IF THE Institute of International Education were to be made an effective agency in realizing its objectives, it would of necessity become a center of information and advice on all aspects of international educational relations. As time elapsed and the work of the Institute became widely known in our own country and among foreign peoples, its correspondence became very large. Letters came in from all kinds of people: scholars, administrators, journalists, teachers, and ordinary citizens. Though they were primarily devoted to matters educational, they were by no means confined to such matters. The letters now average 3,000 a month, and reading the second class mail consisting of pamphlets and magazines from all parts of the world taxes the resources of our staff. Every letter is promptly acknowledged and the attempt is made to provide the desired assistance. Visitors to the Institute seldom number less than about twenty-five persons a day seeking information and advice on the greatest variety of subjects. I: have often had, during a single morning, a succession of callers such as an American, a Japanese, a Frenchman, and a Chilean, each with his especial problem; and it sometimes has required a good deal of mental agility to pass from the problem of one to the problem of another.

On one occasion early in the history of the Institute, a representative of the White Engineering Corporation came in with a tall, dark-skinned Ethiopian dressed in flowing garments of several colors. The White Corporation had secured a concession from the Ethiopian government to build a dam on one of the branches of the Nile. Its representative acted as interpreter for I was absolutely ignorant of Amharic. The Ethiopian wanted me to secure some twenty American teachers to return home with him to help establish an educational system, which was very badly needed in his country. When I asked him the subjects in which he wanted teachers, he enumerated first of all a bandmaster as he had been much impressed by a band in Cairo. But he did want some teachers of practical subjects. It would have cost quite a sum of money to take twenty American teachers all the way to Addis Ababa; and when they got there they would have found conditions of life exceedingly primitive. Now the students of the American University of Beirut come from all over the Near East and its teachers are well acquainted with the needs and conditions of the different countries of that area. I told the Ethiopian that he could get the best-qualified teachers from that progressive university and that it would cost him very much less to bring them to Ethiopia from there. He took my advice and when he arrived at Beirut his teachers were ready for him, as I had written ahead to the President describing his needs.

There are few more fascinating subjects of study than the wandering students of the Middle Ages. They came from all parts of Europe to study under a particular teacher like Abelard at Paris or to pursue a particular subject like law at Bologna. Usually before returning home they wandered to other centers of learning to listen to other great masters. This was not difficult because all studies and discussions everywhere were conducted in the same language, Latin. The lives of the wandering students were not always exemplary, but they did bequeath to us the delightful student songs which were descriptive of their life. Contact with peoples of different lands, with their different customs and viewpoints, almost inevitably mitigated the prejudices with which they started from home. When they finally returned home they nearly always became as lighthouses in a surrounding sea of ignorance. With the establishment of national states following the Renaissance, the movement of students from one country to another gradually decreased and finally almost ceased. It was not revived until the latter half of the eighteenth century when foreign students began to go to German universities. A few American students went to German universities before the Civil War, but the movement became something in the nature of a hegira after the War. This was chiefly due to the fact that the American college was essentially a teaching institution in which research was not an important feature.

It was not until toward the close of the nineteenth century that the influence of the first real American university, Johns Hopkins, which opened its doors to students in 1876 and was imitated at other centers, reduced the number of students going to Germany. Nevertheless, until the first World War there were far more Americans who went to European universities to study, especially to German universities, than there were Europeans who came to American universities. The accomplishment of the United States in the war amazed the peoples, the statesmen, and the scholars of the European countries. They wanted to court this new Great Power. They wanted to know more of American civilization and culture, which up to the war they had practically ignored. The British and French realized during the war the great influence exerted in favor of Germany by some of the professors in our colleges who had done their graduate work in Germany. Oxford and Cambridge introduced the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, which had never existed there before, in order to lure American students to their halls. The French doctorat d'Etat could only be obtained after many years of research and publication. The French educational authorities had already established for the benefit of foreign students the doctorat de l'université, which might be obtained in two or three years. It was now emphasized especially for American students. Nevertheless, the United States rapidly became the Mecca of foreign students. By 1930 there were almost 10,000 studying in our colleges and universities, twice as many as the number of American students studying abroad.

But I was anxious that the best of our students should have the opportunity to study in foreign universities and that the best foreign students study in our institutions of higher education. This was frequently impossible because of impoverishment resulting from the war. Moreover, I judged that if an exchange of such students could be established we should probably have the best possible agency for developing international understanding. The young usually differ from older people in not yet having fixed ideas which are difficult to change. I decided that exchanges should be limited to students who had already secured their national education, that is, had their baccalaureate degree. I did not want any American exchange students to become denationalized or expatriates. If they were thoroughly grounded in their own civilization and culture they could absorb the best in a foreign system without danger as the result of comparing the best in the foreign system with the worst in our own. I am a strong advocate of students' going abroad to study only for graduate work.

The Institute was not provided with funds to enable me to realize this plan so I appealed to our colleges and universities. A young Frenchman with his baccalaureat could easily fit into the junior or senior class of an American college, or if more advanced, do graduate work in an American university. The same is true of almost any other young student from Western Europe. Our institutions responded most happily and by 1938 more than one hundred allotted one or more scholarships to the Institute for exchange purposes. What this means financially should be clearly understood. If Vassar College gives a scholarship covering tuition and maintenance for a foreign student it must budget itself $1200 because that is the fee it charges an American student. If Williams College grants a similar scholarship it must charge, on the average, $1000 against itself. Since the inception of this plan and down to the opening of the war in 1939 American colleges and universities granted, through the Institute, scholarships to more than 2500 foreign students, with a value of $1,970,000. Whenever I hear American civilization decried as devoid of spiritual elements---a charge I have often heard in foreign countries---I cite this magnificent tribute to the generosity and idealism of our institutions of higher education. Most of them have usually felt that the influence of the foreign student on the campus was a partial quid pro quo for the financial expenditure they made. As mentioned before, the scholarships for American students studying abroad were almost always given by the governments of the foreign countries. The number of these scholarships is less than for foreign students coming to the United States, for although the student exchange with the European countries is nearly always equal, the Latin American countries have only just begun to reciprocate. Altogether the Institute has been responsible for having sent some 2357 students to study abroad upon exchange scholarships. The value of these scholarships is in the neighborhood of $917,040. This is proportionately lower than the evaluation of the opportunities arranged for foreign students in this country, owing to the lower cost of living in almost all foreign countries and to the fact that tuition fees in foreign institutions are practically negligible. The Americans who receive awards are chosen by committees of selection appointed by the Institute from the teaching staffs of our institutions of higher education. National committees in the European and Latin American countries pass upon the credentials submitted by the applicants and the final decision by the Institute is based entirely upon merit. The European and Latin American method, however, occasionally permits of the infusion of political considerations at the source.

Consider for a moment the splendid opportunity given to an exchange scholarship student to become acquainted with the civilization and culture of a foreign country. He has been selected because he measures up to the standards of scholarship, adjustability, and working knowledge of the language of the country to which he goes. The exchange student in an American college lives with native students in the dormitory, eats with them in the commons, exercises with them in the gymnasium, plays with them on the athletic fields, recites with them in the classroom, and discusses all kinds of national and international problems with them in the lounges. The sense of humor of the American student sometimes, alas, causes embarrassment to the foreign student! This was well illustrated in the case of an attractive Austrian student who went on exchange to a New England college. Having been invited to Sunday evening supper at an American home, he Consulted his American fellow students as to the proper way of entrance and exit. At the close of the evening he shook hands with the hostess saying, "Thank you for inviting me. I have had a hell of a time."

Many first-class colleges today have appointed a professor or committee to facilitate the orientation of the foreign student in the college---in his matriculation, choice of subjects, and advice on personal matters. The counselor committee usually secures invitations for the foreign student to visit typical American homes, to attend political rallies or public debates on current problems, and recommends the best journals and magazines to help the visitor secure an understanding of American life. At the Christmas and Easter vacations the foreign student is often invited to the home of one of his fellow students or joins with two or three of them in buying a second-hand auto to travel to other parts of our country and familiarize himself with its geography and its historic places. Few of the universities in continental Europe have dormitories, and American exchange students are placed in typical homes where their respective universities are located. But the influences I have described operate upon them also, though to a lesser degree.

With such an experience it can be readily understood that the exchange scholarship holder usually returns to his own country not only with a fair understanding of the civilization of the people among whom he has sojourned but with a real admiration for them. I know of exceedingly few exchange students of which that is not true. My work has brought me to most of the countries of Europe, some in Asia, and nearly all in the Western Hemisphere, and I have invariably been sought out by former exchange students who have assured me that their year at Oberlin or Stanford, or wherever it may have been, was one of the happiest of their lives. Exchange students are generally selected because they have evident elements of leadership and in the course of time they nearly always become leaders. In most cases I have found them occupying positions of influence in government service, in industrial life or teaching in a university. I was never visited by one who was not pro-American and using his influence to make our country better appreciated by his own people. It may be objected that it was the ambitious young men who rallied to the banners of the dictators. That is certainly not true of the majority of these young men and women. They had become too impregnated with the free spirit of our life. It must not be forgotten that I have been speaking of the carefully selected exchange students coming here on Institute scholarships. They usually numbered about two hundred a year. It is true, however, that in a few of our institutions of higher education the foreign students who came here on their own were left to shift for themselves, felt deeply their isolation and the indifference of the American students, and did not return home in a happy frame of mind toward the United States. But I am confident that they represent a minority of all our foreign students.

The exchange students repay the Institute most handsomely in one respect. Each one of them is required to write two confidential reports of his experience, one at the close of each semester. The second is written after his return home so that he can evaluate his experience more objectively. These reports not only describe the career of the student in the university but the life of the community and public opinion on the current problems of the country. It is largely from these reports that the Institute staff secures fairly unbiased information concerning conditions in the foreign countries. The only other persons permitted to read the reports, in general, are exchange students of later years who go to the same university. It is of the greatest help to an exchange student who is awarded a scholarship to Grenoble, Göttingen, Naples or elsewhere to be able to read the reports of the American students who have preceded him in the university where he will study.

Were I to enumerate all the industrial, commercial and financial corporations, the learned societies, and the interested individuals who also have provided the Institute with scholarships the list would be interesting but too long for inclusion here. I feel I must select one organization for purposes of illustration:

General John J. Carty was President of the General Electric Company in 1920. He was deeply interested in securing memorials of a proper kind to honor the 126 American ambulance drivers who lost their lives in the service of France before the United States entered World War I. The Committee which he formed and of which I was a member decided to solicit funds with which to establish memorial fellowships, each to be named after one of the deceased ambulance drivers. Unfortunately when only half of the large sum necessary to carry out the project had been secured General Carty died. As the Committee did not have sufficient funds to provide a fellowship in honor of each of the ambulance drivers and did not want to discriminate among them, the fellowships were given the title, "American Field Service Fellowships for French Universities." Since their establishment in 1921, 161 American graduate students have been enabled to study in French universities on them. In the spring of 1942, the Institute sent a questionnaire to all these students and the returns from it were published in a booklet. The degree of success secured by the students in their vocations and the splendid literary output mentioned in their replies, which were usually attributed to the possession of the scholarship, have given great satisfaction to the Committee. No grants for fellowships for study in France have been made by the Committee since France entered the war on September 3, 1939. But they will be resumed when France is freed of the invader.

One of the most successful and profitable experiments undertaken by the Institute to realize its objective was the "summer school" organized for Latin American students at the University of North Carolina in January 1941. Held for a six-weeks period in mid-winter, it was called "summer school" because it took place during the summer of the South American countries from which the students came, and while their regular studies were interrupted for vacation. For the 108 young men and women who attended, the University of North Carolina organized special courses in American history, geography, literature, government and institutions, to give the Latin American students some knowledge of American civilization. Advanced courses were also offered in the professions because many of the students were of graduate quality. Although all the students were supposed to know English, their ability to converse freely in this language was frail in some cases.

Some of the students were housed in homes of persons who knew Spanish, but the great majority were accommodated in the Carolina Inn. The University organized admirable extracurricular activities in the form of musicales, theatricals and dances, and invited the Latin Americans to the football games where they became great rooters for the North Carolina team. Not only the teachers and students of the University but the residents of Chapel Hill outdid themselves in their hospitality. Indeed, the entire state was enthusiastic and the State Legislature held one of its regular sessions at the University in order that the Latin American students might learn something of our methods of making law.

At the close of the special courses the Institute, in conjunction with the Grace Line and the Pan American Union, organized a tour for the students to enable them to become acquainted with other parts of the United States. In every city visited they were entertained by committees of distinguished citizens, and sometimes by their mayors and common councils. They were also received by Mrs. Roosevelt at the White House and by a group of members of Congress. The tour ended with five days of sight-seeing in New York City and a final banquet tendered by the Institute of International Education.

The results of the "summer session" were most fortunate. Living for six weeks in a typical American environment populated almost exclusively by native Americans, the visiting students lost some of the prejudices which a few of them confessed they had held before this experience. The United States students at the University similarly learned to admire the fine qualities of the visiting students. One of the unforeseen benefits much appreciated by the Latin Americans was the intermingling of the students themselves, few of whom had ever visited Latin American countries other than their own. The students were thoroughly enthusiastic over their experience and the repercussions in their home countries were most happy. The following winter our nation was at war and the "summer schools" organized by the Institute at the University of North Carolina, the University of Pennsylvania, and Columbia University-while very successful-were each attended by smaller numbers. Since then no "summer school" organized especially for Latin American students has been held, but this splendid method of developing understanding between ourselves and our neighbors to the South should certainly be revived when this war is over.

Before leaving the subject of student exchange one incident of national significance as well as international interest should be mentioned. Among the various institutions of our own country which I visited in the course of my travels were Hampton and Tuskeegee. Dr. Moton, who at the time was President of Tuskeegee, expressed great interest in the plan of student exchange. Some time after my visit he wrote to me suggesting that I take up with the French educational authorities the possibility of sending six Tuskeegee graduates to study in French institutions in exchange for six Senegalese Negroes preferably men who had fought in World War I, to study at Tuskeegee. I was quite delighted at the prospect and felt much let down when informed from France that the Senegalese were citizens of France and could not be subjected to the discrimination against Negroes that existed in Alabama. I regretfully informed Dr. Moton that the Senegalese students were not available.

Two amusing incidents occurred in the early days of our student exchanges. The Institute cooperated immediately after the war with the Association of American Colleges in bringing to this country some two hundred French girls, who already had their baccalaureat, to enable them to continue their studies in our colleges. Shortly after the conclusion of peace, the fine French officer in charge of the activity expressed the hope that the girls might remain and even be increased in number. I answered that we would like to have some young men also. "Ah, Dr. Duggan," he replied, "keep the girls. We have a big surplus and some of them may marry here. And we need our young men at home." On another occasion, one of the officers attached to the Italian Commission expressed to me the hope that some Italian professors might be invited to lecture in our universities. "Certainly," I answered, "in what fields of study would you recommend?" "In medicine," he replied. "But," I said, "we are plentifully supplied with good teachers of medicine. What I think we need are Italian professors who could explain various aspects of Italian civilization." "You know, Dr. Duggan," he replied, "our professors do not speak English well and you do not need to speak much in cutting up bodies before students."

One method of realizing the ideals of the Institute was by the holding of conferences on important problems of international education. This can be well illustrated by the Conference on the Returned Chinese Student held in 1924. The previous year my attention had been called to an unfortunate result of the large number of Chinese undergraduate students studying in the colleges and universities of the United States. These students frequently stayed a considerable length of time to complete their education. The number often rose in a single year to 2,500. Many came upon national and provincial scholarships, some were sent by American missionaries, and a large number came at the expense of their parents. These students became accustomed to our high standard of living and upon their return to China in some cases found difficulty adjusting themselves to the more primitive environment of their home country. This resulted in discontent and sometimes in their actually becoming liabilities rather than assets to their country at the very time that China was in the greatest need of trained intelligence. The Chinese themselves, moreover, had been engaged in founding institutions of higher education after the establishment of the Republic in 1912, and---though they did not have the reputation of our colleges---in many instances they had developed into strong institutions which gave a good undergraduate education.

On January 8, 1924 I called a conference at the Faculty Club of Columbia University to consider the general problem of the Chinese student in the American college. The men and women best qualified by experience in China attended. They included President Burton of the University of Chicago, President Goodnow of Johns Hopkins, President Pendleton of Wellesley, President Comstock of Radcliffe, President Stuart of Yenching, Professor Paul Monroe, the American representative on the Boxer Indemnity Fund, and Professors Porter and Carter, representing the Department of Chinese at Columbia University. The resolutions adopted by the conference expressed strong approval of the policy of Chinese students' securing their national education before coming to the United States and recommended that to an increasing degree the advent of Chinese students here be confined to graduate research students. These resolutions were sent to the principal educators in China and were very well received. In the following year all students granted Boxer Indemnity fellowships were graduate students. Though some Chinese undergraduates still come to study in our institutions, the number has decreased and a much larger proportion consists now of graduate students.

More than a thousand Chinese students enrolled in the colleges and universities of the United States became stranded here as one result of the Pearl Harbor débâcle of December 1941. They were unable to return to China and they could get no funds from home. Under the circumstances the Department of State set apart a considerable sum of money to assist them and placed the distribution of the fund in a committee of two persons: Mr. Chih Meng, Director of the China Institute in America, and myself. The Chinese government arranged for a similar fund to help the students. Mr. Howland Shaw, the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of personnel, suggested three principles to be followed in the selection of the students to be given a grant: first and most important, that they be engaged in study and research that would be of immediate service to China in reconstruction after the war; second, that they have good scholastic standing; and third, that they be really in need. Nearly all the students were engaged in graduate work and of high standing, and most were in need.

Despite my own desire to favor the humanities as much as possible in these days of the exaltation of the technical studies, I realized that for China's welfare preference should unquestionably be given to students in the various fields of engineering, medicine, public health and sanitation, education, and the technical subjects generally rather than to philosophy, literature and the arts. As soon as possible we transferred students to self-sustaining jobs in industrial establishments which allowed us to spread our funds to a larger group of students. The whole enterprise was of the greatest benefit to the students and will undoubtedly be of immense service to China in the time of reconstruction. The letters the Committee received expressing the gratitude of the students helped, moreover, augurs well for good understanding between China and the United States in the post-war period.

In 1941 the Turkish government transferred ninety-two students who had been studying technical subjects, particularly engineering, in institutions in Great Britain and Germany to similar institutions in the United States where there would be no danger of having their studies interrupted by military developments. They were to be accompanied by a leader who was to supervise their orientation in our universities and keep track of their progress. Apparently the plan did not work out well because a year later one of the Embassy Secretaries visited the Institute of International Education with the request that we undertake the same supervision of Turkish students as we give to other foreign students. As this would require considerable correspondence and travel the Embassy agreed to bear the expense of the activity. It is gratifying to state that the records of the Turkish students have shown them to be serious and studious young men who measure up well to the standards attained by our own students.

In the years immediately preceding World War I there had been a few, a very few, exchange professorships between such large and important institutions as Harvard and Columbia on our side, and the universities of Paris and Berlin on the European side. The exchange naturally died during the war. It was obvious to me that owing to the impoverishment of Europe its revival would be difficult even for the large institutions, and would be wholly impossible for small and remote colleges. And yet it was those latter institutions and the surrounding communities, which sometimes had never been visited by any foreigner, that needed foreign visitors most. Hence I suggested to our United States colleges and universities the institution of the Visiting Professor. I agreed to invite a distinguished scholar or man of affairs to come to the United States and to organize a circuit for him among the colleges and universities that could afford to pay an honorarium for a lecture or series of lectures. He would stay a day, a week, or longer as the guest of the institution, depending upon the number of lectures he was to deliver. Each lecture would be followed by questions from the students and general discussion. The visitor would also be a source of information and interest among the professors, at the faculty club dinner table and lounge.

It can be readily understood what a source of inspiration it has been for professors and students to have the Right Honorable Herbert A. L. Fisher, the English Minister of Education, or Harold Laski of the London School of Economics describe the problems confronting Great Britain; or have André Siegfried or Emile Légouis of the Sorbonne discuss cultural conditions in France; or have Ernst Jäckh, President of the Hochschule für Politik at Berlin, or Carl Becker, the Prussian Minister of Education, describe internal conditions of Germany. One can also realize the advantage I myself enjoyed as their host in acquiring knowledge of international affairs. During the existence of the Institute more than 260 eminent scholars, teachers, men of affairs, and statesmen from all the countries of Europe have been circuited by the Institute among our institutions of higher education.

But this activity, excellent in itself, did not conform to my objective in undertaking it. These distinguished men lectured only at institutions that could afford to pay an honorarium, and those institutions were more or less familiar with foreign visitors. What I was most anxious to do was to select a few able scholars in international affairs to send on a prolonged circuit to the smaller and remote institutions of the South and West. In 1925 I appealed to Dr. Frederick P. Keppel, the President of the Carnegie Corporation, who was always alive to the wisdom of supporting a worthwhile enterprise. I found him enthusiastic about the plan and he agreed to approve a grant of $4,000 a year for two years to realize it, with the understanding that thereafter it should become self-supporting. I wrote to the presidents of the institutions I had in mind, to secure their cooperation and in each case suggested that they entertain the lecturer while he was visiting their institutions and invite in the people of the neighborhood to some of the lectures. They were unanimous in expressing a delighted desire to cooperate. The young foreign scholars I had selected were not only specialists in their fields but were in every case able and experienced expositors. The letters I received, not only from the presidents but from persons among the public who attended the lectures, all expressed the earnest hope that the activity be maintained. We were able to continue the third year, but on a reduced scale because some of the colleges could not afford the small honorarium of $50. When the fourth year arrived the plan had to be dropped. But I commend this fine activity to any unappropriated millionaire who is anxious to enhance the spiritual welfare of large numbers of our people.

Among the men of affairs whom the Institute circuited among our universities was Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, President of the Reichsbank. In 1930 I agreed to arrange an itinerary for him so that the students in our universities, especially students of economics, might hear his views. It was a most successful tour, for as soon as bankers in a university city heard he was coming they wanted to invite him to luncheon or dinner meetings of Chambers of Commerce to hear him talk upon world monetary and financial problems.

Dr. Schacht was one of the most hard-boiled, dogmatic and ambitious men I ever met. The German American Chamber of Commerce of New York had arranged a luncheon in his honor on the day after he arrived and I was asked to act as toastmaster. The night before, he had given an interview to reporters in which he outlined quite specifically what the United States ought to do in the economic emergency. The interview had brought forth sharp criticism in some of the New York papers the next morning. Naturally, Dr. Schacht sat on my right at the luncheon. Paul Warburg sat on my left. At an opportune moment Mr. Warburg whispered to me, "Schacht is really here to raise a loan for Germany. If he goes about our country talking to reporters as he did last night he won't raise a cent. Do you think you could give him a hint?" I answered that I would try, and at an unoccupied moment J said to Schacht, "Dr. Schacht, ours is a very large country whose diverse sections differ very much in their points of view on nearly all matters of national concern. I think you will be interested in listening to the representatives of the different sections before deciding what the general American viewpoint really is." Schacht reddened at once and blurted, "Dr. Duggan, if you want to dictate what I shall say in my lectures, I shall take the next boat home." I assured him I had never attempted to dictate to any of our lecturers but that I did always try to inform them of the conditions that they would probably meet in different parts of our country so that they might be better prepared to face, their audiences. He was not then mollified but the next time I visited Germany he gave a luncheon in my honor at the Reichsbank. Incidentally, he did not "raise a cent."

Not all the Germans who visited the Institute were like Dr. Schacht. I never enjoyed a visit more than that made in 1930 by Dr. Carl Becker. He had been invited by Teachers College to give lectures on current views in Germany on education. I attended some of them. He not only spoke realistically but with great wisdom. Any criticism he made of American education was by inference only and was, I thought, deserved. My personal talks with him on conditions in Germany, especially among the youth and in the universities, were most clarifying. Even then he was much disturbed by the divisions existing among the German people. Another fine German who lectured under Institute auspices in 1932 was Dr. Julius Curtius, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany. He was a very lovable and scholarly gentleman and his wife was a delightful lady. They were accompanied by their twenty-year-old son, a fine frank young man of splendid physique. As all four of us were going down in the elevator of the building on our way to lunch, the son stood in front of us facing the door of the elevator. Dr. Curtius pointed to him and whispered, "He'll make a great soldier." If a man like Curtius made such a remark, I wondered whether it might not be expected from practically all Germans.

On the occasion of his first visit to America, André Siegfried toured the country under the auspices of the Institute and there resulted the volume Les Etats-Unis d'Aujourd'hui, translated into English as America Comes of Age. M. Siegfried intended to make a prolonged visit in the various parts of the United States and to meet persons in many vocations and stations in life in order to familiarize himself with all aspects of our civilization. He was a most meticulous person and a very systematic worker. Almost immediately after any interview he typed the results. When he first arrived I brought together at lunch some of the best authorities at Columbia University in the various fields of scholarship. He asked a great many questions and they spoke very frankly about the elements of weakness as well as of strength of our social system. I have no doubt that America Comes of Age contains some, possibly most, of M. Siegfried's real views of our civilization and culture, but I do not think it contains all his views. I later heard him deliver a lecture in Paris on the subject. He spoke admiringly of many aspects of our life, but he said that he decidedly did not want to see France become Americanized. There was still too much of the primitive and crude, and too little of the gentle and refined in our life. It was the view of the typical French intellectual who has always regarded France as le pays le plus civilisé. It would be interesting to learn whether M. Siegfried holds the same view today (1943) of the relative values of French and American civilization.

Most of the European belligerent countries in World War I were so stricken financially at its close that it was hopeless to expect them to invite American scholars to lecture in Europe in anything like the extent to which European scholars were invited to the United States. I recommended, therefore, at the beginning of the Institute's career that we take advantage of our admirable institution of sabbatical leave to overcome the difficulty. Most of my readers will probably know that it is the custom among our first-class colleges to give a professor, who has served the institution seven years, a year's leave of absence with half pay or a half year's leave of absence with full pay. The professor can use the sabbatical leave to do research, to write a book, to travel, or simply to rest. My plan provided that a distinguished professor on sabbatical leave be allotted traveling expenses to and from a country which he wished to visit with the understanding that he deliver some lectures at the universities of the country and report on his experiences to the Institute. The amount of the grant would depend upon the distance and cost of transportation. Professor Paul Monroe of Teachers College lectured in Chinese universities in the field of education. Dana C. Munro of Princeton University lectured at Robert College and the Constantinople Women's College in the field of history. Charles D. Hazen of Columbia lectured at the University of Strasbourg on American history and civilization. Similar grants were made to other scholars for lecturing in various countries.

The scheme was a great success. The American scholars,. who were usually well known in the foreign universities which they visited, received a most cordial welcome and unquestionably left behind a more favorable impression as to the standards of American scholarship than had previously prevailed. The reports which they made were usually very illuminating not only upon scholastic conditions in the university visited but also upon political, economic, and social conditions of the foreign country in which they resided. The reports were afterward distributed to other scholars in the same field of study. A sum of $12,500 a year had been assigned for the Sabbatical Year Plan but unfortunately when the support of the Institute was transferred in 1923 from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace to the Carnegie Corporation, the appropriation for the Plan was not continued. Europe will be utterly exhausted at the close of this second World War. It is to be hoped that something similar to the Sabbatical Year Plan may then be revived in the interest of intellectual cooperation.

Another method of realizing the fundamental objective of the Institute was to influence public opinion by means of publications of various kinds. Probably the most important of all the publications is The Guide Book for Foreign Students in the United States. This contains a very brief history of higher education in the United States, of the cost of education in different parts of the country, of the American college curriculum, of life in the dormitories and commons, of our unique system of credits to secure a degree, and most of the other peculiar aspects of our educational system. The idea underlying the booklet was to provide the foreign student with information concerning our colleges and universities before his advent here so that he would not be wholly ignorant of conditions upon arrival. The booklet is very popular in foreign countries and has gone through several editions. Under the title of Guía del Estudiante Hispanoamericano en los Estados Unidos, it has recently been revised and enlarged and translated into Spanish for the benefit of the many students coming from the Latin American countries. The Institute has published for the benefit of American students similar booklets on the French, English, and Italian systems of education because a large number of American students have gone to those countries for purposes of study. It also issues occasional brief pamphlets on significant subjects from time to time.

However, it is the monthly bulletin of the Institute of International Education which probably exerts greatest influence. The News Bulletin is issued on the first day of each month of the academic year, October to May. It contains notices of the meetings of international educational and scholarly associations that will be held anywhere throughout the world, announcements of changes in the organization or ad ministration of education, especially of higher education, that have been made in the various national systems, notes about the alumni of the Institute---that is, its former scholarship holders---and an editorial by the Director of the Institute. The editorial is not always on an educational subject but is often devoted to expressing the views of the Director on American policy in international affairs. That it has had an effect in influencing opinion in our colleges is made evident by the number of letters received from professors and students nearly all expressing approval. The Director is aware that readers who do not approve seldom send notice of their disapproval, but he has reason to believe that the editorials have had a real effect. The News Bulletin is sent to the president, librarian and some of the professors in all our colleges and universities, to the many correspondents of the Institute in foreign countries, and to some of the American newspapers which give much attention to foreign affairs. Each issue numbers about 5,000. It is frequently quoted in student magazines and sometimes in the daily press. Reprints of special articles are made for distribution.

In addition to the monthly bulletin, the Institute issues on October 1st the Annual Report of the Director, describing the activities of the Institute during the previous year and giving his opinion upon educational prospects in the different countries in the immediate future. In order to enable the Director to plan for a long-term constructive program, in 1924 the Carnegie Corporation was requested to make its grant of funds for the support of the Institute for a five-year period instead of annually. The request was granted, with the result that the Director's annual report at the close of each five-year period is much more complete than other annual reports. A complete report is being issued this year.

In 1927 a commission headed by Senator Honnorat of France came to the Institute for advice. Associated with M. Honnorat was M. Auguste Desclos, the distinguished Assistant Director of the and an architect whose name I have forgotten. Senator Honnorat was one of the most attractive Frenchmen that ever visited the Institute---thoughtful, courteous and quick to perceive. M. Desclos was a scholar who spoke English admirably and had been a frequent visitor to our country. The commission wanted to learn as much as it could concerning the dormitory life of our colleges, including provision for lounges and recreation. Its report was to be the guide for the erection of the American House at the Cité Universitaire in Paris, of which I shall write more fully in the chapter on France. Before it started upon a circuit among our universities, I took the commission to Columbia University to visit one of the men's dormitories and to Barnard College to visit one of the women's. Miss Gildersleeve, the Dean of Barnard, accompanied us about the College. She showed us small rooms for individual students and suites containing bedrooms with a central room for study to accommodate two or more students. "I can understand the possibility of two men students living in harmony for a year," said Senator Honnorat, "but I can't conceive of that's happening with two women students." He probably learned a great deal about such matters upon his tour, for the American House at the Cité Universitaire is a splendid institution with rooms for men students and women students, some of them for two men and others for two women.

One of the most attractive persons to visit the office was Colonel Lindbergh, who came in one day with a letter of introduction. He wore no hat, had clothes which certainly were not those of a dandy, had a tousled head of hair, and a frank open face. I liked him at once. He said he wanted to fly with his wife to the South American countries to learn as much as he could of their civilization and culture. He wanted particularly to visit universities and become acquainted with students and professors. He was not going as the agent of the Pan American Airways with which he had been connected, nor upon any commercial errand. He asked whether I would be willing to help him arrange his itinerary especially among the universities and to recommend books on South America that he might read before going. I told him I would gladly do so and would give him letters of introduction to scholars and personal friends who would be of service. I suggested, however, that I invite Mrs. Lindbergh and himself to dinner, at which I would have a group of people all of whom knew South America by personal experience and each of whom represented a different activity. He gladly agreed.

The dinner was held in March 1931 at the Cosmopolitan Club. I do not remember all who were there but Waldo Frank represented the American literary figures that are admired by Latin Americans; General Palmer E. Pierce, attorney for the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, and Mr. James S. Carson of the Electric Bond and Share, represented. business; Dr. Samuel Guy Inman, the missionary interests; Dr. Charles Burlingame represented medicine, and Professor: William R. Shepherd, scholarship. I invited Mrs. M. C. Migel, a Chilean who was a Trustee of Santiago College, and Miss Edna Duge, the Secretary of the Latin American Division of the Institute, so that Mrs. Lindbergh would not be the sole lady present. After dinner I asked Colonel Lindbergh to explain the purpose of his intended visit. When he finished I suggested that we go around the table and call upon each one present to tell, in the light of his or her personal experience the aspects of Latin American civilization that Colonel Lindbergh must unquestionably come into contact with and the questions and considerations that he had better avoid. It was a most valuable symposium for any prospective traveler to South America. Colonel Lindbergh told us he wanted to start as soon as possible, but I said he could not possibly do so for at least six months. The Prince of Wales (afterward Edward VIII) had just returned to England after such a tour, and were Colonel Lindbergh to start at once upon a similar tour the British might consider that he went in order to diminish the prestige of the Prince in the eyes of the South Americans. Colonel Lindbergh reluctantly agreed to this view, in which all concurred. He and Mrs. Lindbergh stated that they would study Latin American affairs in the meantime. Before leaving they assured me that they had seldom spent a more interesting and profitable evening, and a few days after the dinner I received an autographed photograph of the Colonel and Mrs. Lindbergh.

That visit to South America never took place. About two months later, John Barrett, the predecessor of Dr. Leo Rowe, as Director of the Pan American Union, gave an interview to representatives of the press in which he said that it was about time that our Prince, Colonel Lindbergh, ought to tour South America in the same capacity as the Prince of Wales, namely, as our chief salesman. Colonel Lindbergh and I agreed that the visit would have to be indefinitely postponed. In my last interview with him I suggested he visit the Far East instead of Latin America and I gave him a letter of introduction to Edward Carter, the Director of the Institute of Pacific Relations. I feel, therefore, that I am slightly even if remotely responsible for the writing of that fine volume, North to the Orient.

At the time of which I am writing Colonel Lindbergh was one of the most popular men in the United States. Today that popularity has almost vanished as the result of his attitude upon the present war. He became a leader of the "isolationists" who were primarily responsible for our lack of preparedness when we entered this war. Although I hold a view upon that subject the very opposite of that held by Colonel Lindbergh, I do not doubt his sincerity. But his judgment was bad and had bad consequences. I wonder sometimes whether he has not been influenced by others whose sincerity is more open to question. And I deeply regret Mrs. Lindbergh's The Wave of the Future, which might readily influence readers to be willing to accept conditions leading to totalitarianism.

In the fall of 1930, Dr. Einstein visited the United States and lectured at a number of our institutions of higher education. I went to hear him at the City College---or rather to see him---for he spoke on relativity and he spoke in German. Ï knew nothing of relativity and I could not understand his very technical German. However, I soon discovered that most of the audience, which filled every seat of the amphitheatre, was there for the same reason that I was. I recognized many persons who knew no German and I doubted the knowledge of many others concerning relativity. We all went to see the scholar who had revolutionized our concepts concerning the physical universe. He was a splendid figure with his magnificent head surrounded by masses of grey-white hair that bristled in every direction.

I later became acquainted with Dr. Einstein under rather unusual and amusing circumstances. Toward the close of his second visit to the United States in the spring of 1934 he was invited by Mr. and Mrs. Dave Hennen Morris (Mr. Morris afterward became United States Ambassador to Belgium) to meet a small group of friends at dinner. I was not one of them but was informed afterward of the incident I am about to mention. Among those at the dinner was Dr. Ludwig Kast, the President of the Josiah Macy Foundation, well known in New York philanthropic circles. After dinner Dr. Kast asked Dr. Einstein whether there was any way in which his American admirers could serve him. Dr. Einstein answered that he was compelled to devote a great deal of his time and energy in working out his mathematical formulae---a task which a mathematical scholar could do just as well---but that he could not afford to engage one. Dr. Kast stated that his American friends would be very glad to pay the mathematical scholar's salary, a statement which naturally delighted Dr. Einstein.

When Dr. Einstein came in the following fall he at first lived on the ship that brought him, I believe for economy's sake. At that time Mrs. Einstein expressed her gratitude to Dr. Kast for the projected gift and asked him when they might expect it. Dr. Kast exclaimed, "Why, it went immediately following your visit last spring." "We never received it," answered Mrs. Einstein. Dr. Kast said he would cable to the bank in Berlin the following morning. He did so and received the answer that the money had arrived at the stated time, that the bank had notified Dr. Einstein of its arrival but that no answer had been received from the notice and that the money was still awaiting Dr. Einstein's order. Dr. Kast called me up the following morning to say that he had a sore throat and asked me whether I would be willing to accompany Mrs. Kast to the boat and notify Dr. Einstein of the answer from the Berlin bank. I gladly agreed.

I telegraphed to the captain of the boat, which was docked at Hoboken, to find out when Dr. Einstein might receive us. The captain told me that Dr. Einstein returned at different hours from his daily excursions to New York. It might be at five or six or even seven o'clock in the evening. Despite his profound scholarship, Dr. Einstein was a simple, even naïve, soul who took the greatest delight in visiting the sights of New York. Mrs. Kast and I decided that we would risk seeing Dr. Einstein at six o'clock, and he did arrive shortly after.

When we informed him that the money to employ the mathematician had been in the bank since the previous spring he exclaimed, "Oh, I think I can explain this matter. You see the world is full of kind people and many of them write to me to get my autograph, which is very nice of them. But can't answer them all at once so I have a basket and put the letters in it until I have time. I'm afraid I thought the notice from the bank was a request for my autograph and put it in the basket."

One of the activities undertaken by the Institute which has had a lasting influence was to bring groups of English debaters to the United States. The first invitation was extended in 1922 to the Oxford Union to send a team to the United States to undertake debates on international problems with similar teams in our universities. College debating in our institutions was a stereotyped affair, very rigid in its organization with an allotted time for presentation and refutation and with only one objective, namely, to win. I had been much impressed by the debates at the Oxford Union, which were not debates but discussions having as an aim the enlightenment of the audience. The American debaters were simply flabbergasted by the attitude of the Oxford men who did not hesitate to make admissions such as "I fully agree with my opponent on this point which he has so admirably presented." The Institute sent the Oxford teams---and later Cambridge teams---all over our country. The result was a great change in the character of college debating in the direction of informality, factuality, and humor. After a few years' experience, the institute turned over international debating to the National Student Federation of America as a proper student enterprise.

Among the important activities undertaken by the Institute has been the receiving and placing of refugee students and professors in our institutions of higher education. Among the million persons who fled to foreign parts from the Bolshevik terror after the Russian Revolution were several thousand professors, students and scholars of all kinds. Few of the professors and scholars reached this country. Because of their scant knowledge of English and of conditions in the United States, or their insufficient power of adaptability, few were able to adjust themselves to life in this country. Within a few years after its establishment, the Institute published a booklet containing the name, field of work, former university connection and ability to use English of several hundred of these men. Only a very few found places in our institutions.

Not so with the students. The Russian Student Fund, covering one of the finest activities in which the Institute ever engaged, was formed in my office in 1921. The moving spirit was Alexis Wiren, son of Admiral Wiren who was shot in the early part of the Revolution. We formed a committee of well-known men whose names would be a guarantee of the worthiness of the activity, who would use their influence in securing funds, and who would actually attend meetings and help the movement with advice and supervision. Frank Polk, Allen Wardwell, Francis Robbins, General William Haskell, Reeve Schley, Boris Bakhmeteff, E. T. Colton, and Edwin Merrill were the chief members of the Board of Trustees. I was a member also and Chairman of the Committee of Selection to choose the exiled students who were to receive grants to enable them to continue their education in American universities. I have since become the Chairman of the Board, and have felt more than amply repaid for the time and attention I have given to the Fund. The Fund made a strong appeal to all generous minds but especially to the wealthy and conservative who abhorred communism. Somewhat more than $600,000 was contributed and more than 600 students were assisted. The assistance was in the form of a loan contract by which each student agreed to pay back over a term of years the total sum that had been loaned to him. Despite the great depression and resulting unemployment and the difficulty of adjustment to the new environment, in no year did less than ninety-five per cent of the students receive a college report lower than "very good". To date $220,000 or thirty-five per cent of the total loan has been repaid. Twenty-seven per cent of those assisted have repaid the advances in full. I know of no college loan fund that surpasses this record. These students have studied in 84 different colleges and universities throughout the country, chiefly in practical fields such as engineering, agriculture, library economy, and teaching, in order to become self-supporting at as early a time as possible.

The young men and women helped by the Russian Student Fund founded an alumni association and edited a monthly magazine, The Russian Student, which kept each informed of the whereabouts and activities of the others. At the time of writing nearly all have become American citizens and are very loyal to their adopted country. So true is this that it is doubtful that any will ever return to Russia whatever social system it may have. The purpose of the Fund, to assist young Russians to continue their education, which was interrupted by the Revolution, has been accomplished; and the diminished resources now available will be used to assist in the education of the children of the original recipients many of whom have become married. This whole enterprise is a remarkable tribute to the sublime faith, untiring devotion and attractive personality of Alexis Wiren.

Splendid as is the record of the Russian Student Fund, it is surpassed in importance and accomplishment by that of the Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced Foreign Scholars. In the early months of 1933, Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler each came into power. Roosevelt almost immediately launched the Good Neighbor policy as the chief American principle in international relations, emphasizing a determination to observe international law, to honor treaties and to refrain from interference in the domestic affairs of other nations. Hitler initiated a policy of sabre rattling, of determination to secure a place in the sun for Germany and of threats to any nation putting obstacles in the way of accomplishing his purpose. The philosophy of Nazism is based upon the myth of race, soil, and blood. The Germans are said to be the Herrenvolk of the world, while others are to be given subordinate status, and some are to be outcasts. Chief among the latter are the Jews. Immediately upon his accession to power Hitler began a ruthless persecution of the Jews, making no distinction between rich and poor, learned and ignorant, worker and professionals refined and vulgar. Among the most scholarly men in all Germany were to be found Jewish professors, who were at once ousted from their universities. As many of them as could do so fled to neighboring countries which accorded them a generous welcome.

It was soon evident, however, that this problem was not merely a Jewish problem but a great human problems for the Nazis did not confine their persecution to Jews, but extended it to all liberals and others of suspicious political opinions whether Jew or Gentile. In early June of 1933 there came to my office Messrs. Bernard Flexner, Alfred Cohn, and Fred M. Stein to discuss the problem of forming some kind of organization to assist the refugee professors in continuing their research and teaching in their chosen fields of scholarship. Then and there was founded the Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced German Scholars, the word "German" being changed to "Foreign" when the Nazis began the subjugation of non-German countries, commencing with Czechoslovakia. A body of distinguished presidents of colleges and universities and eminent scholars in many fields of learning were invited to form the General Committee, and in every case accepted the invitation. President Livingston Farrand of Cornell University became the Chairman of the Executive Committee and I became the Secretary. President Farrand was seldom able to attend the numerous meetings of the Executive Committee and I served in his stead, succeeding him as Chairman when to our great sorrow he died in 1939. The other members of the Executive Committee consisted of Messrs. Flexner, Cohn, and Stein, mentioned above, to whom were added Professor L. C. Dunn of Columbia University and Professor Nelson P. Mead of the College of the City of New York.

The Committee set for itself a threefold objective: to serve the personal needs of the refugees, to preserve their great attainments for the benefit of scholarship in the United States, and particularly to assist the institutions of education to absorb the refugee scholars without disturbance in administration or conflict with personnel---a courtesy due the institutions as a simple return for the splendid attitude of hospitality adopted by them upon the publication of the Committee's appeal and maintained by them ever since.

To realize the objectives of the Committee, three guiding principles of action were adopted. The first was to receive applications for assistance only from institutions of learning and not from individual scholars. The reasons for the adoption of this principle are not far to seek. The Committee was not long in existence before it was overwhelmed with requests from dismissed scholars in Europe for positions in institutions in the United States. Moreover, the Committee believed that the departments of learning of an institution were better qualified to select the men they wanted than was the Committee, which, however, always placed its lists in any field at the disposal of an institution.

The Committee stipulated, however---and this was its second guiding principle---that its assistance be confined to mature scholars of distinction who had already made their reputations. There were many fine young American scholars who had finished their graduate work and were seeking positions in our colleges. Were encouragement given to young foreign scholars, resentment would have unquestionably arisen among our own teachers. The Committee believes that in all cases, but especially among young scholars, preference should be given in cases of equal merit to Americans. Only where there is exceptional ability have grants been made to scholars under thirty-five years of age or, at the other end of the scale, to scholars over fifty-eight years of age. This did not prevent refugee scholars younger than thirty-five from attempting to secure posts and sometimes succeeding---but not through the instrumentality of the Committee.

The Committee's third guiding principle was that it would grant preference to applications from institutions which could give reason to believe that after a year or possibly two years of experience with a scholar, he would be absorbed by the institution into its faculty. No commitment was asked of an institution but the hope for the absorption of the scholar was always expressed and in the majority of cases fulfilled.

Because of the early exhibition of Nazi hatred of Jews, the first refugee scholars were of that race. Their coreligionists in the United States rallied to their assistance and the financial support of the Committee came at first exclusively from Jewish foundations and individuals. To date these Jewish sources of aid have contributed more than $600,000. The fact that the financial support of the Committee was almost exclusively Jewish had no effect upon the Committee's decisions. Applications from Catholic and Protestant institutions received the same attention as did those from non-denominational institutions. The minority of Jewish members on the Executive Committee were particularly insistent upon that point.

In the early days of its existence, the Committee was able to make grants of $2,000 a year for two years to institutions which gave promise of absorbing distinguished scholars. In practically every one of these cases, the Rockefeller Foundation duplicated the grant, and in some cases gave more. As time elapsed, however, and demands upon the Committee's resources increased due to the conquest of Austria and Czechoslovakia, and later of Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France, the Committee was compelled to cut down on the amount which it could give. In the majority of cases the Committee's grant is now in the neighborhood of $1,000. The Oberlaender Trust cooperated with the Committee wherever possible.

With the aid of the Rockefeller Foundation and the Oberlaender Trust, the Emergency Committee has helped to support 323 refugee scholars in our institutions of higher education. Of these scholars about 175 have already been absorbed into the staffs of the colleges and universities. The Committee has confined its activities to work on behalf of those men and women who had held teaching posts---usually as professors or Privatdozenten---in foreign universities before their flight from Europe. The Committee has not taken under its sponsorship physicians, lawyers or engineers. Among those aided have been scholars of unusual distinction, including two Nobel Prize winners. The great majority have made rapid and happy adjustment to their new and unfamiliar environment.

It is surely unnecessary to enlarge upon the contribution to scholarship that may be expected from these mature teachers and research scholars. As soon as sufficient time elapses they practically always become American citizens. If space permitted it would be of unusual interest to describe the manner in which these men and women have contributed to the literary, artistic and musical culture of the college communities in which they have found refuge.

In an attempt to coordinate the work of all the principal agencies in the United States engaged in assisting refugee scholars, from time to time new members were added to the Executive Committee which had functioned so well since the Committee's work started. Among these additions are Dr. Frank Aydelotte, Director of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton; Dr. Alvin Johnson, Director of the New School for Social Research; Mr. Charles J. Liebman, President of the Refugee Economic Corporation; Dr. Henry Allen Moe, a Trustee of the Oberlaender Trust; Professor Harlow Shapley, the eminent astronomer who had organized at Harvard financial aid for superannuated refugee scholars, and Miss Hertha Kraus of the American Friends Service Committee.

The enlarged and strengthened Committee is engaged in a great enterprise to help save for the people of the world the immense fund of talent and ability possessed by the, thousands of displaced scholars. As a result of the destruction that has taken place in the European countries which are at war, it is to the nations of the Western Hemisphere that the fleeing scholar must look for a haven to continue his work and research. The generous hospitality already shown by the colleges and universities of the United States gives assurance that our country is aware of the opportunity to render a service comparable to that shown the Greek scholars by Western Europe when Constantinople fell to the invading Turks in 1453. The Emergency Committee has accomplished a remarkable work. It has done it quietly, without dramatic publicity methods. Its members have felt a great joy in performing the task; none more than its Chairman.

The refugee scholar might reasonably look forward to being absorbed in time by our institutions of learning. It probably never occurred to him that he would contribute to the war effort of the American government. But upon our entrance into the war so many professors of mathematics, physics, medicine, chemistry, statistics, psychology, and economics were absorbed by the government that many of our institutions of higher education were glad to avail themselves of the reservoir of teachers supplied by the displaced scholars. Soon that reservoir was exhausted. Nevertheless the armed services called upon the Emergency Committee for distinguished research men who might render special service to the war effort, even though they were not citizens. Among many, one such scholar was employed in the mathematics of aeronautics, another in research on military explosives, another on climatology and meteorology, another on crank-mechanism motions. A distinguished economist, now a citizen of the United States, was absorbed by the Social Security Board, while another refugee citizen was taken over by the Bureau of the Census. These are but a few typical illustrations. In all probability no soldier at the front has worked more enthusiastically to assist in bringing victory to the Allied cause than these refugee scholars who in so many cases were driven from their homelands because of their devotion to the cause of freedom.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace founded the Institute in 1919 and supported it until 1923 when it was turned over to the Carnegie Corporation for support. During those four years I naturally consulted Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, the President of the Board of Trustees of the Institute, on matters of policy and administration. He retired from the Board when the Carnegie Corporation undertook the support of the Institute. In the same year Dr. Frederick P. Keppel became President of the Carnegie Corporation and at once showed his confidence in the work of the Institute. He secured an enlarged annual grant from the Corporation, to be made at five-year intervals. As long as Dr. Keppel remained President of the Corporation my relations with him were of the happiest. He never once suggested a modification in any of the policies of the Institute nor interfered in the slightest with any of its activities, and he unhesitatingly recommended at the end of every five-year period that the Corporation renew the grant. He is a man of fine vision and broad sympathies, and under his administration the Carnegie Corporation rendered American society an enduring service. All the happy relations between the Institute and the Corporation have continued unmodified since Dr. Walter A. Jessup succeeded Dr. Keppel as President. He is a scholar and gentleman of similar calibre.

A description of the work of the Institute would be very incomplete were no mention made concerning the fine attitude of the Board of Trustees toward myself and the staff. The Board is composed of an unusual group of high-minded men and women devoted to the cause incarnated in the Institute. Some of them have been members of the Board since its founding twenty-four years ago: Judge John Bassett Moore, formerly of the World Court; Henry Morgenthau, Sr., formerly Ambassador to Turkey; Leo Baekeland, the distinguished scientist; and Virginia Gildersleeve, Dean of Barnard College. Some have passed on: Walter James, the eminent physician; Livingston Farrand, President of Cornell University; Henry Pritchett, President of the Carnegie Foundation. Their places have been taken by men and women equally representative. Never have I known a body more devoted to the cause for which the Board was formed despite the fact that they varied in their attitude toward social problems. Sometimes, as in the case of the Rettig affair described in the chapter on Germany, there was pronounced difference of opinion as to the procedure to be undertaken. Never has there been a divided vote. When difference of opinion existed, the action to be followed was usually referred to the Director with power to act. Few administrators have had as happy an experience with a governing board.

The staff of the Institute has been equally cooperative. They have been hard-working, efficient and loyal, ready in any emergency to assume added burdens that the strain might be overcome. The Institute has been very fortunate in its five Assistant Directors, the first four of whom were young men, who left the Institute because of invitations to occupy higher positions elsewhere at increased salaries. One became a college president; another, Secretary General of the League of Red Cross Societies; a third, Director of the Davison Fund; and a fourth, the Director of the European Division of the Columbia Broadcasting System. In order to add young blood to the Board, the last two, Arthur Packard and Edward Murrow, became Trustees upon my recommendation. Mr. Packard was Assistant Director but a short time; Mr. Murrow the longest time of all. I found him an attractive and a brilliant young man endowed with initiative, imagination and sound judgment. When he resigned from the Institute, I determined to secure a more mature man who would be more likely to remain with it. The present incumbent, Dr. Edgar J. Fisher, was Dean of Robert College in Constantinople; his experience, in administration and in education has thoroughly justified the selection.

It was natural that as the Institute became widely known and respected in its field, its Director should be invited more and more to join the governing boards of all kinds of organizations interested in international affairs---some of a permanent character, others of a propagandist nature. It was gratifying to be invited every year to deliver Commencement addresses, nearly always on a subject of international interest. This was particularly true of the invitation extended to address such organizations as the Association of American Colleges and the American Association of University Professors because it gave splendid opportunity to widen the interest in the purpose for which the Institute existed. I feel I ought to mention one relevant incident.

In 1937 I was invited by the Dean of the School of Education of the University of Minnesota to deliver three lectures on "Aspects of International Education." At the end of my week's stay, Dr. Lotus Coffman, the President of the University---one of the most able university presidents in the United States---told me that he had invited about forty of his outstanding teachers to a farewell luncheon in my honor. At the close of the luncheon, President Coffman turned to me and said, "Dr. Duggan, you have been working on this job of developing international understanding and good will for almost twenty years and there is today more misunderstanding and ill will among the nations than there has been for a generation. You have the floor to defend your position."

I had assumed that I would be called upon to speak but had not at all anticipated that kind of introduction. However, the challenge of President Coffman was not new to me. I was talking to a friendly and intelligent group of men and, judging from the generous response at the close of my brief address, they did not seem to be unconvinced. In addition to presenting some of the facts given in this chapter, I emphasized another aspect of the problem: I maintained that neither statesmen, diplomatists, industrialists, financiers nor, others having international relationships had been any more successful in bringing about understanding among peoples than educators. They were all continuing their efforts. I saw no reason why I should not continue mine. In the light of subsequent events I still believe that it is chiefly upon educators in every nation that reliance must be placed to substitute for the doubts, suspicions, and jealousies that divide peoples, an understanding of their interdependence and necessity for cooperation. This is why there is still need for organizations like the Institute of International Education.

The influence of education is seldom direct. When an individual is prepared for a vocation, the process is one of training rather than of education. I had always realized that the influence of the student exchange upon the individual student, while lasting, would be neither immediate nor definite. I was delighted, therefore, when a condition arose where the exchange could render a decided, immediate and specific contribution to the American government. The occasion was the appointment by President Roosevelt on November 21, 1942 of the Governor of New York State, Herbert Lehman, as Director of the Office of Foreign Relief and Rehabilitation Operations in reoccupied territories.

I immediately informed Governor Lehman, with whom I was acquainted, that in the previous twenty years the Institute of International Education had sent more than 2000 American students to study upon scholarships in the universities of the European countries. They were all college graduates when they went, knew the language of the country in which they studied, and remained for a year or more accustoming themselves to its civilization and the psychology of its people. Moreover, the Institute had brought to our colleges and universities more than 2500 students from European countries, who learned English, something of American history and government and much of our way of life. If the enterprise of which he was the head was to succeed, the greatest care would have to be taken that those engaged in it would understand the languages, psychology and institutions of the peoples among whom they worked. Various universities had already established courses for the training of administrators to work in the different occupied countries. I pointed out to Governor Lehman that the Institute provided a reservoir of competent persons who were already prepared for the service he required.

At the time I wrote, Governor Lehman was in great need of able men to go to North Africa and immediately asked whether I could supply a dozen "star" administrators. I sent him the names of 27 who had studied in French universities, 14 of whom had taught in lycées in different parts of Algeria. This list was followed by the names and addresses of our former students, and comments as to their comparative competency for the work to be done. When it became known that we were recommending to Governor Lehman's organization men and women well prepared to undertake administrative work in the reoccupied areas, we were asked to render a similar service to the Red Cross, the State Department, and the Office of Strategic Services of the War Department.

Many of these men and women will undoubtedly render unique service to the United Nations in the important tasks for which they are peculiarly fitted. Thus, for almost a quarter of a century the Institute of International Education has been actively serving the cause of international understanding through its varied program, and at the same time passively preparing-by accumulating a wealth of highly trained "alumni"---for what may prove to be its most direct contribution to human welfare. By seizing this opportunity for service, the Institute hopes to have justified the faith of its friends.