning and afternoon, occasionally six days per week, through fifteen CBT test centers, all but two of which were located in Seoul. This method of delivery had the advantage that large numbers of students could be accommodated and could take their exam within a short time after registering. The ability to add afternoon, weekend, or even, on occasion, evening test slots made it possible to efficiently handle the increased volume of tests during the late fall and winter months. The iBT TOEFL model of test delivery was introduced in part to deal with a persistent problem that had been faced with continuous testing. Under the CBT model, students would take the test, sign the required confidentiality statement, and then, in large numbers, post what they could remember from test items to such popular computer bulletin board sites as Hacker’s TOEFL. The internet-based test, by contrast, involved a smaller number of test dates and simultaneous delivery of the test at a far larger number of test sites. The move to an iBT format meant changing from a system that offered 50 or more administrations monthly to one in which the TOEFL would be given simultaneously throughout the Asian region on only about four dates each month. Initially, ETS suggested that in order to secure a large enough number of test centers, it wanted to use not only universities but also high schools and commercial organizations to deliver the test. Indeed, in repeated meetings with executive director Shim Jai Ok and deputy director James Larson between December 2004 and the introduction of the new test in September 2006, ETS seemed consumed with the idea of maximizing the number of test sites. In fact, securing sufficient test centers to meet the existing demand for TOEFL proved to be a major problem. According to ETS’s own figures, the number of people taking the TOEFL in South Korea jumped from 50,311 in 2001 to about 130,000 in 2006.12 The latter number stemmed in large part from the last-minute demand to take the computerbased TOEFL before it ceased to be offered after September 2006. In the spring of 2007, Korea attracted international publicity because of the so-called “TOEFL crisis,” as travel agencies began offering tour packages and Korean students started to travel to other countries in the region in order to take the TOEFL. In April, ETS vice president Paul Ramsey announced that ETS would create an additional 70,000 seats in Korea during 2007. ETS also adopted the practice of announcing iBT TOEFL test registration incrementally. This resulted in many South Koreans “clicking away frantically” at their computers in an effort to register online or even hiring someone to register for them. Ticket scalping, in which companies would register for a TOEFL session and then re-sell the tickets at a far

164

The Fulbright Building

A Resource for the 21st Century higher price, became common. When ETS opened up online registration for July testing in 2007, the organization reportedly attracted 32 million hits in one day from Korea.13 Much of this traffic was undoubtedly caused by automated programs. The practice of ticket scalping during the CBT era was well covered by the press. It finally came to an end with Paul Ramsey’s announcement in April 2007. An article in the JoongAng Daily reported that since this announcement, the price had been falling fast for TOEFL slots being sold on the internet. One woman in Seoul had reportedly purchased a ticket for 150,000 won ($160), which was even less than the official registration fee of $170. Until a week earlier, test slots were traded at 300,000 won. However, many students who had difficulty registering for the test using ETS’s online registration system turned instead to Korean internet sites, led by the immensely popular Hacker’s TOEFL site.14 During the two years leading up to introduction of the iBT TOEFL in Korea, Fulbright consistently warned ETS about the test security implications of recruiting non-university sites. Despite ETS’s apparent unwillingness to accept the proposition, Fulbright maintained all along that in the interest of test security, ETS should use only university-based iBT centers. Furthermore, KAEC recommended that a regular schedule of announced and unannounced inspection visits be put in place. The security problem was vividly illustrated by a major security breach discovered with the TOEIC examination in June 2009 by the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency (SMPA). On June 23, the SMPA detained two suspects, with the surnames Kim and Park, on charges of raking in some 50 million won ($38,750) from twenty-eight university students and job seekers in exchange for using electronic devices to help them achieve a high TOEIC score. One newspaper account described the scam as follows: According to police, Kim would place a posting on the Internet 20 days before the tests, guaranteeing would-be examinees that they could get high scores using his service. When he received replies, Kim would call those test takers and explain how his scheme worked after checking if there was a police officer in an examinee’s family. Then he asked the examinee to choose one method of receiving answers, either by a cell phone text message or an earphone. He asked about the choice because the cost was different. When the examinee chose to use the earphone, Kim would issue electronic devices the day before the test. On the test date, Park would enter the test center with an actual examinee who was equipped with an earphone the size of a grain of rice. He would also wear an

165

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History antenna resembling a necklace. Park would use a small wireless device with buttons to send answers to Kim, who was in a car with a wireless vibrating device. The device would vibrate once if the answer was “A.” It would vibrate twice if the answer was “B,” and so on. Then Kim would announce the answer to the examinee through the earphone. In one case, the procedure improved a test taker’s score by 300 points. The examinee paid 3.3 million won into Kim’s bank account in advance.15 The 2009 TOEIC scandal is illustrative of the lengths to which some Korean test takers will go to achieve a high score. It raised questions in the minds of the Fulbright leadership about whether such efforts had been made to cheat on the TOEFL, particularly since the value of a high TOEFL score would be considerably higher than that of a comparably high TOEIC score in South Korea. In addition to matters of test security, Fulbright advised ETS on the localization of information and registration materials for the new internet-based TOEFL, advice that ETS eventually decided to ignore. In particular, ETS retained a U.S. company to translate materials for use in the online registration system. The result was a poor translation with blatant errors that was humorous to parents of students who arrived at the iBT test centers in the Fulbright Building on the day of the very first iBT administration. For example, the Korean word used for an admission “ticket” was something commonly used for “theater ticket” but never used in reference to an admission document for a high-stakes academic test. Such humor aside, it was the opinion of Fulbright Commission administrators that ETS had failed to do adequate market research and preparation for introduction of the iBT TOEFL. This was especially the case since the “internet-based” TOEFL was introduced in a year when Korea was the acknowledged world leader in broadband internet penetration! Consumer expectations could not have been higher. Despite repeated reminders of this, ETS continued on its path, seemingly oblivious to the problem. The main impact on Fulbright was, on one level, in terms of staff and financing. ETS’s departure in a new direction removed significant revenue, even as the end of the PBT TOEFL brought in funds that could be used for purchase of the Fulbright Building. Commission staff levels went down by almost exactly two-thirds following the conclusion of CBT in Korea.

Advising in the Digital Age: U.S. Education Center Services

During the first decade of the 21st century, the Fulbright Commission, and in particular its U.S. Education Center, came to rely more and more on the internet as a channel

166

The Fulbright Building

A Resource for the 21st Century of communication for its activities. In the year 2000, shortly after the move into the Fulbright Building, executive director Horace H. Underwood was on one of his visits to the education center on the first floor when he took note of the small amount of shelf space, along with the relatively large portion of it occupied by printed college and university catalogues. He declared to the staff of the center, “You can now get rid of all these college catalogs!” By that time, of course, virtually all U.S. colleges and universities had their own web sites, and most were using video for campus tours. VHS shifted rather quickly over to CD and DVD, and in more recent years to YouTube and online video. The U.S. State Department had also taken notice of the new role of the internet in international diplomacy. In 2001, then associate director James Larson was invited through the U.S. embassy’s public affairs office to attend the NetDiplomacy 2001 Conference at the State Department in Washington, D.C. The conference featured an impressive array of speeches by leaders from both government and industry. Probably the most impressive speech was given by Secretary of State Colin Powell. In addressing an audience comprised largely of State Department employees from around the world, he had the following to say: “You are helping us design the most powerful tools to do this. We do it many ways. I give speeches, the President gives speeches, people watch our television programs, for better or worse coming in from all over. But the tools that we now have through Net Diplomacy are just remarkable, in the sense that they can go over political boundaries, they can go over cultural walls, they can break down any barrier that is out there to communication.”16 In a personal testimonial on the new role of the internet in diplomacy, Powell related the following: I get up every morning early. The first thing I do is go down and fire up my computer. And long before anyone has given me an intelligence report or before I’ve read any newspaper, my server comes up. And I’ve coded it with certain news segments that I’m interested in, and instantly I will get online about 20 messages every morning, very early in the morning—too early in the morning. (laughter) But I get about 20 messages of things going on in different parts of the world. So long before the formal system—the intelligence community and the wonderful systems that we have in the Department–starts to feed me the rest of the day, I start out online instantaneously. And I have a pretty good sense of what is going on in the world even before I have my first cup of coffee. Then I go outside and get the newspapers and read them. Hopefully there is a correlation between what I got on the Net and what I read in the newspapers. (laughter)

167

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History It doesn’t mean newspapers aren’t important. I devour them. Six every morning. But I am increasingly finding that I supplement that with what I can pull down out of the ether. In the course of the day, I will go online with one of the two computers in my office, and I dare any one of you to come up in my office, and you will discover they are not just sitting there as desk ornaments or paperweights; they are fired up all day long. And I am using one for scheduling and other purposes and writing notes to people—to their great distress (laughter)—and with the other one I am essentially watching the world with all the other systems that are there, so that I can know. Whether it’s breaking wire stories or if I have a particular interest, I go. I always have a search engine running. I have just about gotten rid of all paper reference materials that I used to use—no dictionaries, no encyclopedias. Everything is search engine.17 Following the NetDiplomacy conference, Dorothy Mora of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs convened a group of counselors for a follow-on session. At that session, there was discussion of a possible Northeast Asian mini-conference the next year. Fulbright Korea was asked to host the conference in recognition of the fact that it was in one of the most active IT markets in the Asia region and that its U.S. Education Center was leading the way in using the internet to augment student advising. After completing this daylong follow-on meeting with Mora and colleagues, associate director James Larson boarded a morning flight at Dulles International Airport on September 11, 2001, expecting a smooth flight to San Francisco, with a connection from there to Seoul. Unfortunately, this was not to be. As the plane entered the airspace over Kansas, the pilot came on the intercom and made a very short announcement: “As some of you may already know, planes have been flown into the World Trade Center in New York. All civilian air traffic in the United States has been ordered down. We will be landing in Wichita, Kansas, in approximately five minutes.” Upon landing, Larson went with all the other passengers to the nearest television set and watched events unfold. After spending two nights in Kansas courtesy of United Airlines, he flew to San Francisco and on the following day was on the first airline flight out of the U.S. to Asia after 9/11. On November 21-24, 2002, Fulbright Korea hosted a Northeast Asia regional miniconference in Seoul on the theme of “Optimizing the Use of the Internet in Educational Advising.” The conference web site described it as a “follow-up to the Netdiplomacy 2001 Conference at the State Department in 2001. Its purpose is to promote creative ways for State Department-affiliated advising centers to use technology and the web in the advising process.”18 The conference venue was the Fulbright Building,

168

The Fulbright Building

A Resource for the 21st Century and participants stayed at the Holiday Inn (Seoul Garden) Hotel, a ten-minute walk away. Participants in the miniconference included all the members of the Fulbright Commission’s web team, including Gary Rector, a longtime Korean resident and former Peace Corps Volunteer, who had been hired as an outside consultant to advise and help with web design. Representatives of the British Council, the Canadian Educational Commission, and the Australian Educational Commission were also invited to participate in some of the sessions. Other participants came from Education USA-affiliated advising centers in Japan (2), Hong Kong (2), Taiwan, New Zealand, and Ukraine. Dorothy Mora and Heidi Manley came from the State Department in Washington, D.C. Almost eight years later, the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs again turned to Fulbright Korea’s U.S. Education Center to host a regional workshop. This one, held in April 2010, was a Social, Mobile and Visual Media Workshop on the theme of “Advising in the Digital Age.” The goals and objectives of the workshop were as follows: • To gain a better understanding of social networking and new media to assist with EducationUSA advising, marketing, communication, and outreach. • To discuss the advantages and disadvantages of certain technologies and share previous outcomes/experiences of using technology at advising centers. • To increase the ability to design and disseminate advising-related digital video content through various media channels for prospective international students and parents.

• To implement at least one new form of social media and digital technology into advising activities and/or improve upon existing forms.19 Participants in the workshop came from China (3), Hong Kong, Thailand (2), Malaysia (2), Japan (2), Laos, Fiji, and Mongolia (2). Rick O’Rourke, the regional advising coordinator out of Tokyo, worked with Fulbright Korea staff to plan and administer the workshop. Gina Anderson and Marty Bennett, EducationUSA marketing coordinators, participated in the conference remotely from Washington, D.C. Adobe Connect software was used to facilitate their participation as well as to make key sessions from the workshop available live on the internet. The April 2010 workshop provided an occasion for Fulbright to develop a mobile version of the website for its U.S. Education Center. This proved to be timely, as smartphones and mobile broadband services were spreading rapidly following the arrival of Apple’s iPhone in the South Korean market late in 2009.

169

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

Infrastructure

The major change in Fulbright Korea’s infrastructure during the first decade of the 21st century was the purchase of the Fulbright Building. That process was described in the opening section of this chapter, except for one very important aspect of the infrastructure that was touched on only briefly. In addition to providing office space, testing facilities, housing, and space for the U.S. Education Center, the entire building was networked to support the various Commission activities. Upon purchase of the Fulbright Building in 1999, the main communication links to the outside world came into the building on the bottom basement level (B-2) in the form of regular phone lines. When Fulbright moved into the building, these lines were used for an ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network) line to support broadband internet access for Commission staff and the web-based activities of the U.S. Education Center. By 2003, the ISDN line had been upgraded to an E-2 line and Korea Telecom had installed fiber optic cable directly into the building’s underground via the B-2 level. The design of the Fulbright Building’s networks was fairly straightforward. A backbone cable was installed, running vertically up the EPS conduit, which also supplied electrical power to each of the eight floors of the building. One or more switches were installed on each floor, from which Category 5 (100 Mbps) cable was used to connect with outlets in each office, room, or apartment within the building. A room on the second floor of the building, with direct access to the EPS conduit, was designated as the “server room” and network administration center. Initially, the networks within the building were divided into an administrative network, for the use of Fulbright staff, and a public network, for the use of visitors to the U.S. Education Center on the first floor and most residents of the apartments in the Fulbright Building. Upon moving into the Fulbright Building at the end of 1999, Fulbright was still relying on Microsoft Windows-based server software. Shortly thereafter, a major decision was made to adopt Linux and open source solutions for server software. This decision was made primarily for reasons of security and cost savings, with the greatest concern being for the security of Fulbright’s networks and web sites. With this move, the Fulbright Commission became one of the leading organizations in Korea to do so. More generally, Korean government and private organizations continued to rely on Microsoft solutions, a situation that led many industry observers to characterize the nation as a “Microsoft monoculture” and posed problems for implementation of secure online and mobile banking or financial transactions.

170

The Fulbright Building

A Resource for the 21st Century By early 2010, Fulbright Korea was hosting more than 25 web sites, including its own sites and those of major U.S. study fairs and consortia, KOTESOL, and a growing number of U.S. universities, colleges, and community colleges.

171

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

172

Chapter 7

The Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program, EWC, & Other Grants In 1978, Fulbright Korea took on responsibility for administration of a new grant program named after Hubert H. Humphrey, a longtime United States Senator from Minnesota who served as Vice President under Lyndon B. Johnson. The Humphrey Program was designed for mid-level managers from developing nations, with the aim of producing future leaders. It provided for a year of professional enrichment and non-degree graduate-level study in the United States for accomplished mid-level professionals from designated countries with a wide range of development needs. Although it was not a Fulbright grant, the supervision of the Humphrey Fellowship Program worldwide was given to the J. William Fulbright Scholarship Board. In South Korea, the Humphrey Fellowships came to have a strong impact on the Fulbright Program, bolstering it in important ways.

Hubert Humphrey’s Background and Career

Hubert Humphrey has been called a “prairie progressive.” Born in South Dakota in 1911, Humphrey learned his ideology first hand in the persistent agricultural depression of the Midwest during the 1920s and 1930s. He and his family were victims, like so many others, of the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression that had evicted them from

173

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History their home and business. Humphrey’s poor, rural upbringing stirred both him and his pharmacist father to become politically conscious, ardent New Dealers. Thus Humphrey was “permanently marked by the Depression,” which in turn stimulated him to study and teach college political science in the employ of the New Deal’s Works Progress Administration. After Humphrey became an administrator in that agency, the Minnesota Democratic Party recognized his oratorical talents and, in their search for “new blood,” tapped him as candidate for mayor of Minneapolis. Although he lost his first race in 1943, he succeeded in 1945. This post would prove to be Humphrey’s sole executive experience until the time of his vice-presidency. He made the most of it, successfully impressing his reformist principles on organized crime by stretching his mayoral powers to their limit on the strength of his personality and his ability to control the city’s various factions. Hubert Humphrey’s mayoral success and visibility propelled him directly into the Senate for a career that would encompass five terms. He was first elected in 1948 after gaining national attention at the Democratic National Convention with his historic plea for civil rights legislation.1 Humphrey served as Vice President under President Lyndon B. Johnson from 1965 to 1969, during a period when the Vietnam War divided America along both political and generational lines. In 1968, after Lyndon Johnson had decided not to seek another term as President, Humphrey ran for the presidency against Richard Nixon and lost narrowly. He ran again for the U.S. Senate and was re-elected to his old seat, which had been vacated in 1970 by Eugene McCarthy.2

The Humphrey Fellowship Program

Fellows are nominated by U.S. Embassies or Fulbright Commissions based on their potential for leadership and a demonstrated commitment to public service. The program provides a basis for lasting ties between citizens of the United States and their professional counterparts in other countries. It fosters an exchange of knowledge and mutual understanding, through which the United States joins in a significant partnership with developing countries. Fellows are placed in groups by professional field at selected U.S. universities offering specially designed programs of study and training. The J. William Fulbright Scholarship Board, appointed by the President, has overall responsibility and awards the fellowships. The Institute of International Education (IIE), a private not-for-profit educational exchange agency, currently administers the program in cooperation with the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs at the Department of State.

174

The Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program, EWC, and Other Grants

Born in Wallace, South Dakota, in 1911 to a mother who was a homemaker and a father who was a smalltown pharmacist, Hubert H. Humphrey enjoyed an illustrious career as a statesman and champion of civil and human rights.

Fellowships are granted competitively to professional candidates in a broad range of social science, administration, policy, and management fields.3 Since 1978, more than 3,700 fellows from over 140 countries have participated in the program. More than 40 universities have hosted the fellows for their year of study.4 A core part of the fellowship is a special yearlong Humphrey Seminar organized by the host university. In the seminar, fellows are introduced to the skills and perspectives they will need as global leaders, share approaches to common issues and problems in their regions, and learn about many aspects of U.S. culture and society. Fellows are placed in groups of seven to fifteen at selected U.S. universities, which serve as their academic and professional base. Fellows audit or register for a partial course load to enable them to travel and network with their American peers and experts in their field of work, attend conferences, and engage in a professional affiliation (work experience) without the pressure of meeting specific degree or diploma requirements. The purpose of the Humphrey Fellowship is to enrich fellows’ professional skills and knowledge. The program provides fellows opportunities to meet, exchange information, and share experiences with their American counterparts and Humphrey colleagues from around the world. Through conferences, networking meetings, seminars and workshops, fellows expand their perspectives on their work and on global issues.5

175

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

The First Humphrey Fellowship Announcement by Fulbright Korea

As background for an item at the commission meeting of February 27, 1979, executive director Mark Peterson informed the board about a bill recently enacted by Congress to provide fellowships for young, promising leaders in many countries around the world. Binational commissions were being asked to recruit candidates for the fellowship. In the first year, there would be one candidate from Korea, but subsequently there would be three each year. The secretariat’s recommendation was that KAEC recruit Humphrey fellows. The announcement read as follows: The Korean-American Educational Commission is pleased to announce the inauguration of the Humphrey Fellowships in memory of Hubert H. Humphrey, the late Vice President of the United States. Fifty fellows, half of them women, from selected countries will be offered one year of study in the United States. In 1979, one Korean candidate will be recommended for consideration. In most cases, study will not be for degree work, but the fellow will receive a certificate of completion. Candidates must have absolute fluency in English. Candidates should be promising young professionals with some years of solid professional experience and with demonstrated potential for leadership in public service. Fields of study will be limited to food and agriculture, health, planning and resource development, and public administration and management. Interested persons are invited to contact the Korean-American Educational Commission (Fulbright).6 The recommendation to recruit Humphrey fellows was unanimously approved by the commission. From that time until the mid-1990s, Korea was a regular and active participant in the Humphrey Fellowship program.

Discontinuation and Resumption of the Humphrey Fellowship Program in Korea

In 1995 and 1996, the Humphrey Fellowship program in Korea was suspended for two full years on the grounds that Korea was no longer a “developing” country. However, Park In Gu, one of the Korean Humphrey program alumni from the year 1981 who had had a very successful industry career, rising to the position of vice chairman of the Dongwon Group, objected strenuously to the discontinuation of the Humphrey program. He visited

176

The Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program, EWC, and Other Grants Tom Haran, the U.S. embassy’s cultural affairs officer and a Fulbright Commission board member. He also visited the Fulbright office and expressed his shock that the Humphrey program had been stopped in Korea. Park suggested to the senior administration of the Fulbright secretariat that if the program were discontinued, it would be difficult to continue having alumni meetings. At that time, the Asian Humphrey alumni meeting was held in Malaysia. Park felt that in order to host such meetings, there had to be a strong alumni base within the host country. Of course, it would be difficult for Korea to host such a meeting if the program there were discontinued. Park himself had had a great experience through the program. Unlike other similar scholarship programs available for government officials, the Humphrey program provided opportunities to meet other people, attend seminars, and build practical social skills in addition to academic knowledge. Since the U.S. had spent so much money funding the program, it seemed that it would be better for both Korea and the U.S. to continue this program rather than see it forgotten in Korea. Furthermore, Korean government officials needed to learn what was going on in the United States in society, education, culture, and related fields. Park therefore suggested a method of cost-sharing by the two countries. In fact, upon resumption of the program the two countries shared the cost for the first year, after which the program was fully funded by the Korean government. Convinced of the argument, Haran agreed to accompany Park to Washington, D.C. The two of them visited the State Department and convinced the people there that the Humphrey Fellowship had to be reinstated. The State Department took this under positive consideration. In the meantime, Park returned to Korea and visited the Ministry of Government and Home Affairs and the National Assembly. He told them that there was no other program available similar to the Humphrey program. On his next trip to Washington, Park was able to tell the State Department representatives that the total cost of resuming the Humphrey Fellowship program in Korea would be borne by the Korean government. This is how the program came to be reinstated in 1997. To this date, it remains the only such arrangement by the Humphrey program with a foreign government. Over the years, Korean Humphrey fellows have assumed many senior leadership positions in the Korean government. In the early 1990s, a Humphrey Fellow alumnus became Minister of Information and Communication, and at least three Humphrey alumni have held vice-minister positions in various government ministries.

177

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

East-West Center grants

The East-West Center was established by the United States Congress in 1960 as a national educational institution to foster better relations and understanding among the peoples of the United States, Asia, and the Pacific Islands through programs of cooperative study, training, and research. Then Senator Lyndon B. Johnson first publicly suggested the idea of an international center during a speech at the American Society of Newspaper Editors in Washington, D.C., on April 16, 1959. He proposed that the nation establish an international university in Hawaii “as a meeting place for intellectuals of the East and West.”7

wang Yon kyun Emeritus Professor, Economics Chung Ang University

The scholarship programs of the Korean-American Educational Commission in the late 1960s included both Fulbright scholarships and East-West Center scholarships. The year 2010 marks the 60th and 50th anniversary of these programs, respectively. I was a beneficiary of the latter and went to the University of Hawaii, where I completed a master’s degree program. I received a scholarship from a university on the East Coast where I obtained a Ph.D. Later, I had an opportunity to serve as a research fellow at a university in the west as a Fulbrighter. The opportunity to pursue graduate studies and serve as a research fellow in the United States set the stage for me to grow in a professional capacity. Upon graduation from the university, I worked for the Bank of Korea, with responsibility for the collection and analysis of economic data. It was a time when the scarcity of enterprises enhanced the prestige of working for a bank among students who majored in economics. However, I was not content with the job. I wanted to pursue advanced studies leading to master’s and doctoral degrees. There were no programs for doctoral degrees at Korean universities, and even master’s degree programs were not organized into a curriculum. At national universities, each undergraduate class

178

The Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program, EWC, and Other Grants

was crammed with 100 to 200 students. Overburdened with the crowded classes, professors had no time to prepare for teaching graduate students. The pathetic dearth of scholarships for graduate students made graduate studies almost impossible. Those few who pursued graduate studies spent much of their time reading the English texts of established economic theories, leaving no room for updated theories. Courses in econometrics, necessary to validate theoretical hypotheses, hardly existed. Econometrics is the combination of theoretical study and a mathematical or statistical approach. One of the reasons for treating economics as a science is that economic theories and hypotheses are empirically validated by mathematical and statistical approaches. The empirical approach is called positive economics. In order to establish an economic theory capable of predicting future needs, mathematical and statistical approaches are indispensable. Dependence on computers increased in proportion to the necessity of processing data for analytical purposes. However, at that time there was no computer at the College of Commerce in Seoul National University. I am not sure if any computers were made available to students at Seoul National University. The absence of econometrics and international economics was the motivation for my decision to pursue advanced studies in the United States. In the 1970s, the value of the dollar was so high that it was almost impossible to earn enough to finance a round trip to the United States simply by tightening one’s belt. Even American universities were so squeezed financially that scholarships were not available to graduate students in the first year, and the chance for a scholarship was much slimmer in the social sciences. Scholarships were available to graduate students in the second or third year on the condition that they had achieved high grades. Unless one was from a wealthy family, it was almost impossible to pursue an advanced degree. Amid such a dire situation, no one would have dreamed of overseas studies had it not been for the East-West or Fulbright scholarships In my case, I was blessed with both of these scholarships. Education and research experience in the United States stood me in good stead in teaching and research at a Korean university. I taught international economic theories, econometrics, and economic theories relevant to Korea. I have written many papers related to economic prediction, foreign currency policy, trade policy, liberal capital flow, economic stability, and the like. I served the Korean government and international agencies in the capacity of a consultant. Cultural experience is an important accompaniment to academic study, and it

179

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

is crucially important to national development. Globalization and an increasing proportion of service industries are implacable trends. If Korea is to develop into an advanced society with a competitive economy, it is imperative that it develop a new work ethic commensurate with new economic practices. Koreans need to be trained in democratic modes of thinking, attitudes, and free discourse. That same year, Senator Johnson introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate, and an identical bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on behalf of John Burns. Following a study by the State Department recommending establishment of a center, a final bill was passed and signed into law by President Eisenhower on May 14, 1960. An initial appropriation of $10 million supported creation of the center.8 As mentioned earlier in the book, Fulbright Korea had some contact with the EastWest Center from its inception, announcing services and sending one high school teacher there for training during its first year of operation. During the early years of its operation, there were some years in which the number of East-West Center grantees exceeded that of Fulbright grantees, and a full-time staff member was allocated within the secretariat to work on East-West Center affairs. Without question, the East-West Center grant programs added a strong regional emphasis and an important dimension to the Fulbright Commission’s activities. By 1973, KAEC had reassessed the demands of East-West Center services on its staff and determined that a larger budget was needed to continue with the services. It requested increased funding from the center, and its deputy director visited the EastWest Center for discussions. However, the center was not forthcoming, so the Fulbright Commission voted in 1973 to cut back on its services. The question of adequate funding from the East-West Center in support of the services it expected from Fulbright Korea continued to be a matter of concern through 1977, when the center cut its funding to the commission by 50 percent. For many years, Fulbright Korea offered services that shortened the application process for East-West Center grants and made it more convenient for applicants than going directly through the U.S. embassy in Seoul. However, after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, a requirement was established that all East-West Center grant applicants needed to have a visa interview at the U.S. embassy. This new requirement made Fulbright’s services relatively useless. Therefore, within a year or two of 9/11 executive director Shim Jai Ok discontinued the services and recommended to the EastWest Center that it no longer pay the Fulbright Commission for services.

180

The Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program, EWC, and Other Grants

The GE Foundation Scholar-Leaders Program

The binational agreement that established KAEC does not limit the commission to the Fulbright Program but authorizes it to be involved in a broad range of educational exchange and scholarship programs. In 1992, with board approval, KAEC began working with the GE Fund in selecting recipients for GE Scholarships in Engineering and Natural Science under the GE Foundation Scholar-Leaders Program. The entire application and selection process for this fellowship program was administered by the Fulbright Commission. A total of 143 students received GE Foundation Scholar-Leaders awards over the years. From 1992 through 2005, the GE Fellowship selected students in their junior year and provided two years of support. Starting in 2006, the program was expanded, with students selected in their sophomore year for three years of financial support. Twice each year, General Electric Korea sponsored a reception for all current and past recipients of GE Foundation Scholar-Leaders scholarships. These receptions served a valuable function in putting new fellowship recipients in touch with alumni and in creating a sense of community among all of the recipients. The GE Foundation Scholar-Leaders Program continued in Korea through 2009, at which point it was discontinued by GE because of corporate financial difficulties.

Lucent Global Science Scholarships

In 1999, the Institute for International Education (IIE) proposed that Fulbright work with Lucent Technologies in selecting recipients of Lucent Scholarships. The Fulbright Commission approved KAEC participation with IIE in a Lucent-funded scholarship program in December 1999.9 The first Lucent Global Science Scholars were selected in 2000, and that program continued until 2005. The GE Fellowships and the Lucent Global Science scholarships had the positive effect of continuing Fulbright’s activities in support of science and technology. In 1994, the commission had voted to focus Fulbright grants exclusively on the social sciences and humanities, and these two grant programs helped to maintain an important degree of Fulbright involvement with science and technology.

181

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

182

Chapter 8

History of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association The establishment of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association (KFAA) in 1987, over a year before the Seoul Olympics, was a major milestone for the Fulbright Program in Korea. As already described, the Korean government began to play a more active role in the Fulbright Program from 1980, when it increased its financial support to the program tenfold. However, the formation of the KFAA would add a broad new dimension to Fulbright Korea that we will describe in this chapter. It set off a sequence of events that would culminate in the establishment of the Korea Fulbright Foundation, which was officially announced during Senator Fulbright’s visit to Seoul in 1990. This chapter looks at how the process of creating an alumni association, and later a foundation, took place. It provides a brief history of the KFAA and explores some of its significant accomplishments to date. Many of the major accomplishments, such as the association’s active involvement in planning and hosting major commemorative events, as well as the purchase of the Fulbright Building, are dealt with more extensively in other chapters of this book.

The Korea Fulbright Alumni Association

As described in earlier chapters, the genesis of the Fulbright Program in Korea can be traced to the binational agreement signed on April 28, 1950, but the disastrous Korean War nearly brought its implementation to a halt. It was not until the United States

183

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History Educational Commission in Korea (USEC/K) was formed that scores of Korean students selected as grantees began to depart annually for study in the United States, with the first group departing in 1961. The Fulbright grantees represented the cream of the crop in those days, and even today the Fulbright scholarship is regarded as one of the highest academic honors a Korean aspirant can receive. Those early grantees studied at prestigious universities in the United States and returned to Korea upon completion of their studies to inhabit positions of leadership in academia, politics, officialdom, business, culture, science, and technology. Their combined expertise contributed powerfully to the drive for national development. Despite the Fulbright Program’s tangible contribution to modernization, it took quite some time to found the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association (KFAA). One reason for the belated advent of the KFAA might be the lack of a feeling of solidarity like that felt by graduates of the same university. Most universities provide their students with opportunities to share a common experience of studying and to enjoy a good degree of solidarity. That makes it easier to bring graduates together into a fraternal society. Such an opportunity was not readily available to Fulbrighters. Once a year, recipients of Fulbright scholarships were brought together for an orientation program prior to departure for the United States, after which they were dispersed to various universities all over that country. Upon returning to Korea after their U.S. experience, they had too few meetings at which they could share common experiences and recollections. Consequently, they lacked a common frame of reference to bind them into a fraternity.

Gathering Support for the Idea

By the late 1980s, there were about 700 Korean alumni of the Fulbright Program. In those days, Fulbright executive director Frederick Carriere felt strongly that a Korean Fulbright alumni association should be formed, and so he and Shim Jai Ok approached leaders of the Fulbright alumni in all major regions of the country and asked them to form such an association. They traveled throughout South Korea to meet with alumni of the Fulbright Program in order to persuade them of the need for some sort of formal alumni association. They visited each of the major regional cities several times, holding conferences and offering support. Formation of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association followed the establishment of local chapters in each province. Of course, because it had so many more alumni, the Seoul metropolitan region formed the largest organization, initially designating six charter trustees and 24 regular members. The formation of all of these regional alumni associations, including that of Seoul, was what propelled formation of a national Fulbright Korea alumni organization.

184

History of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association

Foundation of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association

On May 22, 1987, the chairmen of the regional alumni associations convened in Seoul for a breakfast meeting at the Seoul Plaza Hotel, and the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association was formed. Structurally, the organization was established with eight regional independent chapters. Each of the regional chairmen would formally serve as a vicechairman under the single person selected to be chairman of the new national association. Professor Kim Doo Hyun of the Korean Legal Institute, who was president of the Seoul Metropolitan Area chapter, was selected as the first president of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association. His vacant presidential seat in the Seoul chapter was filled by Han Sang Joon, who had been serving as vice-president. Kim’s remarks, published on the occasion of the first anniversary of the formation of the association, took note of the turbulent political context in Korea: The outset of the KFAA, as you are well aware, was coincidental to waves of political movements crying out for democracy. The campus was so much disturbed that one year passed without a tangible outcome we could show off. With one year yet to serve as the president, I am under pressure to get something done. It was in this mental framework that we came to celebrate the first anniversary of KFAA. This is the time to renew our commitment to educational programs, the achievement of which depends heavily on the support and cooperation of our fellow Fulbrighters.1 Another important event coincided with the formation of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association. In commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the Fulbright Program worldwide and the 25th anniversary of establishment of the United States Educational Commission in Korea, a colloquium was held at the Seoul Plaza Hotel with a keynote address by Fulbright Anniversary Distinguished Fellow Robert A. Scalapino. He spoke on “U.S. Foreign Policy and Northeast Asia.” At the same colloquium, former Deputy Prime Minister Lee Han Bin gave an important address, cited elsewhere in this book, in which he talked about early educational exchanges with the U.S. and the position of American-educated intellectuals in Korea. His comments included the following: The student-sending program in the post-liberation period had a strong pragmatic tone, as the Korean participants chose to study in the United States. The Garrio Program sent assistant professors to further their higher education in the United

185

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History States and their fields of study were limited to agriculture, forestry, fishery, nutrition, geology, medical science, engineering and management. Subsequently, the U.S. State Department launched a program that invited leaders in various walks of life to short-term educational programs in the 1950s. The participants in this program represented education, journalism, law, and social welfare. The pragmatic orientation of the educational program was clearly manifest in the military training program. According to the national plan for the expansion of the armed forces in the wake of the Korean War, ranking officers were dispatched to Staff College or schools of strategic studies in the United States. Pragmatic orientation was an alien concept for Koreans who had experienced the humanity-orientation of education. The blind acceptance of the strange concept brought back a nostalgic yearning among Korean scholars for the humanities. The Yenching Institute of Harvard University surfaced to quench Koreans’ thirst for humanities. It was the Korea Fulbright Program that mediated between Harvard University and Korean aspirants hoping to study the humanities. By mediating between the two, the Korea Fulbright Program opened a new chapter in the annals of educational exchange. Started in the 1960s, this program expanded the area of studies to social science and added a new role as an inviter of American scholars to teach at Korean universities or research in cooperation with Korean counterparts. The 1960s witnessed the proliferation of programs to provide greater opportunities for Koreans to further their higher education in the United States. Most typical of them was the East-West Program. It sent scores of Korean students to American universities, and their repatriation provided a motive to sharpen the development edge of scholarly expertise to bear on national development. The self-financed students whose number increased in the 1970s had their shares of contribution to national development after they obtained advanced degrees from American universities.2 On June 8, 1987, the new association acted to establish a Fulbright Alumni Fellowship program. On July 11, 1987, the first Fulbright alumni fellow was selected. In May 1988, the inaugural issue of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Newsletter was published. On May 20, the first anniversary of the establishment of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association was celebrated at the Shilla Hotel in Seoul. U.S. Ambassador James R. Lilley delivered a congratulatory address for the occasion.

186

History of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association

On September 22, 1989, the second anniversary of the establishment of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association was celebrated at the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry. There, Hahn Sang Joon was selected as the second president of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association. Lee Hyun Jae, the former Prime Minister, delivered a special address on the topic of “Educational System of Korea and New Direction.”

The Korea Fulbright Foundation

At the September 1989 meeting of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association, a preparation committee was established to form the Korea Fulbright Foundation. Finally, on January 11, 1991, the foundation was legally established. The Korea Fulbright Foundation has carried out several important activities over the years. First, on four occasions thus far the foundation has hosted dinners for Korea Fulbright alumni and American grantees. At these dinners, American grantees have been able to network with their Korean colleagues and, on many occasions, have questions answered through them. In this manner, Korean alumni are able to provide valuable assistance to American grantees. Second, the foundation has given awards to American student grantees to assist with their research. In 2008, awards of $1,000 were given to Franklin Rausch for his research on Ahn Jung Geun and Aimee Lee for her research on Korean paper making (hanji). In 2009, Carla Stansifer received a grant of $3,000 to help her with filming the processing of Korea lacquer art. As of this writing, these awards are still being offered. Third, when Hurricane Katrina struck the United States, the foundation donated $10,000 through the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy, Mark Minton. This was supplemented by $38,000 donated by the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association. Finally, on October 23, 2009, the Korea Fulbright Foundation sponsored a symposium to help commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Fulbright Program in Korea. The topic was “The Direction of Korea’s Education in the Twenty-First Century.”

Major Accomplishments of the Alumni Association & Foundation

Both the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association and the Korea Fulbright Foundation have contributed to the growth and development of the Fulbright Program in Korea in various ways, including the following:

187

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History • H elping to finance and organize commemoration of important historical occasions in Fulbright Korea’s history, • Fundraising for the purchase of the Fulbright Building in 1999, • C haritable contributions in the wake of the Asian tsunami in 2004 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005, • Participation in U.S. Fulbright Association meetings and other international meetings of Fulbright alumni from around the world, and • Program initiatives that would not have been possible for the commission itself with only grant funding from the two governments.

Fulbright 40th Anniversary Commemoration

This book opened with an account of the 40th anniversary of the Fulbright Program in Korea, which was the occasion for Senator Fulbright’s only visit to Korea. The Korea Fulbright Alumni Association and the Korea Fulbright Foundation both played key roles in organizing and making possible the commemoration of that milestone in Fulbright’s history.

Senator J. William Fulbright and Harriet Fulbright greet guest at the 40th anniversary celebration of the Fulbright Program in Korea.

188

History of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association

Senator J. William Fulbright greets Korea Fulbright Alumni Association member Professor Ro Jung Hyun at the 40th anniversary commemoration of the Fulbright Program in Korea, which was celebrated in Seoul on September 2021, 1990.

Fulbright 50th Anniversary Commemoration Project

In September 1994, members of the Korea Fulbright Foundation and the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association formulated an idea for a Fulbright 50th Anniversary Research Award. The concept was to have awards given to American scholars whose research would “promote academic understanding between America and Korea.” Of course, they also saw the significance of acknowledging the vision of Senator J. William Fulbright. That vision was planted in 1946 and in fifty years had spread worldwide, influencing untold numbers of world citizens.3 Key members of the foundation and the alumni association worked with the secretariat to develop this grant program. The project received many good proposals before finally awarding grants of $5,000 each to three American scholars: Mel Gurtov, a political scientist; James F. Larson, a communication scholar; and Robert R. Swartout, Jr., a historian. They co-authored a book, edited by Ray E. Weisenborn, titled Korea’s Amazing Century: From Kings to Satellites. The book was originally printed, published, and copyrighted in Seoul by the Korea Fulbright Foundation and the Korean-American Educational Commission in 1996. In 2009, the Fulbright Foundation and the Korean-American Educational Commission decided to digitally publish the book through Google Books to ensure wide availability

189

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History while retaining the copyright. The volume can be read online or downloaded in a PDF version on Google Books.4 The dedication page of the book reads as follows. To the Fulbright program for its fifty years of nurturing world peace and understanding; To the memory of Senator J. William Fulbright whose vision lit this candle and carried it forth; To t h e K o re a n a n d Am e r i c a n Fulbright scholars who have shared their lives with commitment to a global village.5 On November 25, 1996, the 50th anniversary of the worldwide Fulbright Program was commemorated at the Korea Press Center, and a copy of Korea’s Amazing Century: From Kings to Satellites was presented to Mrs. Harriet Mayor Fulbright, who, along with Dr. Cho Soon, was a keynote speaker.

Bronze Bust of Senator Fulbright Dedicated in Fulbright Building Entryway

On October 20, 2006, a ceremony was held to dedicate a bronze bust of Senator J. William Fulbright in the foyer of the Fulbright Building. This dedication was held on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Fulbright Program worldwide and in honor of what would have been the Senator’s 100th birthday. It was the first such commemorative event among Fulbright Programs around the world. The bust was sculpted by Professor Ted Aub of Hobart and William Smith Colleges. Professor Aub’s wife, Philia Lee, had been a Fulbright grantee, and only because of this fortunate circumstance was it possible to have the project commissioned at such a low cost. The bust was made possible thanks to a contribution of $10,000 from Fulbright Korea Alumni Association members. Some associated costs for the unveiling ceremony were covered by the Fulbright Commission.6

190

Dr. James F. Larson presents Mrs. Harriet M. Fulbright with a commemorative copy of Korea’s Amazing Century: From Kings to Satellites on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Worldwide Fulbright Program in 1996.

History of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association

This bust was made possible thanks to the contribution of $10,000 from Fulbright Korea Alumni Association members. Pictured here from left to right: Suh Dong Hee, Yoon Bokcha, Kang Chang Hee, KAEC executive director Shim Jai Ok, and Choi Young.

60th Anniversary Commemoration Activities

As described in Chapter 6, the KFAA and the Korea Fulbright Foundation played a major role in organizing events in Korea and the United States during 2010 to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Fulbright Program in Korea. In particular, the idea to publish this 60th anniversary history was given its initial support and impetus by the KFAA, which, among its many efforts, formed a committee, undertook fundraising, and solicited Korean alumni reminiscences.

English-Cultural Program for Children of Fulbright Alumni

In 1996, the fourth president of the KFAA initiated an English language and cultural program in the U.S. for the children of Fulbright Alumni. Administration of the program was entrusted to the LCP International Institute, which provided connections to host institutions in the U.S. Following a preparatory period, the first program was offered from January 1996, coinciding with the winter vacation in Korean schools. A second program was offered from July of that year. The winter vacation program was attended by 46 secondary school and college students. Secondary school students and college students, including graduate students, were sent to college and universities in California. The

191

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History summer vacation program was attended by 18 students. Secondary school students were sent to Highline Community College in Des Moines, Washington, and college students (including graduate students) to Irvine Valley College in Irvine, California. The 1997 summer program was attended by four students. Secondary school students were sent to Mira Costa College Center, Oceanside, California, and college students to Highline Community College Center, Des Moines, Washington. The participants underwent an intensive course of 25 hours per week. The weekend program included a sightseeing tour to adjacent places of interest and sport events. The program also featured a home stay, which provided cultural immersion and maximized conversational opportunities through daily contact with family members. The LCP proved to be a great success, eliciting positive comments from both parents and the hosting institutes. The latter were positive about the quality of students and their motivation to learn, and this was attributed to the rising expectations of their parents. KAEC was fully engaged in the planning, contacts, travel arrangements, and all work related to entry visas. The Fulbright Commission’s professional capability in this regard gave the LCP an edge over other competing programs. Indeed, the KAEC administration had thought that if alumni members’ children could be sent to the United States for language training for a contribution of approximately $500 per child, the program could still be administered for far less than a private language or study abroad institute would receive for such a program. The LCP yielded a profit of 5,000,000 won, which was transferred to KAEC. The fund was eventually used to bring two American “roving scholars” to Korea. Initially, Shim Jai Ok did all of the administrative work for the English and cultural program for children of alumni. The program was so successful that then executive director Ray Weisenborn proposed to the board that he take over administration of the program, with the help of an assistant. After a few years of the program, all documentation was transferred to a secretary hired by the KFAA. In 1999 and 2000, the program was discontinued for two years for lack of adequate linkages with U.S. institutions, but it was subsequently reinstated for two more years, running through 2002. Although it was very popular with Fulbright alumni and produced income for the alumni association, the program was eventually discontinued due to lack of agreement within the commission about how it should be staffed.7

Fundraising for Purchase of the Fulbright Building

The Korea Fulbright Alumni Association played a critical role in recruiting alumni donors who contributed to a fund that helped to purchase the Fulbright Building in 1999. The

192

History of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association

decision to launch a fundraising campaign was made by the sixth board of trustees of the KFAA. Many Korean alumni enthusiastically participated in this campaign. Two hundred six alumni eventually contributed a total of about 251,387,250 won toward purchase of the building.8

Contributions for Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina Relief

In a sure sign that Fulbright Korea alumni efforts had come of age, alumni organized to gather money and send contributions in the wake of two massive natural disasters. These were the largest contributions made by any Fulbright Commission.9 In December 2004, a major earthquake, followed by a tsunami, hit Asia and Africa, devastating many coastal areas. At a January 2005 executive committee meeting of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association, Kang Sung Hack, the newly elected president, recalled his surprise at being asked by Fulbright executive director Shim Jai Ok to raise funds for tsunami relief in Southeast Asia and also to commission the sculpting of a bronze bust of Senator J. William Fulbright for placement in the Fulbright Building to commemorate the centennial of the late senator’s birth and the 60th anniversary of the Fulbright Program worldwide.10 Kang was dumbfounded when Shim further mentioned that the alumni had to raise at least $10,000 for each project, or a total $20,000. Such a huge amount of money was unimaginable at that time for Korean Fulbrighters, almost all of whom were academicians. While the centennial anniversary is a very meaningful event for Western peoples, including Americans, the sixty-year anniversary represents a major milestone for Koreans and Chinese, marking a return to the beginning of the sexagenary cycle of the Chinese zodiac. Kang also realized quickly that the alumni had to accept the request to “help” Shim, the first female executive director of Fulbright Korea, prove that she was as able as, or perhaps more so than, the several American predecessors she had served for the last 28 years. Over that time, Shim had come to be regarded by most Korean Fulbrighters as the “alter ego” of the Korea’s Fulbright Scholarship program.11 Therefore, out of respect for Shim, the alumni made up their minds to launch the necessary fundraising. Kang expected members of the Korean Fulbright Alumni Association to donate for the fundraising for the name and person of Shim Jai Ok, rather than for Fulbright Alumni Association’s own sake, because almost all Korean Fulbrighters had met her more than once for their own reasons. In his initial letter to members, he tried to appeal to their hearts as well as brains.

193

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History However, in the midst of this first fundraising effort, the tragic news broke about victims of Hurricane Katrina in the United States. Kang quickly convened a special meeting of the executive committee, which unanimously decided to launch another fundraising effort for “Katrina relief.”12 To deal with the added fundraising burden, Kang proposed increasing the membership of the executive committee of board members from about fifteen to about 100. He called a meeting of the new expanded membership and asked them to adopt a fundraising plan for Katrina relief, which they did without hesitation. With board approval, he sent a letter to the members saying that the time had come to return the favor they had received from the American people many years before to people suffering in the present day in New Orleans, a sacred home of American jazz music. He argued that Koreans had been able to study and carry out research in the U.S. thanks to taxes paid by the American people, which had allowed them to upgrade their social status and standard of living. With American Katrina victims having suffered from a natural disaster, he said that this presented a “good” opportunity to help those solitary poor Americans. In particular, he urged board members to double or triple their contributions to set a good example. The response was swift and strong, and the so-called “CNN effect” of global media played a significant role in the fundraising for Katrina victims by repeatedly broadcasting scenes of the tragedy. The Korean alumni collected and delivered a total of about $38,000 to the U.S. embassy in Seoul within a very short time. They also sent $16,000 to Jane Anderson of the Fulbright Association for tsunami relief, including an additional $6,000 that had been collected from the staff of the Fulbright Commission in Korea.13 Over a period of months, Shim Jai Ok worked closely with Anderson. They contacted Porntip Kanjananiyot, executive director of the Fulbright Commission in Thailand. After some negotiation and careful consideration of alternative uses of the money donated, the decision was finally made to donate $14,000 to a portable library project for schools in tsunami-affected areas of Thailand. Schools benefited from the project by receiving quality books, while teachers gained knowledge in the teaching of reading. Students were also able to learn more about U.S. culture. The fundraising effort for this project, led by the Korea Fulbright Association, was joined by the U.S. Fulbright Association, the Irish Fulbright Alumni Association, and similar groups in Costa Rica and Togo. As the letter from Shim and Anderson to Thailand’s executive director stated, “The gift is made on behalf of the global Fulbright alumni community and comes to you with the good will and support of Fulbrighters and friends throughout the world.”14 Very important to the worldwide Fulbright alumni movement that contributed to the gift were the plans of Thai alumni to visit the schools

194

History of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association

and provide assistance with reading activities. Kang was pleased to report to the Fulbright Association that the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association had come of age at last, not only in terms of numerical age but also in terms of its moral behavior. He noted that Korean Fulbrighters had upgraded their moral status from that of humble beneficiary into that of proud benefactor by doing significant community service for two years. He also expressed the hope and expectation that the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association would continue to do work for educational, intellectual, and community service in the spirit of the Fulbright Program.15

Support of the KAEC Administration

Over the years, the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association has consistently offered its support to the Fulbright Commission when it has been needed. For example, at the commission meeting of December 9, 1987, the board approved using the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association to register ownership of a house for the executive director. As permission had not been obtained to purchase the house provided for the executive director’s use in the commission’s name, KAEC’s lawyer and other experts suggested the problem might be resolved by registering ownership of the house in the name of the alumni association. Another example of the alumni association’s support for Fulbright Commission activities came around the time Shim Jai Ok was named the ninth executive director of Fulbright Korea in 2004. At that time, it was becoming apparent that ETS was going

The Korea Fulbright Alumni Association at the Fulbright Association’s 13th annual Conference in 1990.

195

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History to dramatically change its relationship with the Fulbright Commission in connection with the introduction of a new delivery mode for TOEFL in October 2006. In terms of revenue flow, and therefore all of Fulbright’s programs, the implications of ETS’s move were huge. It meant the loss of several million dollars in gross annual revenue that had come to the commission during the years of the computer-based TOEFL from 2000 to 2006. Knowing about the prospective loss of revenue, and wanting the first female executive director of Fulbright Korea to succeed, several key members of the alumni association made cash donations of five million won per person to Shim, accompanied by the suggestion that she establish an educational corporation for the broad purpose of ensuring sufficient revenue for the ongoing work of the Fulbright Commission. After giving the matter a great deal of thought, Shim eventually chose a different course of action, opting to approach both the Korean and United States governments directly with requests that they increase their annual allocation to the Fulbright Program. Given the many uncertainties of operating an educational company in parallel with the Fulbright Commission, she eventually decided firmly against that route and returned the donations to the Korean alumni.16 However, this poignant episode stood out in her mind, and she gratefully acknowledged this alumni support in a speech at the 2009 meeting of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association, held at the Korea Press Center in downtown Seoul.

A Chronology of Korea Fulbright Alumni Association Presidents KFAA/Election Date

President

First/May 22, 1987

Kim Doo Hyun, Korean Legal Institute

Second/September 22, 1989

Dr. Hahn Sang Joon, Emeritus President of Hanyang University

Third/November 8, 1991

Professor Kim Yong Kwon, Department of English Literature, Sogang University

Fourth/November 18, 1994

Professor Ro Jung Hyun, Department of Public Administration, Yonsei University

Fifth/November 25, 1996

Dr. Ahn Byong Man, President of Hankuk University of Foreign Studies

Sixth/September 1998

Kim Kee Soon, Dean of Graduate School, Hanyang University

Seventh/October 20, 2000

Professor Yoon Bokcha, Yonsei University

Eighth/December 20, 2002

Professor Song Sang Hyun, Law School, Seoul National University Kang Seong Hak, Professor of Political Science, Korea University

Tenth/December 2006

Professor Choi Young, Professor of English Literature, Ewha Womans University

Eleventh/December 2, 2008

Kim Moon Hwan, Professor of Law, President of Kukmin University

196

Ninth/December 5, 2004

History of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association

The acquisition of its own building after fifty years of renting, leasing, and wandering epitomized the growth and the transition of the Fulbright Program in Korea from a fully funded development program of the U.S. government to a widely supported and substantially mature program of international educational exchange.

197

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

198

Chapter 9

Taking Stock

Fulbright Korea at 60 and Its Future

This book has traced the development of Fulbright educational and cultural exchanges between the United States and Korea over a span of six decades. It has also related that development to the dramatic transformation of South Korea and its emergence as one of the world’s leading economies and an aid donor nation. Whether measured politically, economically, socially, or culturally, the changes Korea experienced over those decades are striking both for their scope and their rapidity. South Korea’s rise from the ashes of the Korean War to become a highly developed, innovation and technology-driven economy has led generations of scholars, journalists, and policymakers to use such expressions as the “Miracle on the Han River” to describe the nation’s transformation. In Korea’s case, the Fulbright Program contributed significantly to overall development of the formal education system, to development of leadership, and to the creation of a healthy national environment for and attitude toward study abroad. The relatively early and large-scale development of both test administration and counseling activities made the Fulbright Commission’s involvement in Korea’s education sector and in the movement toward study abroad more comprehensive and more influential.

Major Factors in Korea’s Rapid Development

Most studies of South Korea’s remarkably rapid development over the past half century point to education as a major factor, and that has been a primary concern of this book. Among the other major reasons for Korea’s dynamism, its development and exportation

199

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History of information and communication technologies deserve special mention. One need only look at the makeup of South Korea’s economy and its exports today to see the importance of semiconductors, television sets and displays, and mobile handsets. Such typical listings of export categories tend to obscure the role of the small, medium, and largesized companies that manufacture the components that go into consumer and industrial electronics products. Without strong education, it is difficult to envision the technology development and innovation taking place today within Korea and its large, transnational jaebeol groups. Study abroad—in which Fulbright played a critical role, especially in the early years— contributed to both the development of a strong educational system in South Korea and to the quality of leadership in government, academia, and the private sector there.

Education in South Korea’s Development

At the time of liberation from Japan, less than 25% of the 20 million people who lived on the Korean Peninsula received what could be called a formal education. Moreover, less than one percent of them were able to get even a limited version of the “higher education” that Japan permitted. By the end of World War II, school buildings were run down and supplies practically nonexistent. On top of this, there was a gross shortage of teachers. All of the Japanese teachers were repatriated to Japan, and many Korean teachers were called upon to serve the nation in other capacities. Nevertheless, teachers were scraped up from wherever they could be found. Korea had barely started to build its educational system when the Korean War broke out and the schools were again devastated.1 It was from this “basket case” that Korea built its present education system. By the early 1990s, the rate of literacy and primary school attendance both approached 100%. Currently, achievement of a high school education is nearly universal in South Korea, and more than 80% of high school graduates proceed to tertiary education. In recent years, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) has shown that Korean students rank at or near the top in the world in average PISA mathematics and science scores.2 One lifelong educator and longtime Fulbright Commission board member, Horace G. Underwood, called the eagerness of the Korean people to have an education perhaps the greatest strength of Korean education: “Korean society abounds with stories of parents who sold their homes, even their ancestral farms, so that a child might get to a university.”3 Over the years, the World Bank has studied South Korea’s national development rather intensively. A recent World Bank/OECD study of Korea identified the four key pillars of the knowledge economy as follows:

200

Taking Stock

Fulbright Korea at 60 and Its Future • An economic and institutional regime with incentives for the use of existing knowledge and the creation of new knowledge.

• Education, training, and human resource management (an educated, entrepreneurial population that can both use existing knowledge and create new knowledge).

• A dynamic information infrastructure to facilitate effective communication, dissemination, and processing of information. • An efficient innovation system comprising firms, science and research centers, universities, think tanks, consultants, and other organizations.4

The four pillars in the World Bank’s framework make the central role of education abundantly clear not only in terms of formal education and degrees, but also in recognition of the need for strong industry-academia-government cooperation in research and development and for broad public knowledge and awareness of the role of science, research, and technology in development.

The Role of Study Abroad in Korea’s Development

At the end of the Korean War, South Korea found itself without a well-developed system of tertiary education. This was in part because of the destruction of the Korean War, and also an effect of the long Japanese colonial period. Under these circumstances, it was not surprising that Koreans would turn in large numbers to study abroad. That same set of circumstances helps to explain the impact of the Fulbright Program in Korea. Under Japanese colonial rule, intolerable repressions in Korea influenced many Korean youth to study abroad; ironically, many of them chose to study in Japan. Immediately following the Korean War, explains Hong Sah-Myung, “one awesome wave of Korean scholars after another bypassed Japan and headed for North America and Western Europe.”5 The flow was so high that the Korean government was forced to introduce required and stiffly competitive examinations, which ensured that only the brightest of young students would study abroad. Hong6 reported that each year then saw some 6,000 students leaving Korea, until 1981, when the number jumped to 15,000. The increase represented the effects of a new “open door policy” for study abroad that had been announced by the government in 1979. Although precise data are unavailable, the number of Korean students going abroad kept increasing through the 1980s and beyond. As noted, there was widespread interest in and need for study abroad following the Korean War. However, the Korean government strictly controlled study abroad during those early years after the war, primarily as a measure to protect the country’s precious

201

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History foreign currency reserves. Every penny was needed for the rehabilitation of Korea after the war. One consequence of this policy was that government or public scholarship funds were the sole source of finance for study abroad. This worked to the benefit of the Fulbright Program in Korea.7 On one level, the Fulbright Program’s impact on study abroad by Koreans can be viewed narrowly in terms of Fulbright grants and the impact of Fulbright grantees. However, as this book has shown, the Fulbright Commission in Seoul had a broader impact on study abroad through its student advising and testing activities. Direct involvement with highstakes academic admissions testing in particular produced a double benefit for Korea. On the one hand, it helped to ensure that these high-stakes tests were accessible to students throughout the country and were administered in a secure, fair, and impartial manner. These conditions are absolutely critical for a healthy educational exchange relationship on a scale such as that between the U.S. and Korea. In addition to this benefit, Fulbright’s testing activities produced income that allowed the commission to greatly increase the number of its grants to both Korean and American students and scholars.

Fulbright’s Impact on Korean Leadership

When one looks at the high proportion of U.S.-trained Ph.D.s in Korea’s universities, research institutes, government agencies, and private corporations, the impact of study abroad in the U.S. on Korean leadership quickly becomes apparent. In 1998, Kim Doo Hyun, the first president of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association, wrote, “The participants in the Fulbright Program represent a wide spectrum of leaders, including government officials, diplomats, attorneys, journalists, scientists, professors, entrepreneurs, and artists. They are leaders in their respective organizations and are in a position to influence, in one way or another, the decision-making process in their countries.”8 In Korea, the Fulbright Program had a particularly strong influence on leadership for several reasons. First, Fulbright alumni set a standard of excellence that many other Korean students sought to emulate. From the start, competition for Fulbright grants to study in the U.S. was very high, and only a few of Korea’s best and brightest received the awards each year. A second, related factor has to do with public expectations of educated elites and their responsibility to society. As former Deputy Prime Minister Lee Han Bin noted in a 1987 commemorative address: The returnees from exposure to American education occupy leading positions in the bureaucratic, military, industrial, journalistic and political sectors. Their rapid rise along the hierarchical ladder was most salient among the East Asian countries.

202

Taking Stock

Fulbright Korea at 60 and Its Future As they occupied leading positions, public expectations of their role was running high. The public expectations of the educated elites, particularly the Americanbred scholars, were realistic in light of the imperatives facing the country at the time. First, the people expect the educated elites to bring professional expertise to bear on various problems spawned in the dust of rapid development. We are reminded of Moon Ik Jom, who brought cotton seeds on his way back from mission to the Yuan Dynasty. No one expected that scores of cotton seeds would bring a dramatic change in the clothing modes of Koreans. The scientists, economists, managers, and others who returned with advanced degrees from the United States were the modern versions of Moon Ik Jom. Second, the educated returnees were expected to become precursors in the realization of democracy. For the last four decades, Koreans have developed the American perspectives which vary depending on their ideological or political standing. Amid the variation of their attitudes, there is one thing which has been constant, an agreement that the United States represents the highest version of liberal democracy. For a country which aspired to liberal democracy, it behooves that (sic) the people expect the educated elites to become precursors in the reform move toward liberal democracy. Per capita income of Koreans exceeded $2,000, and average Koreans attained to (sic) high school education. This provides the ground for precipitating the formation of a middle class and the realization of liberal democracy. With so many educated in the United States, a question inevitably arose as to what kept the country from realizing democracy. Last, the people expect the educated elites to become a moral paragon by living a life of diligence, austerity, and saving, worthy for others to pattern after. When it comes to a spiritual life, many Koreans are attached to the traditional moral virtues. They expect the educated elites to be a sensitive evaluator of the Western value, guarding against the onslaught of those which do harm to Koreans and to champion our traditional values worth to preserve (sic). The familism which is unique of Koreans may be promoted as a counterweight to the Americans who see their families frequently break down. In summary, education played a vital role in South Korea’s remarkable development since the mid 20th century. Furthermore, the Fulbright Program and education abroad were leading catalysts for study abroad and for the development of education more generally. Finally, almost from its inception the Fulbright Commission in Korea played a more comprehensive role in educational and national development than was the case for

203

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History many other Fulbright Commissions around the world, which concentrated more narrowly on Fulbright grants. In addition to grant programs, the need for significant involvement in educational testing and advising became apparent from the early years; these two activities became major emphases for Fulbright Korea over the years and are an important part of its prospects for the future, as the following section will show.

Fulfilling Fulbright’s Mission in the Future

Given South Korea’s remarkable transformation, along with the role that education generally and the Fulbright Program in particular played in it, some might suggest that the mission of Fulbright Korea has been fulfilled or accomplished. In this concluding chapter, we suggest why that is emphatically not the case and offer some suggestions as to the direction future Fulbright Korea activities might take. As a starting point, it is important to remember that the central mission of the Fulbright Program revolves around the simple, somewhat idealistic notion that somehow, through intercultural and educational exchange, the peoples of the world might learn to live together in peace. As Senator Fulbright wrote in the foreword to one of his books, “Our future is not in the stars but in our own minds and hearts. Creative leadership and liberal education, which in fact go together, are the first requirements for a hopeful future for humankind. Fostering these—leadership, learning and empathy between cultures—was and remains the purpose of the international scholarship program that I was privileged to sponsor in the U.S. Senate....”9 Unlike the Peace Corps, whose mission was to help developing countries, the underlying philosophy of the Fulbright Program was broader, longer-term, and even global in scope from the start. So how does this apply to the future possibilities for Fulbright Korea?

Fulbright’s Role in Reconciliation on the Korean Peninsula

The continued division of the Korean Peninsula stands as a stark reminder of the war that ravaged the nation 60 years ago and is perhaps the world’s most prominent vestige of the long Cold War. Because the DMZ marks an armistice rather than real peace, the division of Korea can also be thought of as a failure of the Fulbright ideal. After all, the original Fulbright act called for the financing of educational exchange through the sale of surplus war materiel, with the goal of helping the nations of the world to better understand each other so that they would eventually have no need for the weapons of war. The conspicuous failure to achieve mutual understanding and reconciliation thus far in Korea suggests an obvious new area of activity for the Fulbright Program, namely to

204

Taking Stock

Fulbright Korea at 60 and Its Future undertake a range of new initiatives to encourage reconciliation on the Korean Peninsula. There are several compelling reasons why this should be a major emphasis for the future. The first is that the U.S. and Korean government representatives who signed the binational agreement on April 28, 1950, had no knowledge that war would break out on the peninsula and certainly could not have envisioned a devastating war and longstanding division of the nation. The opposite is most likely the case; they signed the agreement with the expectation that Korea would soon be reunified and that the Fulbright Program would lead to educational and intercultural exchanges with all Koreans in both North and South. Another reason for reconciliation as a program objective is that Fulbright Korea has, in fact, already started down this road. The Seoul Statement issued in 2000 and reprinted in Chapter 5 made this much clear. Beyond that, the Korea Fulbright Commission in Seoul voted in 2002 to commit funds to support the Syracuse University exchange program with Kim Chaek University of Technology in Pyongyang, although with the proviso that no government funds would be used. Funding was to come from the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association. The Korean government quickly gave its approval to this plan in January 2003, and it was approved by the U.S. government five years later. Finally, the mission of the Fulbright Program clearly implies that every possible opportunity for interpersonal and intercultural exchange should be sought out. While some might suggest that exchanges under the Fulbright Program should follow political and military agreements between the U.S. and North Korea, we would suggest an alternative scenario in which Fulbright exchanges occur early in the process of rapprochement and reconciliation.

New Dimensions of Fulbright through Digital Media

This book has traced the role of education, especially international educational exchange in which the Fulbright Program played a leading role, in the transformation of Korea. Another key factor in the dramatic changes in South Korea was the development of indigenous technological capacity, especially in the field of information and communication technologies. Economists refer to these technologies as “general purpose” technologies because of their broad use across many industries and in conjunction with other technologies. Today, South Korea is frequently referred to as the world’s most “wired” country. However, this is somewhat of an anachronistic misnomer, since the nation’s networks are mostly digital, consisting of digitally switched fiber optic cable networks and the wireless networks used for mobile communication and for the digital multimedia broadcasting (mobile television) that has become so popular with Korean citizens. A more accurate

205

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History description of South Korea today would be to say that it has the densest and most advanced digital communication networks of any nation in the world. As related in earlier chapters, the construction of these networks began in the 1980s, picked up pace in the 1990s, and continues today. As this book is written, mobile broadband as exemplified by Apple’s iPhone and Android phones has started its rapid diffusion throughout South Korea. These new, rapidly evolving devices will form a central component in the future ubiquitous network society that the Korean government declared as its goal back in 2006. What does South Korea’s status as a world leader in information technology suggest for the future of the Fulbright Program? For one thing, it means that there are increased possibilities for bilateral cooperation on common problems and challenges in telecommunications and the ICT sector generally. In 2008, Korea’s National Information Society Agency, in cooperation with government, academic, and private sector organizations in both Korea and the U.S., convened the 1st Annual Korea-U.S. IT Policy Forum. The goal was to make this forum, which was initiated by the Korean side, into an annual bilateral meeting. There are numerous concrete examples of the need for such a forum. For example, both Korea and the U.S. today are confronting the social problem presented by internet addiction. Korea encountered the problem earlier and on a larger scale simply because it possessed high-speed broadband internet several years before it became available on the same scale in the U.S. The popularity of massive multiplayer online games soared in South Korea during the late 1990s as so-called “PC bangs” (PC rooms, a form of internet café) became ubiquitous. Another useful example is the area of policies, planning, and technologies for the provision of broadband internet. The 2010 FCC report Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan mentions Korea as one of a handful of nations around the world that have developed broadband plans. It recommends that the FCC study specific aspects of Korea’s approach, including the voluntary system of building ratings for broadband connectivity, its utilization of available frequencies, its policy to provide broadband as a universal service, and, most particularly, its use of five-year plans to ensure the achievement of longterm policy goals.10 Some observers have noted that Korea has the advantage of being a geographically small nation (about the size of Indiana) with a high concentration of its population in urban areas. While this is true, it is nevertheless equally apparent that the building of Korea’s digital networks has been a long-term, massive construction project, similar in that respect to the building of freeways through its mountainous countryside. There is much the United States might learn and a great deal to be shared in this

206

Taking Stock

Fulbright Korea at 60 and Its Future important area of infrastructure, innovation, and technology. A second broad range of possibilities opened up for Fulbright Korea by the information revolution is for the adoption and use of the new digital networks—including social networking, video, and mobile—to allow new forms of interaction and collaboration among Fulbright grantees and alumni. The Fulbright Program has already adopted online applications for grants, web sites for commissions and advising centers, and the like. Social network and videoconferencing, to take two simple examples, offer the possibility for grantees currently teaching or studying in the U.S. or Korea to have direct and meaningful contact with prospective grantees or the next cohort of those accepted for Fulbright awards in either the U.S. or Korea. As of this writing in 2010, the pace of communications convergence seems to be quickening. Clearly, the emerging ease and economy of videoconferencing via Skype or other software facilitates new forms of international collaboration. In 2009, Fulbright Korea hired its first alumni coordinator. A substantial portion of her efforts involved outreach to American alumni of Fulbright Korea. They had become far more accessible than in the past thanks to the internet and its social networking capabilities. A third distinct example of how Fulbright Korea might contribute to improving mutual understanding between Korea and the United States has to do with the role of digital media in the creation and maintenance of national images. The Lee Myung Bak administration in Korea is the latest to recognize that Korea suffers from an image problem around the world, including in the United States. It formed the Presidential Council on National Branding in an effort to deal with this situation. In general, Korea’s national image around the world is shaped by mainstream media coverage and, increasingly, news as disseminated through the internet. This results in an image dominated by the continued division of the nation, periodic incidents or tension along the DMZ, and the on-and-off six-party talks on North Korea’s nuclear problem. While the brand images of Samsung or LG Electronics may be more immediately recognized and more favorable in the U.S. and around the world, surveys show that large percentages of people do not know that they are Korean companies. South Korea’s national image problem persists despite the wealth of information made available globally via the World Wide Web. Why is this the case? In part, the image is accurate, because the division of Korea and the ongoing armistice that stopped fighting in the Korean War are historical realities. Although the two Koreas and the rest of the world have come to live with these realities, they do affect not only national image but also, sometimes, calculations of investment risk by international corporations considering

207

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History location in South Korea versus other nearby Asian countries. To understand Korea’s national image problem, one must also consider two early and rather well substantiated findings from the modern field of communication research: selective attention and selective perception. Although the availability of text, photos, and video news has arguably increased exponentially in recent decades, the users of such information are all human beings who selectively search for, attend to, and perceive the news about any event or nation. Over and above this, one might argue that the flood of information produced by today’s digital networks creates an information overload effect that actually highlights the human processes of selective attention and perception. So the new digital media themselves are no panacea in solving the problems of inaccurate mutual perceptions. The problem of Korean perceptions of the U.S. is a rather persistent one, as illustrated in the widespread protests against import of American beef that virtually paralyzed the Korean government for months in early 2008. It seems very apparent in this new era of instant digital communication that Korea and the U.S. are still far from achieving the core goals of the Fulbright Program. Furthermore, it seems that only more research, more understanding, and more thoughtful consideration of the new communications environment will help to achieve truly strong and peaceful relations between Korea and the U.S. based on an accurate understanding of each other. It seems that there is wide scope here for imagination about how to use the new media modalities in future Fulbright programming.

Lee Sok Koo Professor, American Literature Yonsei University

In the summer of 1989, I attended a three-week orientation program offered by Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. There were 30 Fulbrighters at the program, representing countries around the world. The program left an indelible mark on me. Even today, it pops up in my mind as a refreshing memory of my days in the United States. Two rooms and a kitchen were assigned to four participants, and I shared a room with a Nigerian Fulbrighter. Another room was occupied by Swedish and Greek Fulbrighters. During our stay in the dormitory, a mysterious event happened. The Swedish participant was not seen for a couple of days in the dormitory. However, we eventually came to realize what made him

208

Taking Stock

Fulbright Korea at 60 and Its Future

disappear: he was with another Swedish female participant. This couple aroused our curiosity whenever they appeared, though their affairs had nothing to do with our life. The three-week program was not for lectures alone. It included soccer games to be played by two teams, an excursion to Shenandoah National Park, and a musical concert. Most memorable was the concert by Smokey Robinson. The stage for the musical concert was an outdoor music hall on the outskirts of Washington, D.C. There were no designated seats, and the audience was free to sit on any part of the lawn. Not far from us were an old black gentleman and a young lady. They had snacks and a bottle of wine in their basket. The lady was sitting on the knees of the old man. They enjoyed the concert, drinking and eating. We were not exceedingly curious about the relationship between the two, but since we thought our curiosity might become a problem, we decided not to think about it any longer. I was reminded of William Wordsworth’s remarks—that half of the world was created by the sights of viewers. As the concert was ascending toward its peak, the couple rose up and moved their bodies to the beat of the music. The late afternoon sunlight cast its warmth on the back of the couple. The leisurely life of the audience as embodied by the scene of the concert impressed itself on my mind as something to be long remembered. I made the acquaintance of a couple of participants while I was attending the orientation program. They were Lassen from Morocco, Denis from Brazil, and Suvenja from Thailand. Our friendship continued beyond our days at the university. What made our friendship long-lasting was that all four of us, coincidentally, were bound for Indiana University. Lassen in particular was frequently in touch with me. His major in comparative literature produced a common area of concern with me, and we often met in the classroom. Proficient in Arabic, French, and English, Lassen was able to read Lacan’s original text on psychoanalysis, known for being difficult to comprehend. He translated Derrida’s “About Literal Characters.” I had heard of the two names but was far from any comprehension of their scholarly work. Lassen maintained a scholarly edge over me, and this was why I envied him. He often invited me to his house and treated me to Arabic foods. With a good sense of humor, he treated invitees and made them laugh. I made the acquaintance of other Arab students through Lassen. They awakened me to unknown parts of the Western world, as seen from the Arab perspective. There were other Fulbrighters in the Department of English

209

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

Literature. The feeling of a common bond with Fulbrighters brought us into a cohesive social solidarity. There was a Tunisian student named Sali, a tall and slender man with a well combed mustache. He was lit like a Christmas tree among girl students and set their hearts on fire. He was known as a member of the royal family among the professors, but he never mentioned it to me, nor did I try to confirm it. They regarded me as a man from a wealthy country. Judging from this view, I gathered that the economic situation of their countries was in a deadlock. I am told that Sali has married and is now teaching American literature at Nantes University in France. The notion of a common bond brought Fulbrighters into solidarity across borders. I wonder if there is any other program that has played the same role as the Fulbright Program.

Future Fulbright Korea Grant Programs

As this book has made clear, Fulbright Korea has over the years developed one of the largest and most diverse grant programs of any Fulbright Program in the world. The purpose and composition of the grant programs has changed to adapt to the needs of the times. Two of the most conspicuous examples of this are the Fulbright ETA program and the International Education Administrator program. The English Teaching Assistant Program Started in the early 1990s, the ETA program has not only matured and strengthened in Korea but also been benchmarked by Fulbright Programs in many other countries. Although not the very first ETA grant program in the world, Fulbright Korea’s was one of the earliest and most successful. As a result, it was benchmarked by many other countries, including most of the Asian nations that have such programs. As of 2010, forty-seven countries had ETA programs.11 Several characteristics of Fulbright’s ETA program underscore its strong potential for the future. First, it helps to make Fulbright Korea’s grant program the most youthful one in the world in terms of the average age of Fulbright grantees. In recent years, the number of applicants to the program, the number of grantees accepted, and the number of those who extend for a second or third year have all been increasing. By 2010, there were a total of 886 ETA program alumni. In the 2010 program year, Fulbright had a total of 104 ETA grantees in country, including more than 30 extendees and new grantees. The increasing

210

Taking Stock

Fulbright Korea at 60 and Its Future

The 20102011 English Teaching Assistant (ETA) grantees at Jungwon University.

size of these relatively young cohorts of American Fulbright grantees to Korea creates a great deal of potential for the future. Second, in the fall of 2009 the Foreign Scholarship Board changed its regulations to allow recipients of Fulbright ETA grants to later apply for and receive a student research grant.12 This was a change that the leadership of Fulbright in Korea had fought for over many years. Prior to this change, an individual could receive only one student grant. This requirement prevented the ETA program from functioning effectively, as the Peace Corps had in earlier years, as a feeder program for future Korea specialists in academia, government, and industry. The Fulbright International Education Administrator Program The Fulbright International Education Administrator program also exemplifies this change and adaptation. It has made a major contribution to the professionalization of international education administration in both Korea and the United States. Grant programs will likely be a cornerstone of the Fulbright Program long into the future. To the extent that the past is a guide, new grant programs will evolve to meet the challenges faced. In recent years, scholarships offered by Korea’s large Jaebeol groups have

211

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History increased in both number and in the size of the stipend and benefits they carry. Some have suggested that this growth in the variety of opportunities takes away some of the luster of the Fulbright grants. We suggest at least two characteristics of Fulbright Korea’s grants that should be kept in mind for the future. First, they carry the prestige of the Fulbright name, built through exchanges over more than sixty years with well over 150 countries around the world. Fulbright is the largest, oldest, and arguably most prestigious scholarly grant program in the world, initially modeled somewhat after the Rhodes Scholarship, of which J. William Fulbright himself was a recipient. Second, Fulbright alumni can make special contributions that carry value far beyond the amount of a stipend while doing graduate study. Over the years, and especially in times of economic difficulty, alumni of the Fulbright Korea student program have returned to Korea and faced difficulty finding appropriate employment. This is one concrete area in which the large number of Fulbright alumni in Korea can be of specific and immediate help as they meet with and advise the new Korean Fulbright alumni and help them find meaningful employment.

American International Education Administrator Program (AIEA) 2009 grantees.

212

Taking Stock

Fulbright Korea at 60 and Its Future

Fulbright in the Evolving U.S.-Korea Alliance

Although the number of American Fulbright grantees coming to Korea has approximately equaled the number of Korean grantees sent to the United States over the years, the overall pattern in U.S.-Korea educational exchange has been characterized by a one-way flow. The number of Koreans studying in the U.S. has been far greater than that of Americans coming to Korea for research and study. Over the next sixty years, that pattern is likely to change dramatically and may even reverse itself, due to the massive shift toward Asia in terms of global economic activity, and also due to changes taking place in tertiary education within the U.S. Within the higher education community in the U.S., there is a growing recognition of the need to provide more American students with study abroad opportunities. In a world more closely knit together by modern communication and travel technologies, it seems probable that a significant portion of those students would want to study in Asia. This holds the prospect, in keeping with the binational ideal of the Fulbright Program, of turning the one-way flow in Korea-U.S. educational exchange into a truly two-way intercultural and educational alliance for the 21st century. A prescient report written in 1968 by a long-range planning team made up of four U.S. scholars is still worth reading today. Among their suggestions was the following: As Korea develops its capabilities still further, there might be good reason to consider establishing additional programs between groups such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, and the U.S. National Science Foundation and appropriate institutional components in the Korean universities as well as between such U.S. governmental units and their ROKG counterparts.13 ...Our concept of the future status and role of the binational commission extends somewhat the traditional role of such bodies. We would hope that the commission could become more visible, more active, and more effective in several ways. Its overall impact, we feel, can be substantially increased if it can find ways of using some of its resources to support high-level seminars involving U.S., Korean, and other leaders to discuss matters of educational policy as well as operational problems. The commission could serve an important role, moreover, through the gathering of facts on educational exchanges, on opportunities (other than those available. through the use of the commission’s own resources) for study or scholarly work overseas, and on relevant activities by various groups in Korea. Such information would obviously be of significance to the commission in connection

213

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History with its own program design, but it would also assist many other groups having an interest in the advancement of education in Korea. In sum, we would hope that the binational commission could take a position of leadership in the area of the exchange of ideas and materials, while it continues to serve the function of administering its exchange of persons program.14 The above long-range goals as stated in the late 1960s seem very relevant in 2010 to Fulbright Korea’s future endeavors. Globalization itself, along with the information revolution, may create a set of conditions that allow Fulbright Korea to exert leadership in the exchange of ideas and information and in new forms of networking to improve the quality of those ideas. This is not to suggest that video conferencing or social networking can replace face-to-face conversations. To the contrary, they may reinforce the need for personal intercultural exchange and contact, especially of the sort that involves learning a new language and culture.

Future Advising and Testing Activities

Student advising and educational testing are two major activities that have strongly complemented Fulbright’s grant activities. Despite the dramatic changes in both of these areas brought about by technological change and the dramatic growth in study abroad, they constitute two program areas in which Fulbright Korea has been continuously involved almost from the very start. In the field of student advising, social networking, video, and mobile communication, along with increased involvement by private study abroad institutes, are profoundly changing the nature of the advising. However, the need for the provision of unbiased, accurate, and up-to-date information about the full range of educational opportunities in the United States is as great as ever, if not more so in the new information age. In the future, Fulbright’s U.S. Education Center will increasingly be called upon to help prospective students and their parents sort out the credible and useful information from the flood of data available on the World Wide Web. Also, despite the new information media, the need for direct human contact in the advising process is likely to continue for a long, long time. One of the problems in high-stakes academic testing, that of cheating, is an age-old one. These days, new miniaturized electronic technology is used in an effort by some to circumvent the rules and get a higher score on the TOEFL, the SAT, or other high stakes admissions tests. Fulbright Korea’s mission always has been, and will continue to be, that of ensuring test security and hence the reliability and credibility of academic testing. The

214

Taking Stock

Fulbright Korea at 60 and Its Future health of the academic testing systems overall is an important element in academic and intercultural exchanges between the U.S. and Korea.

Fulbright Korea and Globalization

The information revolution, along with advances in travel and trade, contribute to a phenomenon widely referred to as globalization. Accompanying this process is a growing awareness that many of the problems faced by the nations of the world are global in scope. Global warming, nuclear proliferation, malnutrition, disease, and internet governance issues are but a few examples. Globalization and the information revolution have fundamentally changed the environment in which Fulbright Korea operates. There are several major dimensions to this change. One is that the private sector today plays a far larger role in education and international educational exchange than it has historically. This means, among other things, that travel between the United States and Korea is easier and more frequent, whether for business or pleasure. Another is that private corporations, including Korea’s large jaebeol groups, have become major sources of financial support for Korean students who want to study abroad. Although the Fulbright Program has an important binational component and has grown through bilateral agreements between the United States and a majority of the other nations around the world, its mission is broad enough to encompass the global challenges faced by the peoples of the world. As we have shown in earlier chapters, Fulbright Korea benefited over the years from the sharing of experience with other Fulbright Programs in the Asia region and from cooperative efforts. Globalization and the global scope of many problems Korea and other nations of the region face suggest that Fulbright’s future in the 21st century should involve more active entry into this new, global arena. One sure sign that Korea has recognized the new reality was the creation, in 2009, of the Global Korea Scholarship Program.

The Global Korea Scholarship Program Benchmarks Fulbright

There is probably no better indicator of the profound impact of the Fulbright Program in Korea than the fact that the Global Korea Scholarship Program, announced in 2009, benchmarked the Fulbright Program. The objective of the Global Korea Scholarship program is to generate deeper mutual understanding between world countries by facilitating educational exchange and human resource mobility, thereby contributing to the development of international education and peace. In particular, the government of

215

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

Ahn Byong Man

As Minister of Education, Science and Technology, Dr. Ahn Byong Man, who is also a Fulbright alumnus, benchmarked the Fulbright Program in creating the new Global Korea Scholarship Program.

Ahn Byong Man was born on February 8, 1941. In 1964, he received a B.A. in public administration from Seoul National University, and in 1967 he received an M.A. in law from the same university. From 1975 through 2006, he held faculty positions at Myongji University. After earning a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Florida in 1974, he began a long academic career at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, serving as president of that university from 1994 to 1998 and again from 2002 to 2006. On November 25, 1996, he was elected as the fifth president of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association, a position in which he served until September 1998. He was the recipient of two Fulbright awards, one in 1970 for degree study in public administration, and in 1981 an Asian Scholar in Residence award in political science at the University of Florida. On August 6, 2008, he became South Korea’s Minister of Education, Science and Technology, a position that he held until mid-2010. He served as president of the Korea-U.S. Education and Culture Foundation and as chair of the Presidential Council for Future and Vision. Among his many accomplishments as Minister of Education, Science and Technology, one of the most significant was that he presided over the establishment of the Global Korea Scholarship Program. That program represents by far the most ambitious effort by another country to benchmark the Fulbright Program. Its establishment surely owes a great deal to the Fulbright experiences of Minister Ahn and many other Korean Fulbright alumni.

216

Taking Stock

Fulbright Korea at 60 and Its Future Korea seeks to develop mutual and reciprocal cooperation with developing countries by providing software-oriented development assistance in education and human resources development, drawing from the experience Korea holds in both of these fields.15 A paper presented by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology at a Korea Fulbright Alumni Association meeting in December of 2009 stated, “As Korea is at a transitional stage, playing a more important role in international society, the shape of a new Asia foreign policy, resource policy, and propulsion of national strategy, in order to construct global talent network.... We propose that Korea establish a representative international scholarship program called the Global Korea Scholarship, similar to the American Fulbright scholarship program.... University students from all countries [would] be awarded diverse short- and long-term programs to invite prominent leaders to examine the affairs of developing countries in such fields as education, science and technology. This would involve not only teaching them our strategy and knowhow, but also preparing and building a strong network of human talent for the future.”16 Minister of Education, Science and Technology Ahn Byong Man spoke of the new scholarship program at the same alumni association meeting. He noted that Korea, in creating its new scholarship program, had benchmarked the Fulbright Program. Although the new Global Korea Scholarship Program emphasizes exchanges with developing countries, it is global in scope and potentially involves all countries. On another occasion, Minister Ahn said that scholarships focused on developing countries would foster understanding of things Korean among future leaders of those countries. “It reminds me of those days when bright Korean students used scholarships to study in the U.S.,” he said.17 Korea’s adoption of the Fulbright model suggests new directions for the future. One possibility that deserves exploration is that of joint Fulbright-Korea Global Scholarship grants to address urgent problems of mutual concern or advanced, cutting-edge research. Considered in retrospect, there can probably be no more powerful testimony to the impact of Fulbright exchanges with Korea to date. However, as we have sought to clearly convey, the need for mutual understanding between Korea and the United States, as well as among the other countries of the world, is as urgent as ever. This suggests a future for Fulbright Korea in which the ideals of the program are applied with renewed commitment to the challenges facing the United States, Korea, and its neighbors in the region and around the world.

217

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

218

Epilogue

Observing the 60th Anniversary of Fulbright Korea

Several events were held during 2009 and 2010 in commemoration of the 60th anniversary of Fulbright Korea. The following section describes them, with emphasis on those that were held prior to publication of this book.

Seoul Symposium on Korean Education in the 21st Century 1

A symposium on Korean education policy in the 21st century was held in downtown Seoul on October 23, 2009, to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Fulbright Program in Korea. All participants, including those who raised questions from the floor, contributed to making the event a wonderful platform for debate on a new direction for the Korean public education system. The key issue discussed was how to reform the system, which has made preparing students for university entrance exams the top priority at almost every school. Among the participants, there seemed to be a fairly strong consensus that the race to gain admissions to a limited number of prestigious universities has impeded schools from adequately preparing students for the challenges of the 21st century. Many expressed concern that the traditional public education system is incapable of providing human capital that meets the demands of an expanding global economy. Professor Moon YongLin, the former Korean Minister of Education, addressed this issue as the first speaker of the symposium. He stressed that human capabilities cannot be measured by a onedimensional university entrance examination. In order to properly measure a student’s

219

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History creative potential, he argued, multiple standards of evaluation should be introduced into the education system, while also giving students more freedom to chart the course of their own educational path. The second speaker, Professor Lee Seung Hoon from Seoul National University, provided a stimulating counterpoint. According to his view, market competition is actually highly beneficial to the public education system. Therefore, the much lamented race for admission to prestigious universities should actually be encouraged and expanded. To achieve this objective, he proposed that Korea focus its resources on expanding the number of premier academic institutions to as many as twenty. After the two thought-provoking presentations, those invited to sit in on a discussion panel presented their opinions. Professor Kim Young Hwa from Hongik University expressed her concerns about Lee’s provocative policy proposal, while. Kim SunDuk, a columnist from Dong-A Ilbo, was more favorable toward the economy-based stance. Also during the discussion, Kim In Whoe, an emeritus professor from Yonsei University, explicated the new demand for creative human capital, and Shin Do-Chul from Sookmyung Women’s University emphasized the need to circumscribe the influence of the central government on public education in order to give more control to local authorities. Following the first panel discussion, faculty from distinguished schools shared how they had helped students achieve exemplary success along multiple dimensions, including admission into top universities. Do Jaewon from Geochang High School spoke forcefully about the importance of respecting the individual differences in student personalities. In contrast, Kim Jong Mo, principal of Hanil High School, illustrated the benefits of incorporating traditional elements into the public school curriculum. Yun Chung-il, principal of the Korean Minjok Leadership Academy, ardently defended his school’s strict academic emphasis, while Lee Wondeuk of Sangsan High School presented evidence to show that improving the quality of public school education could quell the feverish demand for private tutoring. Lastly, Park Jin-chae of Yongjeong Middle School explained his school’s efforts to nurture creativity and excellence, while never losing sight of the need to prepare students to be better citizens. Audience members at the symposium listened attentively during the discussion, and many jumped at the opportunity to express their own views on how to improve public education. The positive, upbeat atmosphere left observers feeling confident about the future success of the Korean public education system in the 21st century.

220

Epilogue

Observing the 60th Anniversary of Fulbright Korea

Toward Peace in Korea and the World: 60th Anniversary of Fulbright in Korea

On July 23, the Korean ambassador to the United States, Han Duk-Soo, hosted a celebration of Fulbright Korea’s 60th anniversary at his residence in northwest Washington, D.C. It was attended by over 170 dignitaries, including former ambassadors to Korea, university presidents from the Washington area, Korean and American Fulbright alumni, and both current and former executive directors of the Fulbright Commission. Senior executives from the College Board, ETS, and other organizations that have worked closely with Fulbright Korea also attended. Most of those attending the Washington event had some Korean background or experience. The Korean motif in the architecture of the ambassador’s residence added to the atmosphere of the event, as did the excellent Korean food, which was prepared under the supervision of the ambassador’s wife. The national anthems of the United States and the Republic of Korea were sung by vocalists at the start of the reception. The keynote address, on the topic of “The Importance of Citizen Diplomacy,” was delivered by James Leach, chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities. He said, in part:

Ambassador Han Duk-Soo, Secretary Stock, Ambassador Hill, Ambassador Hubbard, friends of the people of Korea: We gather this evening to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Fulbright Program in Korea. In so doing, we honor distinguished program participants, but, more profoundly, we underscore the vital role of exchanges Korean Ambassador and cultural diplomacy itself. to the United States Han Duk-Soo hosted Perspective is difficult to apply to events a reception at his under way and just past. But the evidence residence on July 23, 2010, in honor of is in that exchanges make a difference the 60th anniversary in the lives of individuals and the social of the Fulbright Korea program. structure of societies. The speed of travel and the virtually instantaneous capacity to transfer thought great distances have made neighbors of every individual on the planet. But being neighbors is not the same thing as respectfully sharing space on the Earth. Mutual understanding is

221

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History not as easily uplifted as technology is upgraded. Technology provides ever more sophisticated means to communicate, but it does not create the inevitability that the images and messages transferred will lead to better relations. Rubbing up against neighbors who have different manners and different ways of speaking can sometimes spark friction. That is why exchange programs that involve learning and living in the shoes, shirts, and dresses of others make such a difference. One of the myths of our times is that relations between countries are principally a function of government policy and that diplomacy is exclusively a governmentto-government dialogue. Actually, it is businessmen and women, unelected people of good will—be they artists or scientists, athletes, students, or scholars—who are more central to defining the tone of relations between states than public officials. Cultural diplomacy generally precedes and increasingly supersedes governmentto-government relations. Shim Jai Ok, executive director of the Fulbright Commission, also delivered short remarks at the gathering, which included the following expression of hope that the Fulbright Program could help with Korean unification:

Ambassador Christopher R. Hill congratulates the Fulbright Korea Commission.

222

Epilogue

Observing the 60th Anniversary of Fulbright Korea

Korea’s Fulbright Commission has grown to be one of the largest and most active worldwide, standing out among the 190 countries currently reached by the international Fulbright Program. Conspicuously absent from this list of countries, however, is our neighbor directly to the north. It is my sincere hope that one day the entire Korean Peninsula will be able to benefit from the Fulbright mission. The central goal of the Fulbright Program is the promotion of world peace through mutual understanding. In light of current events, I believe that it is essential that international academic and cultural exchange be allowed in North Korea. Let us hope that it will not take another sixty years for North Koreans to have the opportunity to benefit from this prestigious program and, through it, learn the meaning of peace and the importance of international understanding. The events commemorating Fulbright Korea’s 60th anniversary during 2010 also included a traveling art exhibition entitled “Cross-Cultural Visions” that took place in New York, Washington, D.C., and Seoul. The venues and dates were Gallery Korea in New York, July 7-July 16; KORUS House in Washington, D.C., July 23-August 6; and the Seoul Arts Center, October 8-October 15. As noted in the book printed for the exhibition, “Korea’s Fulbright program boasts of more grantees with contributions to the global artistic community than any other Fulbright commission worldwide. To convey their gratitude to the program that allowed them the unique opportunity to study and do research abroad, 22 Korean and 13 American artists will come together in the commemorative exhibition entitled ‘CrossCultural Visions’ to celebrate the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Fulbright program in Korea.”2

Cross-Cultural Visions was hosted by the KORUS House in Washington, DC.

223

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

List of Artists U.S. Artists Heather Bayless Richard W. Franklin Benjamin Kaplan Komelia Hongja Okim Allen Zaruba

Harris Deller Barbara Grinell Aimee Lee Carla Stansifer

Ronald duBois Adrienne Walker Hoard Bruce Metcalf Richard D. Weis

Choe Young Hoon Ha Joon Soo Im Sangbin Kim Seung Hee Lee Jung Sook Lim Mi Kang Song Burn Soo

Chung Kyoung Yeon Han Un Sung Jahng Soo Hong Kim Young Ock Lee In Gyong Lim Young Kyun Suh Dong Hee

Korean Artists Choi Ah Young Ha Dong Chul Hong Jung Hee Jin Youngsun Lee Chunghie Lee Sung Soon Park Keun Ja Yoo Lizzy

A reception by the U.S. ambassador to Korea, Kathleen Stephens, was scheduled for October 8. On that same date, a symposium on the topic of “Improving the Quality of Higher Education in Korea” was scheduled for the Korea Press Center. On October 9, a conference and gala banquet on the theme of “Toward Peace in Korea and the World” were scheduled to take place at the Shilla Hotel in Seoul. The conference included keynote speeches by former ambassador to Korea Christopher Hill and former Minister of Education, Science and Technology Ahn Byong Man.

224

Epilogue

Observing the 60th Anniversary of Fulbright Korea

From left: Artists Im Sang Bin, Allen Zaruba, Lee Chunghie, Youngsun Jin, Richard D. Weis, and Komelia Okim at the opening reception of the Cross-Cultural Visions exhibition in New York City.

On the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Fulbright program in Korea, 13 American and 22 Korean Fulbright alumni came together to exhibit their work in a traveling art exhibit entitled Cross-Cultural Visions

225

Endnotes

A Biographical Note on Senator J. William Fulbright 1 Brower, Brock. “The Roots of the Arkansas Questioner,” Life, Vol. 60, No. 19, May 13, 1966, pp. 92-117. 2 Brower, p. 100. 3 http: //www.cies.org/Fulbright/Senator_Fulbright.htm 4 Brower, p. 96. 5 http: //www.cies.org/Fulbright/Senator_Fulbright.htm 6 http: //www.cies.org/Fulbright/Senator_Fulbright.htm

Preface 1 Frederick F. Carriere wrote most of Chapter 1 and also spent two weeks in Seoul for intensive consultations on the entire book with Shim and Larson during the spring of 2010. Horace H. Underwood authored most of Chapter 6, as well as helping to frame the broad themes of the book early in the writing process. Chapter 8 was based largely on contributions from the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association. Initial drafts of the remaining chapters were prepared by Shim Jai Ok and James F. Larson. In short, by virtue of numerous discussions among the authors, their common background as Fulbright Commission administrators, and the above division of labor, this was a co-authored history in the true sense of the word.

Chapter 1 1 The guide for the excursion to Ganghwa Island was Frederick F. Carriere, who at that time was the executive director of the Korea Fulbright program. 2 Korea Fulbright Alumni Association Newsletter, No. 4, November 1990, p. 3. 3 In July 1988, President Roh Tae Woo called for new efforts to promote North-South exchanges, family reunification, inter-Korean trade, and contact in international forums. The first of eight prime minister-level meetings between the two Koreas occurred in September 1990, the same month in which he received a visit by Senator Fulbright. Only a little over a year later, in December 1991, two major agreements were signed: the Agreement on Reconciliation, Nonaggression, Exchanges, and Cooperation (a.k.a. the Basic Agreement) and the Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula (a.k.a. the Joint Declaration). These agreements marked the first breakthrough on the road to reconciliation on the Korean Peninsula. 4 For these and other details, see http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjido.

227

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History 5 This popular uprising in April 1960, in which students played a pivotal role, overthrew the dictatorial and corrupt Syngman Rhee regime. The resultant political transformation was not linear, however, as dictatorial rule returned just a little over a year later when General Park Chung Hee seized control of the government in an impeccably executed coup d’état. The transition to full democracy was delayed until 1987. 6 For recent reminisces by Harriet Fulbright of her visits to Korea, see the interview by Joy Stocke in Wild River Review, August 2010, http: //www.wildriverreview.com/interview/harriet-mayorfulbright/world-peace-through-education/stocke. This quotation and the quotation in the preceding paragraph are taken from this interview. 7 Fulbright, J. William with Seth P. Tillman. The Price of Empire. New York, New York: Pantheon Books, New York, 1989, pp. 192-3. 8 Ibid., p. 192. 9 Ibid., p. 194. 10 Beinart, Peter. The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2010, pp. 172-75. 11 This is a personal reminiscence by Frederick F. Carriere. 12 This is a box containing gifts for the bride, such as silk fabrics or jewelry, which traditionally was delivered to the bride by the groom’s family. It should be given prior to the marriage. Our gift was belated. 13 Cassandra Pyle died suddenly on November 5, 2000, after a lifetime of work in international education. 14 Fulbright, pp. 218-19. 15 Remarks by Senator J. William Fulbright on “The 25th Anniversary of The Fulbright Act,” Congressional Record-Senate, August 2, 1971, S12864. 16 Ibid. 17 Remarks by Senator J. William Fulbright on “The 25th Anniversary of The Fulbright Act,” Congressional Record-Senate, August 2, 1971, S12866. 18 Strout, Richard L. “Changing Cannons to Cultural Currency: An Intimate Message from Washington.” The Christian Science Monitor, March 2, 1946. Newspaper clipping, J. William Fulbright Papers, University of Arkansas Libraries. 19 “Perspectives on International Scholarly Exchange,” report of a conference held at the National Academy of Sciences Summer Studies Center, Houston House, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, August 24-25, 1972, Washington, D.C.: Council for International Exchange of Scholars, pp. 17-8. 20 Ibid., p. 5. 21 The 45th Annual Report, 2008-2009. J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board, United States Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, p. 68.

228

Endnotes

22 Remarks by Senator J. William Fulbright on “The 25th Anniversary of The Fulbright Act,” Congressional Record-Senate, August 2, 1971, S12864. 23 Remarks by Senator J. William Fulbright on “The 25th Anniversary of The Fulbright Act,” Congressional Record-Senate, August 2, 1971, S12865. 24 The 45th Annual Report, 2008-2009, J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board, United States Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, p. 66. 25 Ibid., p. 60. 26 “Stewards for International Exchange: The Role of the National Research Council in the Senior Fulbright-Hays Program, 1947-1975,” Commission on Human Resources, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.: The National Science Foundation, April 30, 1976, p. 16. 27 “Perspectives on International Scholarly Exchange,” report of a conference held at the National Academy of Sciences Summer Studies Center, Houston House, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, August 24-25, 1972, Washington, D.C.: Council for International Exchange of Scholars, pp. 17-8. 28 Scarfo, Richard D. “The History of Title VI and Fulbright-Hays,” http: //www.isop.ucla.edu/ pacrim/title6/Over2-Scarfo.pdf. 29 “Perspectives on International Scholarly Exchange,” report of a conference held at the National Academy of Sciences Summer Studies Center, Houston House, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, August 24-25, 1972, Washington, D.C.: Council for International Exchange of Scholars, pp. 17-8. 30 Remarks by Senator J. William Fulbright on “The 25th Anniversary of The Fulbright Act,” Congressional Record-Senate, August 2, 1971, S12863. 31 Arndt, Richard T. and David Lee Rubin, eds. The Fulbright Difference. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1993, p. 13. 32 Report of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Fiscal Year 1950-51, United States Government Printing Office, p. 38. Text can be accessed at http: //books.google. com. 33 Collection of Treaties: Bilateral Treaties, Volume 1 (1948-1961). Ministry of Foreign Affairs Official National Record, pp. 357-363. 34 History of the Exchange Program with Korea, n.d., p. 8. Document provided by University of Arkansas Libraries, J. William Fulbright Papers. 35 From Summary Statement, Foreign Service Despatch No. 124, “EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE, Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1957,” from AmEmbassy, Seoul to Washington, D.C., August 22. 36 Foreign Service Despatch No. 65, “EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE, Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1958,” from AmEmbassy, Seoul to Washington, D.C., August 8, 1958, p. 1. 37 Ibid., p. 2. 38 Ibid., p. 2.

229

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History 39 Department of State Report, marked “ONLY COPY Reports Branch” (in handwriting), from Ambassador Samuel D. Berger, PAO G. Huntington Damon, CAO Gregory Henderson, U. of Arkansas Libraries Archives. 40 Ibid. 41 Arndt, Richard T. and David Lee Rubin, eds. The Fulbright Difference. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1993, p. 14. 42 History of the Exchange Program with Korea, p. 8. Document provided by University of Arkansas BEA and J. William Fulbright archivist. 43 Ibid. 44 Department of State Report, marked “ONLY COPY Reports Branch” (in handwriting), from Ambassador Samuel D. Berger, PAO G. Huntington Damon, CAO Gregory Henderson, U. of Arkansas Libraries Archives. 45 Annual Report of the United States Educational Commission in Korea for the Program Year 1960-61. Approved by the executive committee November 8, 1961, p. 28. 46 Possibly link to video of remarks by Ahn Byong Man, Minister of Education, Science and Technology, December 3, 2009, Annual Meeting of Korea Fulbright Alumni Association, Korea Press Center.

Chapter 2 1 “Educational and Cultural Exchange: Annual Report on the Educational Exchange Program, July 1960 through June 1961,” Foreign Service Despatch No. 64, from AmEmbassy, Seoul to Department of State, Washington, August 14, 1961, p. 1. 2 Ibid., p. 1. 3 Ibid., p. 3. 4 Ibid, p. 1. 5 http: //www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/50th/history.html. 6 Republic of Korea Government Document. Collection of Treaties: Bilateral Treaties, Volume 1 (1948-1961). , Ministry of Foreign Affairs Official National Record, p. 565. 7 United States Educational Commission in Korea. Annual Report of the United States Educational Commission in Korea for the Program Year 1960-61, p. 28. 8 “Educational and Cultural Exchange: Annual Report on the Educational Exchange Program, July 1960 through June 1961,” p. 13. 9 United States Educational Commission in Korea. Annual Report of the United States Educational Commission in Korea for the Program Year 1960-61, p. 2.

230

Endnotes

10 United States Educational Commission in Korea. Annual Report of the United States Educational Commission in Korea for the Program Year 1960-61, pp. 4-5. 11 At the beginning of the U.S. Educational Commission in Korea’s operations, its executive director was in fact referred to as the executive secretary. In Korea, as in Japan, use of this terminology would tend to convey that the individual was assisting or working for a higher level person. Therefore, at some point the title was changed to executive director. Shim Jai Ok, personal communication with James F. Larson, May 14, 2010. 12 “Educational and Cultural Exchange: Final Report of the Exchange Program for the Period 1 July 1961 to 30 June 1962,” Department of State Airgram No. A-515 from AmEmbassy, Seoul, January 16, 1963, p. 7. 13 “Educational and Cultural Exchange: Final Report of the Exchange Program for the Period 1 July 1961 to 30 June 1962,” p. 7. 14 “Educational and Cultural Exchange: Final Report of the Exchange Program for the Period 1 July 1961 to 30 June 1962,” p. 8. 15 Stewards for International Exchange: The Role of the National Research Council in the Senior Fulbright-Hays Program, 1947-1975. Commission on Human Resources, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.: The National Science Foundation, April 30, 1976, p. 17. 16 Fulbright-Hays Act. Copy in PDF format available for download at http://www2.ed.gov/ about/offices/list/ope/iegps/fulbrighthaysact.pdf. 17 Scarfo, Richard D. “The History of Title VI and Fulbright-Hays,” http: //www.isop.ucla.edu/ pacrim/title6/Over2-Scarfo.pdf. 18 http://faroutliers.blogspot.com/2007_11_01_archive.html. Blog post containing this obituary for Marshall Pihl, which was posted to a Korean studies listserve in July 1995. 19 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Executive Director’s Report. March 1967, pp. 24-25. 20 Ibid., p. 25. 21 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Seventieth Meeting. April 11, 1967. 22 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Seventy-First Meeting. May 19-20, 1967. 23 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Executive Director’s Report. March 1967, p. 13. 24 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Eighty-Third Meeting. July 3, 1968. 25 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Ninety-First Meeting. October 30, 1969. 26 Lee, Sang-Dawn. Big Brother, Little Brother: The American Influence on Korean Culture. Boston and Oxford: Lexington Books, 2002, p. 31.

231

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History 27 “Educational and Cultural Exchange: Annual Report for Korea for the Fiscal Year July 1, 1967-June 30, 1968,” Department of State Airgram No. A-764, p. 4. 28 Lee, Sang-Dawn, p. 34. 29 Ibid., p. 34. 30 Ibid., p. 35. 31 Ginsburg, Thomas. “The Warren Court in East Asia: An Essay in Comparative Law,” Chapter 10 in Harry N. Scheiber, ed., Earl Warren and the Warren Court: The Legacy in American and Foreign Law. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2007, p. 266. 32 Lee, Sang-Dawn, p. 35. 33 Lee, Sang-Dawn, p. 37. 34 Lee, Sang-Dawn, p. 36. 35 “Educational and Cultural Exchange: Annual Report July 1966 to June 1967,” Department of State Airgram No. 180 from AmEmbassy, Seoul, October 6, 1967, p. 9. 36 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Annual Report of the United States Educational Commission in Korea for the Program Year 1960-61, pp. 16-7. 37 “Educational and Cultural Exchange: Final Report of the Exchange Program for the Period 1 July 1961 to 30 June 1962,” p. 14. 38 “Educational and Cultural Exchange: Annual Report on Educational and Cultural Exchange Program for FY 1964 ( July 1963 to June 1964),” Department of State Airgram No. A-261, Dec. 1, 1964, p. 7. 39 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Executive Director’s Report. March 1967, p. 3. 40 The United States Educational Commission in Korea, Executive Director’s Report. May 1967, p. 28. 41 “Education and Cultural Exchange: Exchange Program Report FY 1963,” Department of State Airgram from AmEmbassy, Seoul to the Department of State, Washington, D.C., April 22, 1964, p. 14. 42 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Executive Director’s Report. May 1967, p. 21. 43 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Executive Director’s Report. March 1967, p. 15. 44 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Executive Director’s Report. May 1967, p. 22. 45 The State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs was referred to by the acronym CU before its merger with USIA in 1977 to form the U.S. ICA.

232

Endnotes

46 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. “Appendix I: EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL EXCHANGE, Report on Trip to the United States,” Executive Director’s Report. March 1967, pp. 2-3. 47 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Seventieth Meeting. April 11, 1967. 48 Ibid. 49 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Seventy-First Meeting. May 19-20, 1967. 50 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Annual Report of the United States Educational Commission in Korea for the Program Year 1960-61, p. 24. 51 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Executive Director’s Report. March 1967, p. 15. 52 Ibid., p. 16. 53 Lee, Sang-Dawn, p. 32. 54 Lee, Sang-Dawn, p. 33. 55 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Sixty-Ninth Meeting. March 17, 1967 56 Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the United States Educational Commission/Japan and the United States Educational Commission/Korea, Seoul, June 6-8, 1969. 57 Lee, Sang-Dawn, p. 28 58 Ibid., p. 28 59 “Educational and Cultural Exchange: Final Report of the Exchange Program for the Period 1 July 1961 to 30 June 1962,” p. 11. 60 Lee, Sang-Dawn. Big Brother, Little Brother: The American Influence on Korean Culture 61 Ibid., p. 32. 62 Ibid., p. 31. 63 Ibid., p. 14. 64 Ibid., p. 55. 65 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Sixty-Ninth Meeting. March 17, 1967. 66 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Eighty-First Meeting. May 10-12, 1968. 67 Ibid.

233

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History 68 Beckmann, George M., Bowen C. Dees, Walter H.C. Laves and Edward W. Wagner. “The Fulbright Program in Korea,” report to the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Washington, D.C.: Department of State, September 1968, p. 3. 69 Ibid, p. 6. 70 Ibid, pp. 6-7. 71 Ibid., pp. 7-8. 72 Ibid, pp. 9-10. 73 Ibid., p. 9. 74 “Educational and Cultural Exchange: Exchange Program Report FY 1963,” Department of State Airgram No. A-733 from AmEmbassy, Seoul, April 22, 1964, p. 21. 75 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Annual Report of the United States Educational Commission in Korea for the Program Year 1960-61, p. 4. 76 Lee, Sang-Dawn, p. 31. 77 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Executive Director’s Report. March 1967, pp. 2-3. 78 “The Future of U.S. Technical Cooperation with Korea,” report to the Agency for International Development by a panel of the Board on Science and Technology for International Development, Office of the Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Sciences, November 1969, p. 9. 79 Ibid., p. 38. 80 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Executive Director’s Report. March 1967, p. 13. 81 At that time, the in-country program consisted of a separate budget category to fund seminars, workshops, English language classes, certain in-country grants, and other non-grant program activities inside Korea. 82 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Executive Director’s Report. March 1967, p. 18. 83 Ibid., p. 18. 84 Ibid, pp. 18-19. 85 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Annual Report of the United States Educational Commission in Korea for the Program Year 1960-61, pp. 4-5. 86 Ibid., pp. 8-9. 87 Ibid., p. 6. 88 Ibid, p. 7. 89 Ibid., p. 9-10.

234

Endnotes

90 Ibid., p. 8. 91 “Educational and Cultural Exchange: Annual Report on Educational and Cultural Exchange Program for FY 1964 ( July 1963 to June 1964),” Department of State Airgram No. A-261, December 1, 1964, p. 7. 92 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Seventy-Fourth Meeting. September 19, 1967, pp. 2-3. 93 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Seventy-Fifth Meeting. October 17, 1967 94 Annual Report of the Korean-American Educational Commission for the Program Year 1972 (Covering Exchanges for the Year from July 1, 1972 to June 30, 1973), p. 14. 95 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Seventy-Eighth Meeting. February 15, 1968. 96 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Eightieth Meeting. April 10, 1968 97 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Eighty-Fourth Meeting. September 18, 1968. 98 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Eighty-Second Meeting. June 5, 1968.

Chapter 3 1 Lee, Hyung-Koo. The Korean Economy: Perspectives for the Twenty-First Century. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996, p. 20-2. 2 Excerpt from Edward Schultz’s reminiscence in Alumni Reminiscences: Reflections on 60 Years of The Fulbright Program in Korea. Seoul: Korean-American Educational Commission, 2010, pp. 18-9. 3 Annual Report of the Korean-American Educational Commission for the Program Year 1972 (Covering Exchanges for the Year from July 1, 1972 to June 30, 1973), p. 2. 4 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Fifty-Second Meeting. November 14, 1977, p. 2. 5 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Fifty-Fourth Meeting. January 20, 1978, p. 2. 6 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Sixtieth Meeting. November 10-12, 1978, p. 8. 7 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Ninety-Second Meeting. February 18, 1970, draft copy.

235

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History 8 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Ninety-Eighth Meeting. October 2-4, 1970. 9 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Twenty-Sixth Meeting. October 25-26, 1974, p. 3. 10 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Thirty-Sixth Meeting. November 13, 1975, p. 22. 11 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Thirty-Ninth Meeting. March 10, 1976, pp. 2-3. 12 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Forty-Second Meeting. October 15-17, 1976, pp. 4-7. 13 Wright, Edward. Changes in KAEC Program Focus and Activity Over a Ten Year Period, September 1977. 14 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Fifty-First Meeting. September 30-October 2, 1977, p. 3. 15 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Ninety-Second Meeting. February 18, 1970, draft copy. 16 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Ninety-Eighth Meeting. October 2-4, 1970, p. 2. 17 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Hundred and Third Meeting. June 28, 1971, pp. 2-3. 18 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Ninety-Ninth Meeting. January 19, 1971, pp. 2-4. 19 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Twentieth Meeting. December 3, 1973, pp. 3-4. 20 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Ninety-Fourth Meeting. April 28, 1970, p. 2, draft copy. 21 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Hundred and Fifth Meeting. Songnisan, November 13, 1971. 22 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Ninety-Eighth Meeting. October 2-4, 1970, p. 2. 23 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Fifteenth Meeting. April 9, 1973, p. 3. 24 Translation of Minister’s letter included with attachments distributed for the commission meeting of April 9, 1973. 25 Riggs, Fred W. “Item II of Agenda: Social Science Information System: U.S.A., Notes on Infrastructure and Information Policy,” report from UNESCO meeting of experts on the problems and strategies of incorporating the social sciences into the World Science Information System (UNISIST), p. 9, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0001/000104/010498EB.pdf.

236

Endnotes

26 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Nineteenth Meeting. November 10-11, 1973, pp. 6-7. 27 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Forty-Ninth Meeting. August 29, 1977, p. 2. 28 From internal “Historical Highlights” timeline provided by Mrs. Im Pu Hui. 29 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Hundredth Meeting. February 26, 1971, p. 3. 30 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Hundred and Eleventh Meeting. August 2, 1972, p. 4. 31 “Fulbright Center Opens to Further ROK-U.S. Studies,” The Korea Herald, November 13, 1974. 32 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Forty-Ninth Meeting. August 29, 1977, p. 4. 33 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Sixtieth Meeting. November 10-12, 1978, p. 8. 34 “Increase in Counseling Center Use,” Attachment 10 for Commission meeting of February 27, 1979. 35 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Sixty-Fourth Meeting. July 11, 1979, pp. 2-3. 36 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Twentieth Meeting. December 3, 1973, pp. 3-4. 37 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Twenty-Eighth Meeting. January 9, 1975, p. 3-4. 38 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Sixty-Second Meeting. February 27, 1979, p. 2. 39 “Fulbright Program in Financial Havoc,” The Korea Times, February 11, 1970. 40 Ibid. 41 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Ninety-Second Meeting. February 18, 1970, draft copy. 42 Ibid. 43 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Ninety-Eighth Meeting. October 2-4, 1970. 44 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Ninety-Ninth Meeting. January 19, 1971, p. 5. 45 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Thirty-Third Meeting. July 15, 1975, p. 3-4.

237

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History 46 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Fifty-Third Meeting. December 19, 1977, p. 4. 47 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Fifty-Eighth Meeting. July 5, 1978, p. 2. 48 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Fifty-Ninth Meeting. September 20, 1978, pp. 1-6. 49 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Sixtieth Meeting. November 10-12, 1978, p. 9. 50 Annual Report of the United States Educational Commission in Korea for the Program Year 1970 (Covering Exchanges for the Year from July 1, 1970 to June 30, 1971), p. 11. 51 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Ninety-Fourth Meeting. April 28, 1970, p. 3, draft copy. 52 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Fourteenth Meeting. January 31, 1973, pp. 3-4. 53 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Nineteenth Meeting. November 10-11, 1973, p. 4. 54 Shim, Jai Ok. Personal communication James F. Larson, May 3, 2010, Seoul, Fulbright Building, Mapo. 55 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Forty-Sixth Meeting. March 29, 1977, p. 4. 56 Excerpts f rom Clark, Donald N., “Remembering Life in Fulbright House,” Alumni Reminiscences: Reflections on 60 Years of the Fulbright Program in Korea. Seoul: Korean-American Educational Commission, July 2010, pp. 21-24. 57 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Fiftieth Meeting. September 20, 1977, p. 3. 58 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Sixtieth Meeting. November 10-12, 1978, p. 11. 59 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Sixty-Fifth Meeting. October 9, 1979, p. 3. 60 “Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Korea for Financing Certain Educational Exchange Programs,” signed at Seoul, June 18, 1963; entered into force June 18, 1963, Treaties and Other International Acts Series (TIAS 5366). U.S. Department of State, p. 851. 61 http: //mofaweb.mofat.go.kr/inter_treaty_real.nsf. 62 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Thirty-Seventh Meeting. December 11, 1975, p. 3.

238

Endnotes

Chapter 4 1 Peace Corps Congressional submission, “Budget Justification, Fiscal Year 1982,” Appendix F, p. 45. 2 Excerpt from Carter Eckert’s reminiscence in Alumni Reminiscences: Reflections on 60 Years of The Fulbright Program in Korea. Seoul: Korean-American Educational Commission, 2010, pp. 9192. 3 Peterson, Mark. Letter to William Maurer on July 19, 1983, KAEC file copy. 4 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Eighty-Eighth Meeting. December 12, 1983, p. 1. 5 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and First Meeting. March 11, 1986, p. 1. 6 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Seventy-Ninth Meeting. October 6, 1982, p. 2. 7 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Eightieth Meeting. December 15, 1982, p. 1. 8 Lavin, Bernard. Memo to KAEC board members, January 13, 1984, KAEC file copy. 9 Underwood, Horace G. Letter to Bernard Lavin, January 17, 1984, KAEC file copy. 10 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Nineteenth Meeting. November 21, 1989. 11 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Thirteenth Meeting. September 15, 1988. 12 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Ninety-Eighth Meeting. July 11, 1985, p. 1. 13 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Seventy-Fifth Meeting. February 19, 1982, p. 1. 14 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Eighty-Second Meeting. May 12, 1983, p. 1. 15 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Third Meeting. September 9, 1986. 16 “What Is Overseas Educational Advising?,” NAFSA Resource Library, http://www.nafsa.org/ resourcelibrary/default.aspx?id=8868. 17 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Seventieth Meeting. June 27, 1980, p. 2. 18 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Seventy-Fourth Meeting. October 16, 1981, p. 1.

239

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History 19 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Seventy-Seventh Meeting. May 6, 1982, p. 2. 20 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Seventy-Ninth Meeting. October 6, 1982, p. 2. 21 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Ninety-Second Meeting. April 18, 1984, p. 1. 22 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Ninety-Sixth Meeting. April 25, 1985, p. 1. 23 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Eighth Meeting. September 22, 1987. 24 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Eleventh Meeting. February 16, 1988. 25 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Fourteenth Meeting. December 1, 1988. 26The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Eighty-Eighth Meeting. December 12, 1983, p. 1. 27The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Ninety-Third Meeting. August 31, 1984, p. 1. 28 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Fourth Meeting. November 21, 1986, p. 2. 29 Lavin, Bernard J,. public affairs officer. Letter to James Hoyt, chairman, Korean-American Educational Commission, June 23, 1982. 30 Ibid. 31 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Seventy-Eighth Meeting. June 24, 1982, p. 2. 32 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Eighty-Ninth Meeting. January 9, 1984, p. 1. 33 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Ninety-First Meeting. March 13, 1984, p. 1. 34 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Sixth Meeting. May 18, 1987. 35 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Fifteenth Meeting. January 26, 1989. 36 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Eighteenth Meeting. September 28, 1989.

240

Endnotes

Chapter 5 1 Pollack, Andrew. “2 Ex-Dictators Leave Korean Jails, Pardoned After 2 Years,” The New York Times, December 23, 1997. Article archived at http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/23/world/2ex-dictators-leave-korea-jails-pardoned-after-2-years.html. 2 This and other excerpts from his speech are taken from an English translation of Korea Fulbright Alumni Association Newsletter, No. 4, November 1990. 3 English translation of Korea Fulbright Alumni Association Newsletter, No. 4, November 1990, bottom of last page. 4 “Shim Jai Ok Yeosa Cheot Budanjang (Mrs. Shim Jai Ok Named First Deputy Director),” Korea Fulbright Alumni Newsletter, No. 4, Nov. 1990, p. 3. 5 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Thirty-Eighth Meeting. January 20, 1993. 6 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Thirty-Ninth Meeting. February 23, 1993. 7 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Fortieth Meeting. April 20, 1993 8 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Forty-First Meeting. June 3, 1993 9 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Forty-Second Meeting. June 23, 1993. 10 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Forty-Third Meeting. July 2, 1993. 11 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Forty-Fourth Meeting. September 21, 1993. 12 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Forty-Ninth Meeting. October 6, 1994. 13 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and SixtySeventh Meeting. March 4, 1998. 14 The Korean-American Educational Commission, executive session, March 30, 1998. 15 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and TwentySixth Meeting. February 1, 1991. 16 Carriere, Frederick F. “Special Program ‘Fulbright Graduate Interns’ to Teach English in Korean Schools,” memo to commission members, February 4, 1991. 17 Carriere, Frederick F. “Special Program ‘Fulbright Graduate Interns’ to Teach English in Korean Schools,” memo to commission members, February 4, 1991.

241

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History 18 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Thirtieth Meeting. November 19, 1991. 19 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and ThirtySeventh Meeting. December 15, 1992. 20 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Thirty-Ninth Meeting. February 23, 1993. 21 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes. February 24, 1994. 22 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Forty-Eighth Meeting. September 6, 1994. 23 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes. May 25, 1995. 24 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Sixty-Ninth Meeting. December 17, 1998. 25 Baker, Donald L. “Twice Fortunate, Twice Grateful,” Alumni Reminiscences: Reflections on 60 Years of the Fulbright Program in Korea. Seoul: Korean-American Educational Commission, 2010, pp. 43-44. 26 Minutes of KAEC board meeting, October 6, 1994. 27 “International Education Administrators Program, Proposed by KAEC for Summer 1995,” Attachment 2, board meeting, January 17, 1995. 28 Minutes of KAEC board meeting, January 17, 1995. 29 Minutes of KAEC board meeting, December 18, 1996. 30 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and SixtySeventh Meeting. March 4, 1998. 31 “Draft for Selection Process of MOE Scholarship Candidate,” English-language text accompanying official Korean-language proposal from the Ministry of Education, September 15, 1992. 32 Kim Wang-bok, director, International Cooperation Division, Ministry of Education. Letter to William Maurer, chairman, Fulbright Commission, May 31, 1994. 33 Ibid. 34 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Eighty-Third Meeting. September 19, 2003. 35 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and SeventySecond Meeting. December 7, 1999. 36 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Fifty-Eighth Meeting. March 7, 1996. 37 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Sixty-Fourth Meeting. March 3, 1997.

242

Endnotes

38 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Sixty-Sixth Meeting. November 13, 1997. 39 Ibid. 40 “Addressing the Deficit: Budgetary Implications of Selected GAO Work for Fiscal Year 1998,” United States General Accounting Office report to Congress, March 1997, p. 117. 41 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Sixty-Fourth Meeting. March 3, 1997. 42 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Sixty-Ninth Meeting. December 17, 1998. 43 “ETS Program Activities of the Korean-American Educational Commission,” quarterly summary report, July-September 2000, p. 2. 44 Ko, Su-Suk. “TOEFL Applicants Rush to Apply for Last PBTs,” JoongAng Daily, May 4, 2000. Article archived at http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=1876822. 45 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Fiftieth Meeting. November 13, 1994. 46 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Twentieth Meeting. February 13, 1990. 47 The Korean American Educational Commission. “The Fulbright Program in Korea,” Development of Electronic Communications: A Review of the Korean-American Educational Commission. Seoul, November 1997, p. 5. 48 Ibid., pp. 7-8. 49 Ibid., pp. 9-10. 50 Ibid., p. 10. 51 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Sixty-Ninth Meeting. December 17, 1998. 52 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Seventieth Meeting. March 22, 1999.

Chapter 6 1 The first portion of this chapter on the Fulbright Building was written by Dr. Horace H. Underwood. 2 Text of e-mail message from Patricia Garon, branch chief, East Asia Fulbright Exchanges, United States Information Agency, February 4, 1999.

243

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History 3 “World Peace and the Fulbright Program,” presented at Fulbright Conference and Banquet for the 50th Anniversary of the Fulbright Program in Korea, October 20, 2000, Radisson Seoul Plaza Hotel, Conference Program, p. 11. 4 Ibid., p. 11. 5 Ibid., p. 12. 6 Ibid., p. 12. 7 Ibid., p. 9. 8 Shim, Jai Ok. Personal communication with James F. Larson, Fulbright Building, Mapo, Seoul, May 20, 2010. 9 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred Ninety-Ninth Meeting. February 22, 2008. 10 Shim, Jai Ok. Personal communication with James F. Larson, Fulbright Building, Mapo, Seoul, May 25, 2010. 11 Ibid. 12 Lee, Su-Hyun “High Demand Causes ‘TOEFL Crisis’ in South Korea,” The New York Times, May 14, 2007. 13 Ibid. 14 Lee, Sang-eon. “All of a Sudden, TOEFL Isn’t Such a Hot Ticket,” Joongang Daily, April 24, 2007. Article archived at http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2874787. 15 Jeong, Seon-eon and Lee Min-yong. “Police Say They Busted Scam to Beat TOEIC Exam,” JoongAng Daily, June 24, 2009. Article archived at http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view. asp?aid=2906519. 16 http://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/4838.htm. 17 Ibid 18 From electronic file copy of the technology miniconference web site. 19 http://workshop.educationusa.or.kr/.

Chapter 7 1 http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_Hubert_Humphrey.htm. 2 Ibid. 3 http://exchanges.state.gov/globalexchanges/humphrey-fellowship.html. 4 http://www.humphreyfellowship.org/page/106208/;jsessionid=sq976ln5shz.

244

Endnotes

5 http://www.humphreyfellowship.org/page/Components/;jsessionid=sq976ln5shz. 6 Item 9, KAEC board meeting, February 27, 1979. 7 http://www.eastwestcenter.org/about-ewc/origins/. 8 Ibid. 9 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred Seventy-Second Meeting. December 7, 1999.

Chapter 8 1 Kim, Doo Hyun. “The First Korea Fulbright Alumni Association,” remarks for publication, May 1988, English translation by Hong Sah Myong. 2 Ibid., pp. 5-6. 3 Gurtov, Mel, James F. Larson and Robert R. Swartout, Jr. (Ray Weisenborn, ed.) Korea’s Amazing Century: From Kings to Satellites. Fulbright 50th anniversary commemoration project, Seoul: Korea Fulbright Foundation and the Korean-American Educational Commission, November 1996, p. iii. Text available at http://books.google.com/books?q=Korea’s+Amazing+Century&bt nG=Search+Books. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Kang, Sung Hack. “Reaching Out Beyond Borders Korea,” presentation as part of Fulbright Association Panel on Serving Grantees, Alumni and the Community, posted on Fulbright Association web page with “Best Practices from Around the World” for the Fulbright Alumni Community, p. 7, http://www.fulbright.org/ifad/manual/Best%20Practices.htm. 7 Shim, Jai Ok. Personal communication with James F. Larson, Fulbright Building, Mapo, Seoul, May 19, 2010. 8 Yoon Bokcha, Korean-language version of Chapter 8. 9 Shim, Jai Ok. Personal communication with James F. Larson, Fulbright Building, Mapo, Seoul, January 21, 2010. 10 Kang, Sung Hack. 11 Ibid., pp. 3-4. 12 Ibid., p. 5. 13 Ibid., pp. 6-7. 14 Letter from Shim Jai Ok, executive director, Korean-American Educational Commission, and Jane L. Anderson, executive director, Fulbright Association, October 13, 2005. 15 Kang, Sung Hack, p. 8.

245

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History 16 Shim, Jai Ok. Personal communication with James F. Larson, Fulbright Building, Mapo, Seoul, January 21, 2010.

Chapter 9 1 Adapted from Underwood, Horace G. “Merits and Demerits of Korean Education,” Koreana 5:2. 1991, pp. 63-68. 2 http://www.pisa.oecd.org. 3 Underwood, Horace G. “Merits and Demerits of Korean Education.” 4 Dahlman, Carl and Thomas Andersson, eds. Korea and the Knowledge-based Economy: Making the Transition. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2000, pp. 14-16. 5 Hong, Sah-Myung. “All About Koreans Studying Overseas: They Once Formed Corps D’Elite,” Koreana 5:2. 1991, pp. 80-85. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 The 50-Year History of the Korea Fulbright Program (1950-2010), draft, p. 3. 9 J. William Fulbright. The Price of Empire. New York: Pantheon Books, 1989, p. xi. 10 “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C., April 2010. 11 Shim Jai Ok. Personal communication with James F. Larson, Fulbright Building, Mapo, Seoul, April 16, 2010. 12 Ibid. 13 Beckmann, George M., Bowen C. Dees, Walter H.C. Laves, and Edward W. Wagner. “The Fulbright Program in Korea,” report to the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Washington, D.C.: Department of State, September 1968, p. 8. 14 Ibid., p. 14. 15 “Global Korea Scholarship,” Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Republic of Korea, nine-page English document, downloaded from http://english.mest.go.kr. 16 “The Direction and Themes of Educational Strategy,” paper presented by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology at the regular general meeting of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association, December 3, 2009, Korea Press Center, Seoul. 17 Oh, Young-Jin and Kang Shin-who. “Korea to Replace TOEFL with State Tests,” The Korea Times, November 1, 2009. Article archived at http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/ nation/2009/12/117_54652.html.

246

Endnotes

Epilogue 1 This section was written by Jung Sung-Wook as published in the Fulbright Korea Quarterly, Winter 2010, p. 12. 2 “Cross-Cultural Visions: 1950-2010,” exhibition by Fulbright alumni honoring the 60th anniversary of the Fulbright Program in Korea, Seoul: Korean-American Educational Commission, 2010, p. 7.

247

Appendix I

“The Importance of Cultural Diplomacy” James A. Leach Chairman, the National Endowment for the Humanities Embassy of the Republic of Korea Washington, D.C. July 23, 2010

Ambassador Han Duk-Soo, Secretary Stock, Ambassador Hill, Ambassador Hubbard, friends of the people of Korea: We gather this evening to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Fulbright program in Korea. In so doing, we honor distinguished program participants, but, more profoundly, we underscore the vital role of exchanges and cultural diplomacy itself. Perspective is difficult to apply to events under way and just past. But the evidence is in that exchanges make a difference in the lives of individuals and the social structure of societies. The speed of travel and the virtually instantaneous capacity to transfer thought great distances have made neighbors of every individual on the planet. But being neighbors is not the same thing as respectfully sharing space on the Earth. Mutual understanding is not as easily uplifted as technology is upgraded. Technology provides ever more sophisticated means to communicate, but it does not create the inevitability that the images and messages transferred will lead to better relations. Rubbing up against neighbors who have different manners and different ways of speaking can sometimes spark friction. That is why exchange programs that involve learning and living in the shoes, shirts, and dresses of others make such a difference. One of the myths of our times is that relations between countries are principally

248

Appendix I

a function of government policy and that diplomacy is exclusively a government-togovernment dialogue. Actually, it is businessmen and women, unelected people of good will—be they artists or scientists, athletes, students, or scholars—who are more central to defining the tone of relations between states than public officials. Cultural diplomacy generally precedes and increasingly supersedes government-togovernment relations. Governmental relations understandably have power and security dimensions, especially in a fractured world. Cultural diplomacy, on the other hand, is about expanding and embellishing mutual understanding. It is about the power of values, the power of the human spirit. Since there will always be disagreements between people and countries, the challenge is to see that disputes, big and small, are resolved in civil rather than violent ways. Whether violence is an integral part of the human condition or a learned response is a matter of conjecture. But non-violence is almost certainly a practice that must be learned. And the most effective form of social education is human contact where greater understanding is mutually sought. It is the humanization rather than the demonization of individuals from different societies, particularly those who are culturally most different or politically and economically most challenging, that is so critical if non-violent approaches to problem solving are to be institutionalized. Without humanization—handshakes of understanding—there can be no trust and hence no family or national security. Governments may embody national values. But if people are to develop mutual respect, values must be brought to bear on a human scale. And those values frequently are best understood and reflected outside of political norms. The great 19th century American poet of the common man, Walt Whitman, was idealistically intoxicated with the notion that poetry could be an antidote to violence. He once wrote that his greatest dream was for “an internationality of poems and poets binding the lands of the earth closer than all treaties and diplomacy....” A third of the way around the world from our nation’s capitol, Dostoevsky affirmed something similar: “Beauty,” he said, “will save the world.” A third of the way around the world in the opposite direction, Confucius suggested

249

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

that “when music and courtesy are better understood and appreciated, there will be no war.” All of this sounds rather naïve, but there are few people who have lived on the planet that understood human nature better than Whitman, Dostoevsky, and Confucius. I mention these pioneers of literature and philosophy because the most profound political observation of our age probably comes from a scientist. Splitting the atom, Einstein once observed, has changed everything except our way of thinking. In a world where science and technology have conjoined to produce weapons of mass destruction and where terrorism has become globalized, the thinking of man must change. Words and thought patterns matter. When pieced together in the logic of works like Mein Kampf, they may be used to instill hate, or they may, as in the poetry of Whitman, the novels of Dostoevsky, the wisdom of Confucius, be used to uplift the human spirit. These are our choices. In making these choices, care has to be taken to recognize that there is no single, proper path determinable by one individual or one country. Whether a person knows a great deal or very little, caution must be taken about being certain of very much. To know a lot is a preferable condition to knowing little, but the best and the brightest are not immune from great mistakes. Imperfect judgment characterizes the human condition. That is why humility is a valued character trait, and why shared learning and shared cultural perspectives are of such importance to a civilized world polity. Half a century ago, the British author Lawrence Durrell wrote a set of books called The Alexandria Quartet. Each one was a first person narrative covering a minor cluster of social interactions that took place in Alexandria, Egypt, between the First and Second World Wars. An individual may wonder, Why read about the same set of happenings four different times? The surprise is that while the events are the same, the stories are not. A single narrator could only provide a snapshot of reality. Each subsequent book added to the whys and wherefores of people and their times by the way each new narrator and the people he or she touched came to travel the same ground in a different way. The reader could only conclude that it is impossible to piece together a valid picture of even small events without looking through the lens of a multiplicity of eyes and experiences.

250

Appendix I

If such is the case in one town in one time frame, the logic of the human condition is that it takes many eyes and many perspectives to develop an inkling of understanding of a kaleidoscope of events. What the Fulbright program allows is for participants to advance scholarly undertakings while living and working with people who see the same or different things from eyes trained from nurture, and perhaps nature, to see in different ways. This experience, coupled with the reciprocal exchanges of scholars from host countries, represents for individuals and global society the nascent beginning of a change in our individual and collective ways of thinking—the leap Einstein implies must be taken. It will be many generations before we learn if Whitman, Dostoevsky, and Confucius were correct in their beliefs that appreciation of music and poetry and courtesy can help deter war. But implicit in all Fulbright programs is inquiry into this metaphorical possibility. It is the pioneering search for beauty in the peoples and cultures of different societies that is the program’s signal legacy. Thank you.

251

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

252

Appendix II: The Fulbright Song

253

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

254

Appendix II: The Fulbright Song

255

Fulbright Korea Executive Directors 1960–Present Mr. Kwang Man Ko

September 1960–Spring 1962

Dr. William L. Strauss

July 1963–June 1966

Dr. Donald H. Frantz

July 1966–July 1967

Dr. Edward R. Wright

August 1967–April 1978

Mr. Mark Peterson

1978–December 1983

Mr. Frederick F. Carriere

March 1984–July 1993

Dr. Ray Weisenborn

December 1993–November 1997

Dr. Horace H. Underwood

May 1998–August 2004

Mrs. Jai Ok Shim

October 2004–Present

Appendix III

Fulbright Grant Awards by Academic Field from 1950 to 2010

FIELD YEAR

I. HUMANITIES History

Linguistics/TESL

Philosophy

1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

4 4 3 4 1 3 2 2 2 2 6 2 2 3 2 2 1 3 2 7 7 5 5 3 1 5 2 3 7 3 6 5 5 4 3 9 8 7 5

1 4 6 7 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 2 7 5 4 5 4 5 7 7 11 2 4 2 7 4 10 9 8 5 7 8 8 5 5 8 6 4 3 12 7 4 5 5 4 7 2 5 6

Total

167

274

1 3 2

1 1 2 3 2

II. ARTS

Literature

1 1 1

5 4 5 3 5 7 5 6 4 2 3 3 4 6 4 1 3 3 5 7 3 3 1 2 6 4 3 2 5

1 1

Fine Arts

Music

III. SOCIAL SCIENCES

Dance

1 1 1 1 2

4 4 1 2 2

1 2 2 1 1 1 2

1 1 1 2

3 1 2 2 2 2

4 1 3 1 1 2 6 4

1 3 2

1 1 1

1 3 3 1 1

2 1

1 3 2 3 1 6 3 4 2 2 1 2

1 1 2 1

2 3

1 3 1 1 1

Communication

2 1 2 5

3 6 6

1 2

4 1 6 4 9

228

1 1 1 1

1 1

1 2 2

3 1 1 2

1 4 4 6

1 2 1 1

1 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 3 4 7 3 2 6 3 1 1 1

2 1 2 2 2 2

1 1

1 1 1 1

1 3 3 1 1

1 1

1 2 1 1 1

Business Admin

Economics

1 2

2 11 9 12 10 3 7 1 3 4 6 1 2 1 3

1 3 2 1 4 2

1 1 2 3 3 1 1

2 2 1 2 2 1

2 1 1 3 2 4 1 3 1 1 3 3 2 2 5 7 1 2 4 9 8 5 3 5 3 5 4

1 6 1 2

1 1 1

2 4

6 2 5

1 4

5 3 1 5 5 5 3 4 2 1 5 3 5 3 3 6 3 4 4 3 5 6 6 4 4 6 4 10 5

127

106

168

3 1 1 2 1 1 1

1 3 3

Education

Law

2 1 1 2 2

1 1

Arts-Other

2 1 3 1 2 1

3 5 3 7 12 8 6 12 6 2 3 2 4 4 3 1 1

Humanities-Other

7 7 4 17 9 3 5 1 2 4 5 6 4 2 5 6 2 3 3 5 2 2 1 1 3 6 3 8

2 1 5 4 1 2 2 13 15 28 41 43 35 26 41 54 60 87 114 128 118 118 120 134 148 164 1635

IV. SCIENCES Political Science

Public Admin.

1 3 2 3 19 9 12 10 6 1 1 3 2 4 11 4 3 4 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1

10 8 10 1 2 1 2 4 6 1 1 1 2 4 4 2 1

2 11 2 6 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 4 3 2 3 3 2 4 2 5

6 1 1 3 2 2 3 1 4 2 3 1 5 4 3 2 8 5 6 4 7 4 4 9 6 2 7 5 3 5 6 10 7 6 4 7 2

211

221

4 4 1 4 6 10 8

SS-Other

Biology

Chemistry

Physics

1 2 2 5 14 5 10

2 2

Health Science Sciences-Other 4

1 2

4 1 8

3 1 1 3 4 1 3 6 4 2 4 3 4 2 4 1 2 3 0 3 2 2 4 2 1 3

2 8 3 4 4 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 6 5 9 1 4 6 9 5 5 5 4 4 5 10 4 4 9 7 5 9 5 6 7 6 7 7 6 10 10 8 4 10 14 14 6 12 14

2 3 1 3

119

330

2 1

1 1 1

1 2

1 2 1 2

1 4 4 3 8 8 4 2

1 1

1 1 1

2 1 2 1

1 1 3

2 6 1 4 1 1

1 1

2 3 1 2 2

1 1 1

VI. OTHER

4 2 2 4 1 4 2 5 4 5 2 1 1 4 3 1 2 3 2

2 55

4298

1 2

1 1 5 2 6 4 2

2 1 3

3 1 2

1 3

1 5 12 2 3

1 1 1 2 4 1

3 4 9 5 1 1 1

1 3 2 1

1 3

1 1

1 2 2 5 2 2 2 4 3 1

1 1 2 2

2 1

4 4

1 1 1 1

2 2 1

1 2 2

2 3 2 2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1

3 2

102

4 4 2 68

Total 33 0 19 24 31 107 52 86 41 31 12 38 39 50 51 49 51 46 36 25 28 34 38 31 44 31 29 29 34 39 55 52 71 49 34 44 46 55 52 38 51 50 69 65 81 86 82 89 68 86 99 114 147 176 182 178 178 183 193 217 250

1 2

7 1

1 1 2

V. ENGINEERING

Appendix IV

KAEC Budget and Awards by Grant Program from 1978 to 2010 I. BUDGET SOURCE OF FUNDS US Allocation ROKG Contribution ROKG Contribution in KRW (Thousand Won) Funding Support from Local Government & ETA School Other US Education Dept.(1992) & General Electric (1993-2009) TOTAL Official Exchange Rates: KRW to 1.00 USD II. NUMBER OF GRANTS A. GRANTS TO KOREANS Lecturer Lec/Res - Senior - Mid-Career Researcher - Senior - Mid-Career Professional Degree Student Non-Degree Student Student-Renewal Fulbright Alumni Fellow American Studies Institute-TIEC American Studies Institute MOE Fellow (New or Renewal) IEA Korean Government Funded Humphrey ** US Government Funded FLTA ** US Dept. of State Science and Technology ** Scholar In Residence ** New Century Scholar ** TOTAL KOREAN GRANTS B. GRANTS TO AMERICANS Distinguished Lecturer (Roving 99 only) Lecturer Lecturer/Researcher Researcher Professional Student ETA ETA Renewal IEA US Government Funded Senior Specialist ** TOTAL AMERICAN GRANTS TOTAL GRANTS ** Non-Fulbright Grant Program III. BUDGET ALLOCATION Korean Grant Program American Grant Program Non-Grant Program Student Advisory Service Administration TOTAL

FY/PY-1978 $370,827 $33,817 ₩16,367 $30,518 $435,162 484.00

FY/PY-1979 $330,722 $195,514 $526,236 484.00

FY/PY-1980 $410,550 $293,141 ₩183,213 $71,109 $774,800 625.00

FY/PY-1981 $445,000 $316,908 ₩214,688 $78,492 $840,400 685.50

FY/PY-1982 $624,871 $365,786 ₩271,742 $99,043 $1,089,700 742.90

FY/PY-1983 $508,350 $359,291 ₩255,834 $85,085 $952,726 789.30

FY/PY-1984 $550,522 $294,650 ₩233,849 $214,153 $1,059,325 815.20

FY/PY-1985 $665,122 $302,778 ₩259,832 $92,788 $1,060,688 891.70

FY/PY-1986 $596,000 $316,399 ₩279,819 $162,039 $1,074,438 877.00

FY/PY-1987 $596,000 $351,477 ₩288,389 $178,847 $1,126,324 805.80

FY/PY-1988 $635,702 $393,987 ₩286,243 $212,755 $1,242,444 719.00

FY/PY-1989 $580,000 $439,570 ₩294,518 $265,600 $1,285,170 670.00

FY/PY-1990 $611,670 $458,526 ₩329,082 $386,486 $1,456,682 712.90

FY/PY-1991 $626,000 $507,714 ₩378,247 $417,386 $1,551,100 741.50

FY/PY-1992 $620,000 $540,163 ₩424,892 $450,146 $110,629 $1,720,938 786.60

FY/PY-1993 $714,000 $648,068 ₩523,315 $492,608 $43,000 $1,897,676 808.80

FY/PY-1994 $663,000 $744,640 ₩597,574 $590,841 $73,650 $2,072,131 802.50

1 T/O 3 & 2 T/O 2 9 2 29 -

1 T/O 3 3 8 & 1 T/O 2 27 -

1 T/O 10 2 17 2 28 -

1 T/O 11 & 1 T/O 16 1 37 -

10 & 2 T/O 1 23 & 2 T/O 3 42 -

6 1 13 & 2 T/O 3 48 -

3 & 2 T/O 7 & 4 T/O 47 -

7 & 1 T/O 1 8 & 3 T/O 5 36 -

6 & 1 T/O 1 8 & 3 T/O 5 23 -

7 & 1 T/O 1 6 & 4 T/O 3 & 1 T/O 20 -

10 2 7 5 23 1 2 -

10 & 1 T/O 6 & 3 T/O 5 20 2 1 -

13 1 8 5 15 -

10 6 6 5 17 1 -

10 & 1 T/O 6 1 5 6 & 1 T/O 15 1 -

11 4 6 6 14 1 -

11 3 2 7 & 1 T/O 4 10 1 -

45 & 3 T/O

44 & 2 T/O

63 & 1 T/O

69 & 2 T/O

82 & 4 T/O

74 & 2 T/O

59 & 6 T/O

59 & 4 T/O

45 & 4 T/O

38 & 6 T/O

44 & 4 T/O

46 & 2 T/O

41 & 1 T/O

11 & 1 T/O 2 1 -

14 3 & 1 T/O 1 T/O 2 -

14 & 1 T/O 10 & 1 T/O 1 3 -

16 & 1 T/O 3 & 1 T/O 3 3 -

16 5 2 -

12 2 2 2 -

9 2 1 2 -

2 4 2 4 -

5 4 5 & 1 T/O -

2 4 4 3 3 5 -

1 1 6 2 2 6 -

1 4 2 2 5 -

7 4 4 8 -

5 4 6 1 9 6

4 2 1 2 9 8 6

2 7 3 1 9 & 1 T/O 14 6

1 3 6&1P 8&1P 25 1 5

14 & 1 T/O 59 & 4 T/O

19 & 2 T/O 63 & 4 T/O

28 & 2 T/O 91 & 3 T/O

22 & 2 T/O 91 & 4 T/O

23 105 & 4 T/O

18 92 & 2 T/O

14 73 & 6 T/O

12 71 & 4 T/O

14 & 1 T/O 59 & 5 T/O

21 59 & 6 T/O

18 70

14 58 & 4 T/O

23 67

31 77

32 78 & 2 T/O

42 & 1 T/O 89 & 1 T/O

49 & 2 P 90 & 3 P

$529,407 $202,384 $9,352 $58,219 $278,406 $1,077,768

$607,788 $220,170 $9,187 $63,093 $160,000 $1,060,238

$584,999 $208,713 $12,779 $59,781 $182,360 $1,048,632

$491,550 $364,357 $18,576 $59,841 $192,000 $1,126,324

$608,618 $293,996 $22,158 $86,900 $230,772 $1,242,444

$576,750 $345,734 $19,400 $104,486 $238,800 $1,285,170

$548,420 $414,520 $29,066 $145,000 $319,676 $1,456,682

$595,405 $457,207 $32,930 $146,723 $318,835 $1,551,100

$626,945 $489,848 $45,247 $159,990 $290,031 $1,612,061

$594,760 $551,229 $73,556 $313,163 $364,968 $1,897,676

$626,208 $461,612 $132,191 $366,147 $355,868 $1,942,026

$113,287 $197,884 $8,624 $16,196 $100,171 $436,162

$136,182 $267,316 $8,875 $17,863 $96,000 $526,236

$311,611 $294,554 $7,248 $21,387 $140,000 $774,800

$422,172 $268,120 $3,388 $30,399 $116,321 $840,400

$604,919 $312,715 $9,343 $30,723 $132,000 $1,089,700

$562,006 $179,181 $9,709 $46,830 $155,000 $952,726

Appendix IV

FY/PY-1995 $666,800 $780,750 ₩601,022 $777,035 $48,555 $2,273,140 769.80

FY/PY-1996 $683,000 $792,575 ₩650,863 $930,825 $52,617 $2,459,017 821.20

FY/PY-1997 $683,000 $759,000 ₩694,258 $1,456,619 $54,450 $2,953,069 914.70

FY/PY-1998 $804,000 $520,078 ₩717,552 $451,164 $52,000 $1,827,242 1,379.70

FY/PY-1999 $983,000 $734,257 ₩889,552 $2,662,506 $44,783 $4,424,546 1211.50

FY/PY-2000 $993,600 $656,342 ₩731,559 $1,368,283 $46,409 $3,064,634 1114.60

FY/PY-2001 $1,021,500 $584,860 ₩764,120 $1,969,370 $23,180 $3,598,910 1306.50

FY/PY-2002 $1,012,900 $777,252 ₩952,522 $1,474,320 $58,108 $3,322,580 1225.50

FY/PY-2003 $1,030,000 $771,722 ₩887,635 $1,889,241 $74,184 $3,765,147 1150.20

FY/PY-2004 $1,009,000 $779,334 ₩894,598 $856,623 $89,500 $2,734,457 1147.90

FY/PY-2005 $1,000,000 $854,294 ₩886,757 $982,415 $99,980 $2,936,689 1038.00

FY/PY-2006 $1,520,000 $1,904,359 ₩1,800,000 $148,117 $2,048,977 $144,300 $5,765,753 945.20

FY/PY-2007 $1,542,000 $2,172,260 ₩2,000,000 $198,762 $218,685 $144,300 $4,276,007 920.70

FY/PY-2008 $1,600,000 $1,882,630 ₩2,236,000 $169,487 $910,212 $144,300 $4,706,629 1187.70

FY/PY-2009 $1,600,000 $2,554,050 ₩3,036,000 $188,441 $936,824 $90,400 $5,369,715 1188.70

FY/PY-2010* $1,600,000 $2,773,257 ₩3,136,000 $226,388 $675,966 $5,275,611 1130.80

9 6 3 8&1P 4 10 1 4

9 3 1 7&3P 4 14 1 3

5 6 1 5&5P 9 13 2 4

2 4 3 1 5&3P 8 11 -

2 1 6 3

1 1 6 4

1 4 7 7

13 6 1 1 6

12 1 9 2 1 4

8 1 12 4 1 5

1 2 6 6 1 13 1 7 21 1 4

1 3 8 10 2 13 2 13 32 1 4

1 1 6 13 3 14 12 42 2 1 4

1 6 10 3 10 13 35 1 1 4

2 7 10 2 15 9 36 1 4

3 8 8 2 11 1 13 25 1 4

9 11 1 14 11 27 1 1 4

1 11 11 9 12 38 1 4

2 8 10 28 9 30 1 8

45 & 1 T/O

42 & 3 P

47 & 5 P

36 & 3 P

1 54

1 69

1 105

1 90

6 95

2 1 1 84

5 1 90

7 2 99

12 2 113

3 5 7&2P 27 3 4

3 2 2&2P 9 30 1 4

4 2 2 13 & 1 P 24 2 4

2 3 1 10 18 1 -

1 3 1 10 26 3 4

3 2 12 42 3 4

1 4 1 1 10 44 4 4

4 2 2 12 47 7 5

2 5 1 1 13 59 8 4

1 3 2 3 1 9 69 10 4

1 3 5 2 14 70 5 4

1 3 2 6 15 63 7 4

2 4 2 4 14 70 12 5

2 4 3 1 1 14 73 14 4

2 3 3 14 70 21 5

2 1 1 4 21 73 34 8

49 & 2 P 94 & 3 P

51 & 2 P 93 & 5 P

51 & 1 P 98 & 6 P

35 71 & 3 P

48 90

66 109

69 123

79 148

93 187

2 104 209

1 105 195

2 103 198

1 114 198

2 118 208

2 119 219

1 145 258

$737,610 $563,561 $74,497 $274,403 $383,278 $2,033,349

$790,115 $499,792 $87,295 $187,924 $328,587 $1,893,713

$832,270 $606,417 $124,975 $300,383 $287,390 $2,151,435

$703,342 $501,187 $196,092 $126,317 $264,982 $1,791,920

$654,025 $680,107 $2,680,924 $133,483 $276,007 $4,424,546

$727,546 $810,424 $940,863 $279,644 $312,723 $3,071,200

$936,347 $888,150 $375,621 $120,178 $297,640 $2,617,936

$1,130,169 $1,059,025 $186,547 $136,159 $319,155 $2,831,055

$1,555,525 $1,020,325 $838,871 $188,245 $373,821 $3,976,787

$1,567,201 $1,313,049 $174,214 $174,276 $467,753 $3,696,493

$1,386,157 $1,279,888 $63,617 $174,498 $352,878 $3,257,038

$1,410,082 $1,259,205 $91,201 $239,297 $414,907 $3,414,692

$1,612,819 $1,463,757 $169,902 $222,995 $428,199 $3,897,672

$1,539,537 $1,303,566 $144,269 $201,519 $396,335 $3,585,226

$1,533,923 $1,575,108 $112,489 $275,121 $608,266 $4,104,907

$2,546,202 $1,600,478 $379,447 $256,797 $470,752 $5,253,676

US$ 35.00 25,000 won

http://www.fulbright.or.kr Dust jacket artwork by Youngsun Jin

Jai Ok Shim | James F. Larson Frederick F. Carriere | Horace H. Underwood

... we Fulbrighters proclaim the following three points:

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History J. William Fulbright

Korean-American Educational Commission 한미교육위원단