The 25th Anniversary of the Scholarship Program was celebrated in Atlantic City, New Jersey, September 15-19, 1971. The five-day schedule included speeches by internationally known speakers, among them anthropologist Margaret Mead, Ambassador Soed Jatmoto of Indonesia, Ingrid Eide of the Institute of Sociology at the University of Blindern in Norway, and Paul Duchesne of the University of Peace in Brussels. Included also in the program were an opening banquet, a reunion dinner for WWI and II drivers, the presentation of the Loeb Award, luncheons for various professional groups, a student film festival, an international fair, social and recreational activities, and an enthusiastic rally on the final evening.

Let Mr. J. Parker Van Zandt, World War I driver, tell you about it:

1 October, 1971

Report to World War I TMU Camioneers:

As the only TMU 133 veteran present at the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Convention of the American Field Service International Scholarships, in Atlantic City, September 15-19, 1971, 1 feel I owe you a brief report:

Let me say at once that the AFS is alive and well and active in over half the nations of the world! Some sixty countries were represented at the Convention with well over 2,000 returnees, AFS Chapter officers, regional representatives, ambulance drivers (mainly World War II), host parents, official delegates, staff and others in attendance.

The overwhelming majority were volunteers who flew, drove, bused, or hitchhiked to the Convention on their own. (The bulletin board was awash with requests for, or offers of, a lift to half the States in the Union!) Their dedication and youthful enthusiasm were contagious.

At one session I sat beside a pretty young blonde from Stillwater, Minnesota, a 1960 AA (Americans Abroad) returnee from the Netherlands. "Why did you come?" I asked her. "I want to learn how to organize an AFS Chapter in my home town," was her answer. All you need she was told is one qualified host-family, one participating high school, $850, --- and a dedicated leader!

At another session my seat-mate was the mother of a seventeen year old boy, from Point Pleasant New Jersey. "We had a Japanese boy, the same age as my son, in our home all 1ast year--and we loved him," she said.

Put all these together over the last twenty-five years and it comes to 60,000---count 'em: 60,000! --- returnees from 80 countries, plus the 60,000 host-families with whom they have lived and learned to accept each other's differing culture and common humanity. If that doesn't add up to a formidable potential for better international understanding, I don't know what does!

The panel discussions I attended were pragmatic and practical. A South African delegate, for example, told how they scrounged for community funds by staging school plays, picnics, illegal raffles, etc. (I met a cute American youngster just back from an enriching year with a South African family in Pretoria).

A '66 San Franciscan AA Returnee explained how they handled pre-departure orientation and post-return reorientation programs in the Bay area; and compared notes with other city and regional representatives from Norway, Washington, Wisconsin and elsewhere.

There was much discussion of expanding multi-national programs (student exchanges between two countries not involving the United States)--already underway; of intra-continental and domestic programs---(did you know that an experimental short term student exchange between a number of Navajo Indian families and California host-families has been successfully conducted?)---of screening and selection procedures, of diversity, of end-of-stay programs, of enriching student and family experiences, and many other aspects.

Perhaps the spirit of the Convention can best be conveyed by Helga von Hoffmann's speech to the Anniversary banquet. Helga, in 1950, was a seventeen-year-old girl, one of the first AFS students from post-war Germany to the US. in what was then still a radical, unproven program.

Now her daughter has just returned this summer from her AFS year in America, the first of the second generation of AFSers from Germany, wearing "with pride a dashiki that her beloved black American mother had sewn for her."

It was a heart-warming experience to see how the modest contribution we made many decades ago, under Steve Galatti's prodding has grown so mightily and is so viable today. Surely it will continue as a worthy enterprise for many years to come.

However, not all was harmony and sweetness and light. Differences of opinion concerning the proper role of AFS, disagreements about administrative policies, and internal political movements brought some lively discussions and arguments that occasionally became somewhat heated, though the underlying bond of friendship and a shared experience generally prevailed to bring about reasonable solutions. The diversity and complexity of AFS that brings about such strong differences of opinion were well described by President Howe in an article he wrote for the AFS magazine Our World:

An uncomfortable, seemingly compromising truth emerges from close examination of AFS.---the organization is warmly supported and effectively assisted by diverse people who in the extreme, hold contradictory objectives. On the one hand I recognize the ardent nationalist who contributes time and money to AFS because he believes its activities sustain his rather narrow definition of his country's national interests. But I also note the friend who believes the program's primary impact is to create a spirit of internationalism. There is the radical who believes AFS will help to uproot outmoded perceptions of man and life, but at his side and equally devoted is the conservative who sees AFS as the guardian of society's traditional, humanistic values. Political friend and foe work side by side in behalf of our programs in many parts of the world. We have the religiously motivated worker, concerned with continuity and eternity, who sees God's will being implemented by a program promoting the brotherhood of man. Equally keen for AFS is the agnostic existentialist placing man and the present in the heavens, and regarding AFS as an effective human potential movement with cleverly organized encounter groups providing intensive sensitivity training. AFS operates on the frontiers of contemporary social and educational theory, and in my darkest moments of frustration with "experts " who cannot see this, I am tempted to seek their endorsement by redefining our activity in their nightmarish jargon; The Cross Cultural Consortium for Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Conflict Resolution Through Confrontation Dynamics.

---

Many interesting issues were debated at Convention 71:

- Can the older volunteers at the local level, in Margaret Mead's words "just bursting with virtue" make way for the young Returnees?

- Can more minority groups be included in the program participants?

- Can vocational schools and work-study programs be included?

- Can the Multi-National program be successfully financed?

- What about an exchange program within countries between diverse communities (Domestic Exchange)?

- Should the name of the organization be changed to eliminate the word American?

The AFS convention raised the question of the quality of the exchange experience for the individual and equally strongly the focus of the program. Constantly seeking to improve, AFS faces the problem of making a program primarily for young people significant in the maintenance of peace, in the developmental progress of other nations, or in the strengthening of international bonds.

Discussions carried on at Atlantic City were continued at the AFS World Congress at Lake Mohonk, New York, and resulted in a number of resolutions to be presented to the Trustee Members for possible action and translation into policy changes.

As expected, the most discussed topics were internationalization of AFS, the Multi National Program, diversification of participants and of program experiences, better communications between the different levels of AFS, more involvement of U.S. Returnees in program operations and of all Returnees in policy decisions.

The most hotly debated question before the Congress was a European Federation. Delegates from Europe had come prepared to implement their plans for forming such a federation. Regional meetings were a part of the agenda of the Congress, and the European meeting was devoted largely to the plans for AFS Europe. At the same time the meetings involving African and Asian countries were filled with expressions of concern that AFS Europa would simply be a power bloc, and that the small and developing nations would suffer from the ensuing power struggle between the European Federation and the United States. The question came before a plenary session of the Congress and was thoroughly aired and strongly debated. In the end, peace prevailed, but for a time the division threatened to destroy the effectiveness of the whole Congress.

As a matter of fact, three resolutions issuing from the Congress strongly influenced the direction of AFS for the next five years. The disagreements themselves resulted in the reconsideration by various AFS groups of important questions affecting relationships between the international administration and national organizations. Desire for greater national autonomy and local responsibility, on the one hand, met with increasing willingness to delegate and to share on the other. This evolution was not easy and required considerable patience and compromise on both sides. An adversary relationship, when adhered to, inevitably resulted in harm to the program and consequently to its participants; when a partnership relationship was established, even though not on equal terms, the program and the participants stood to gain.

Continuing Problems

As the 1971-72 program year opened, two trends of the last several years again were evident. First, the drop-off in Winter Program numbers continued (2752 to 2622), and a deficit budget was projected. Americans Abroad was holding its own. Country participation continued strong, sixty-three, and the Multi-National Program was off to a good start, 19 students going from Austria, Chile, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, South Africa, and Turkey. MNP receiving countries were Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Germany, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden, and Switzerland. The opportunity Fund disbursed $36,700 in scholarship aid: $18,700 to 24 Summer Program students from inner city agencies in Bridgeport, Chicago, and New York, and $18,000 to regular Americans Abroad candidates.

Financial figures were causing considerable concern. The deficit for the year ended 31 August 1970, had been $180,000; for 1971 the deficit was $320,000; and a deficit of $230,000 was projected for fiscal year 1971-1972. Fund balances remained about the same because of capital donations received. Treasurer E.F.L. Backer expressed confidence in the basic financial soundness of AFS, however, and Development Director Marshall J. Dodge continued to report increased contributions to the International Fund.

To bring income and outgo more into line action was taken by the Board to increase both AA and WP family fees, to reduce Gateway expenses by shortening the stay there, to drastically curtail End-of-Stay activities, and to reduce New York staff members by 12%. By the end of fiscal year 1972-1973, it was expected that a small surplus would thus be achieved.

In 1971 Mr. Howe had reached a decision to resign from the AFS Presidency. Increasing physical discomfort caused by an old back injury and aggravated by the demanding nature of the position and an arduous travel schedule had influenced Mr. Howe to follow the advice of his doctor. A Search Committee had been appointed by the Board, and after some months of screening and interviewing had made a unanimous recommendation of Stephen H. Rhinesmith to be the new President of AFS. The Board unanimously accepted the recommendation and Mr. Rhinesmith was elected on 7 December, 1971, to take office on 1 January, 1972.

Mr. Howe's presidency came to a close on 31 December 1971.

Q: As you look back over your time as President of AFS, what do you recall as the first thing you had to do?

A: I had to modify certain deeply instilled tendencies, first of all around what I would call the personality cult of the organization. Both George Edgell and Stephen Galatti had developed this. I remember my first battle over this was when I picked up the little book we gave to the student, Through the Year and found George had written for Steve's signature an almost incredible statement about "I"---"I" want you to do this--call "me," "I,"I,""I,""I,". To an outsider it was distressing. They had lived with it and it didn't hit them as hard as it hit me. But I said, "George, I cannot have my name put on a statement like that. I don't think it's right. We're at a stage where we've got to change this personality cult."

It took about three years of nudging, pulling and negotiating. You always had to negotiate change. You didn't push it through, because George and Sachiye were the key to holding the whole show together in those days. It seemed to me my game was to push through changes over a period of a year, or two or three. In many instances it took that long to bring matters to where I was comfortable. And partly what happened in those three years was that I learned there was more wisdom than I realized in the original procedure, so I didn't have to change things by the end of three years as much as I thought I did initially.

Q: Simply a modification?

A: Right. But maybe I was getting conditioned, dangerously, to accept some things that earlier I'd seen more clearly as evils... You could speculate on what the balance was, but a second area of major change was in the whole selection ritual. I had to be careful in this. I felt I knew something about the selection of people as I'd been in charge of a much larger operation doing this, with many of the same elements, though not entirely. It was natural that old-timers here were distrustful of my judgment in this field, feeling I didn't really understand AFS selection. And I felt there were rituals going on here and attitudes and approaches to placement that had to be modified. I spent a lot of time reading files, studying placements, and nudging---I don't think we made any drastic changes; but over a period of years, yes.

Q: Did they ever let you make any placement?

A: Oh, sure. But I didn't do very many. I just didn't have time. But I used to read files just to see what was coming in from different parts of the world Another area where this personality thing was dangerous, it seemed to me, was in our dealings with the field. There was an arrogance to this office's "You must do this...." We didn't negotiate with people; we told them. Them was a presumption of "We know best" which often was correct but in a certain number of cases was wrong. But it was disastrous, whether right or wrong. to force our will on volunteers. It took a Steve Galatti to get away with it and Steve could do it because of his touch of genius, but no one else could. I felt it was scandalous the way we were treating our volunteer structure, with a great need to make the staff listen to the field, instead of telling the field. So we structured all kinds of activities to get thoughtful people from the field into the office. I was saying, "Look. Some of those people out there have been doing this for five years. They're more experienced than some of you here." Well that went over like a lead balloon. So you had to do it indirectly by getting some of those volunteers involved in ways such that the staff here saw they had insight. A whole lot of my time went into that kind of thing. Bringing the field in for placement for example, to develop mutual respect rather than a battleground relationship which had developed because we were the bosses and they were the serfs. It was a tough situation that only a few tough old warriors could survive. The fights that Steve would have with some of these people! Well, we upset people, but rarely had fights like his. I mean we did things and finally forced our opinion on people, but only after long, long searching and negotiation and trying to find a compromise for the handling of a problem.

Q: Did you originate the regional conference idea?

A: We expanded them, but Steve had been holding them previously. Steve would go to a city and get people in for a talk We did more in the workshop concept.... The first case studies were done while I was here as I had done this at Yale using fish---I had Peter Shark and George Catfish and so on. I gave these cases to, who was it? You? Cliff?

Q: No, it was some of the selection placement people.

A: Alice Gerlach. In the very first cases we also used the Yalefish names, didn't we?

Q: Yes. Then we did chapter case studies too.

A: But we developed the case study approach to get the involvement of people rather than telling them how to do it.

Q: When did you do that overseas? I remember when I came, there were case studies already.

A: The cases we had used here in the office, as I recall, we distributed around the world, but I can't tell you the year. But we got going with that. The other aspect of strong-arm government here, controlling everything from New York, that I had to contend with was with the offices overseas. We were in a delicate position. There really was warfare. And it continued the first three or four years I was here. There were two parts to it. There was the aspect of our autocratic method of dealing with them: everything was we tell you. The other problem was we had just begun, before I got here, the transition to returnee management in a few countries. It was partially implemented. Steve had the great insight to see that that had to be done. We had gone through the process of CAO [Cultural Affairs Officer] management, and then frequently a CAO-type supplemented or replaced by a parent, generally a lady of 5 or 50 whose child had been on the program, or a school teacher whom the CAO hired to replace her, or got as a volunteer to replace her. But the offices were run either by CAOs or let's call them "Old Folk"; anyone over 30 in those days was in the "old" category. And older people or CAO's ran all the offices up to a couple years before I got here.

Q: Well, we had a few relatively young returnees. I mean, Martha [de Bigliani Argentina] was young then; Anja (Luukanen, Finland] was young then; Baerbel [Barbara Helmers, Germany] and others.

A: Oh, yes, by the time I got here it had started, but warfare, was continuing in some countries; for example, Denmark was inflames. Norway had problems. The concept had been developed and in some places was working beautifully. Anja for example was strong enough to do it. But in many countries there was a residue of parents who were distrustful of the young people who were taking over. They were too young in countries where young people didn't exercise this kind of responsibility. So, there was distrust, even bitterness on the part of some of the old folks, and on the part of the young people a neurotic fear of dealing with older people because they'd take over if you let them in. And so we had a loss of the wisdom and support of older people, people who could accomplish something in terms of the power structure and in fund raising. One of my biggest jobs in retrospect (not in retrospect---I knew it at the time) was to try to bring back into the fold a great many of these older people, not as a threat but as a useful supplement.

Q: How did you do that?

A: Devious ways, generally. First, we talked about it at every regional meeting, at worldwide meetings. Secondly, of course, the returnees began to realize, particularly in fund raising, how limited their capacity was. Thirdly, we got some older folks who were marvelously young in spirit and effective in working with the young and didn't threaten them, to take responsibilities under the young. One of the gratifying processes I observed was that we completed the process Steve had started of putting the returnees in charge and saying "Okay, you really have the authority. You and whatever national organization you represent is the body I shall deal within running this show. And slowly the returnees got over their hesitancy to deal with the old folks. By the time I left here we still had a ways to go, but the war was over.

Q: Fund raising was the basis on which they could come back?

A: Initially, that was all the returnees would let them do, but gradually they learned that a Mrs. Reitsma, that wonderful lady in Holland and people in France, could be enormously helpful in student counselling, in the recruitment of families; by the end of my presidency the Norwegian Board was half made up of these so-called old folks. Also, the age at which one became "old" moved from 25 to 30 in my years here. But then a third cycle developed overseas. The returnees who got into the saddle and ran the organization and in many instances hung onto it and became the leadership, suddenly began to have the appearance of old folks to the new returnees. And so we had another round.

Q: I met that when I first came in '68.

A: Well, you can talk about this. You don't need my help. But this same trend occurred in the history of the returnee organization in the USA. The returnees came home and saw the chapters that Steve had effectively developed and these "were almost entirely" old folks, because there just weren't returnees in any number available to help, most leaving home soon after returning. But the U.S. returnees had to become part of the infrastructure. You and I many others went all over the country, begging chapters to use these young people, urging them to give them real responsibilities, and finally it caught on and became acceptable. But returnees often saw themselves as the conscience of the organization. They were going to save AFS from the establishment. And this was reflected very much in the early views of the national returnee organization.

Q: When was that organized?

A: It was while I was here that we first systematically developed it. I hired someone to give them a coordinator here and provided a small budget because it seemed to me we had to give them a shot in the arm. There was more frustration than effectiveness at first. Cliff (Baacke) was the one who did most to organize them, getting lists sorted out for example, and organizing the initial fund appeals, and giving them something to do. And then we began to have one meeting a year here in New York, which we would subsidize. And in the early years of those meetings, lots of wonderfully constructive discussions took place on how this returnee group could be a growing force within the field structure, how they weren't to go out and cut the throats of all those little old ladies in tennis shoes, as they were more than once derisively described. But to work through the system, rather than to tear it apart. The various college clubs were encouraged by this group, as they had been informally back in Steve's time.

The early history of the U.S. returnee organization was fascinating, because their initial concern was to develop their own constitution, their own legal separate entity. I used to meet with them every time they were in New York; and without ever saying it directly, I would try to suggest there would soon be a day when they too would be "old" folks. What we wanted was not a separate returnee organization: we wanted a voluntarily unified volunteers organization. Many of them were going to be chapter Presidents; some became so during my time. And soon many were going to be parents and host parents of AFS students. They weren't going to look very different from those little old ladies in tennis shoes. And they were going to face the same challenges from young people coming back that they as young people had presented the establishment If they really wanted a separate returnee group, it should be organized to handle the feelings and needs of the young people the first two or three years back when those feelings and needs are distinctive from what they become five and eight years later. Of course they did not at once buy everything I was saying, but eventually one volunteer structure, of which they are a critical part, emerged. Part of their problem was that they could never agree on their constitution. They had in their midst a few lawyers, and young lawyers spell disaster in almost any organization---much theory and little experience. I remember AFS meetings in Turkey and in California. Two or three days of a major meeting were spent in procedural discussions. Unbelievable, to someone who knew they only had sit to eight-hours for meetings daily, and that they had sacrificed to get this time, spent money to get there. It was a common frustration of the protest movements that were trying to take over the establishment, set up their own thing. They were inexperienced in making organizations and creating procedures that would permit them to work. They had a powerful effect God knows, much of it constructive ,but their ability to organize and implement things was a problem. Our returnees were part of this process.

Q: What started the idea of the regional office? The European regional office, Central American and Latin American...

A: This was an outgrowth of the growing internationalism in the organization, which in part meant delegating to the overseas world more authority. If the overseas offices were going to achieve more, it seemed to me there were essential training and organization efforts to be made. We were subject to a very high rate of staff turnover, for example, to the point that you really couldn't delegate a great deal of authority. The whole thing was being restructured every few years. And secondly, within the overseas national offices and national organizations they were still battling out the question of the authority of the national representative. Was he or she the voice of authority, as the spokesman for the international office in New York; or did the national returnee organization control the national administration?

My position was that for certain fixed parts of the program such as the students departing, on a certain day, certain selection procedures on a broad basis, there was not local authority. There were international policies, time tables, and procedures, and the OR was indeed the representative of AFS International in seeing that many things were done on a prescribed basis. So in that sense the OR (Overseas Representative) was the agent of AFS New York. But; secondly, the OR was also the agent of the national organization, in maintaining rosters, coordinating returnee activities in the country, effectively the executive secretary to the national organization. We recognized there was inevitably a dual mastership to that person's position. The only reassurance I could give was that no OR in my time had stayed in office or ever been appointed to office without the person's being endorsed by the national committee. If there wasn't a national committee, y endorsement of responsible people who had been exercising leadership. So, we never named an OR without insuring that individual had the support of the people there. Secondly, no OR could last in office for any length of time if he or she lacked the continuing endorsement of the national committee. Otherwise it wouldn't work. These two principles are inherent in the position of the OR, and are realities in any organization that is decentralized.

In moving from single national offices to regional offices, I was influenced by a growing spirit of internationalism within regions and in the sense of fraternity that was proclaimed, for example, throughout Europe by our idealistic returnees. We should consider the elimination of multiple small often ineffective offices and seek the establishment of fewer, larger, better equipped offices. We were coming to the day when Belgium and Holland might have one stronger office than the two offices which were reflections of nationalistic feelings in each country. It was a useful experience to have pursued that concept.

As a start, the Belgians were going to cooperate with the Dutch on the screening of students in southern Holland, do you remember that?. It didn't work for the families, and the schools were not ready for it. It pointed up a painful reality in Europe. Eventually it became clear that we could more easily create a European office more to coordinate multinational operations in Europe than directly manage the program in two neighboring countries.

On the other hand, after long efforts and years of almost forcing it to work the Central American office did supplant separate offices for Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica. Always, however, with tensions.

I hoped that the European office would become the executive agency for the Europeans' growing demand for an organization to represent them; I didn't feel we needed two offices in Europe, one shall we say, belonging to the enemy in New York and the other belonging to the national organizations. Prior to Jacques Contant's being appointed, there was much discussion with the European ORs and national organizations toward the objective of a fully effective regional office. My feeling is that the regional offices did indeed for a time fill a need; and maybe it's proper, too, that they were discontinued. The hardest thing for an organization is to create something to fill a need and then when the need is largely met, to have enough sense to terminate it. I don't count those offices as failures because they're not in existence now. And there may be a time when we will want to reestablish them in other ways in other parts of the world--possibly in Kuala Lumpur, for Southeast Asian activities, for example, but it's a function of the stage of development, and the specific needs of a part of the world You'll recall that we had for many years utilized this regional coordinator concept but there were only two parts of the World--Europe and South America--that seemed to me geographically and operationally to lend themselves to what benefits there were in having an office there. The African/Near Eastern coordinator operated out of this office making extended trips to his part of the world, as did the Asian coordinator. Those two coordinators were comparable to the present international consultants for specific regions of the world.

Q: You remember that Jose Ramon was also Latin American coordinator as well as director of the Central American office? What is your feeling about that? Was that a successful venture? Or was it not? And if not, why not?

A: A great many things developed under his prodding and encouragement. We had some excellent regional meetings in Latin America for which he did much preparation, working up agendas and materials that were appropriate to people's needs, and consulting with them in advance so that discussion could begin at a higher point than with all of us at uneven levels of awareness. Latin America had some things to teach Europe about family finding, counselling and orientation. This the European found very hard to believe. Probably the best Americans Abroad counselling session I ever participated in, of many in various parts of the world was in Brazil back in the early part of my presidency. The Brazilians had collected the AA School Program students for several days about two months after their arrival, and they did some effective counselling we now take for granted The timing was of course the key, for the AAs were discussing real problems, not theoretical adjustment matters. Jose Ramon had much to do with that development.

Q: We attempted regional offices in the US. What need was it that you were meeting?

A: The great need for more training and better communication, the feeling that a trend of declining placements might be offset--declining families, chapters disintegrating, just no one in touch with them. The US. field offices were designed not to perform the work of the chapters, but to be supportive and to provide training, to advise and consult, but not to do the job. Nothing could be worse than if the field office began to do the selection of the AAs and family finding. That would increase the rate of atrophy. We wanted to organize training sessions on counselling, but not give the reps the feeling that every problem should be shipped into the field office. At a certain critical level, yes, the field office could provide backup. We handled many problem students through the West Coast office who would have previously been flown to New York. That goes back to our prior discussion of the unfortunate assumption once held in New York that no one "out there " could solve a serious problem. We didn't trust anyone else to do it. Many thousands of dollars were spent on flying kids to New York, when much of it wasn't necessary. The US. regional offices helped to build feelings of mutual confidence that supported the field rep structures. That was one of their biggest accomplishments. And also, you recall our concept was to move them around not to leave an office in one place for long. I think these concepts led to the late hiring of field reps. I don't know what you call them now--development reps?

Q: Field Development Specialists.

A: But these things grow out of experiences and awarenesses . . .what went before, you improve on and do in a different way, or. . .

Q: What changes in your tenure here, what changes were made in the organization of the staff?

A: Well it grew greatly, probably more than it should have. The last year, I cut it way back; in fact over my last two years.

Q: You cut it back by 30, from about 190 to 160, as I recall.

A: Something of that order. Again; my feeling was that we were trying to do too much from New York. We had to decentralize, give more authority back to the chapters and, of course, to overseas offices. Some chapters were very experienced by then; and we could afford to reduce the staff here to deal with them. We trusted them to do more of the work. It was a psychological process of building up confidence that people "out there" could do things, that they were intelligent, good, and just as informed as we in New York. It was a hard notion to get through. It was understood but it didn't sink in and wasn't accepted at the operating level for a long time George Edgell was distrustful of this and his role here was such that it was very hard to push an idea he resisted... In terms of the staff, the development department was organized for the first time. Steve had essentially done the fund raising himself, almost all of it. I think I hired the first full-time fund raiser, didn't I?

Q: You mean Harry?

A: Harry. . .I brought him in as kind of PR man with the hope he would become a development man, but it didn't work out. No, the development work kept falling back on me and my secretary in my early days here. Just as Steve had done it. And then I began to get people assisting me on it, Cliff, for example, put some time into it.

Q: Yeah it was then that he became your assistant. And didn't Chet Vail come before Marshall came? Wasn't he working here in some area? And then Marshall came?

A: The first person with extensive fund raising experience on the outside was Marshall (Dodge). And after a few years we had an overdevelopment; more people than I wanted to bring into it but we also had the benefit of that wonderful guy, Ed Gemmet who'd come up and meet with us occasionally. Very wise, experienced man. Certainly under Marshall our proceeds went up significantly but our expenses unhappily also went up more than I wanted. But we were breaking new ground and it costs money.

We played the game about every two or three years of restructuring the country. You know, the number of divisions. We had a famous thing called the Metropolitan Division for a while. Given the fact the staff was turning over 40 percent a year, it didn't make much difference within the office whether the structure changed or not but it was confusing to the outside world.

We had a wasteful expensive turnover of staff here. There were many procedures: a staff person had countries and to learn to operate effectively in this office, reaching out to the specific needs of other parts of this country, with such varied operations---financial, counselling, placement---it's just enormously wasteful to have this turnover. By the time a person is trained a lot of time and money has been spent. This was one of our great problems, and I spent much effort and not very successfully, to slow down the rate of turnover. We brought in a few "professionals." I think I hired the first people like yourself who came in with substantial backgrounds of experience. Mel Hathaway, you, later Eric Backer. These were people in the organization who represented a little more age, a little more experience, and probably a little more stability of employment with more substantial salaries. We previously lacked the money to pay above a "barely living wage," and while we didn't do enough, we made progress with salaries, hopeful of gaining more stability of employees. But the times were against us. It was a period of high employment and high wages in New York, and we continued to be, far more than I would have wished, a place where bright, able, idealistic young people came and worked for a year or two or three and then moved on. Some turn-over is good but we lost far too many excellent people too soon---just as they were reaching their peak of effectiveness. But they would get good jobs when they left us, for they learned a heck of a lot here, and grew a lot, and had extraordinary breadth of experience with more responsibility than they would have held at most offices after five or ten years' employment. But the turnover cost us dearly, as I reflect on the staffing of those years. It was partly underpay-overwork; partly ineffective administration and partly the unrealistic, restless expectancies of young people in a turbulent era, but it always frustrated me. We never were on top of it

One major step of my time was the purchase of the so-called "Keys" Building, which we renovated over an agonizing 18 months of delays. We also went through a messy threat from the Ford Foundation sponsored U.N. Development Project for this whole area.

We also accomplished a major legal restructuring of the organization itself. When I arrived we still had the World War I and II ambulance drivers as "the members" of a New York membership corporation. One of the first things I did was to promote a review and possible change. It was a major topic at my first International Conference---the one in Chaudinay, France, in '64. We spent considerable time trying to get the European representatives to tell us what they wanted. But the question was premature as they didn't know what they wanted even though they disliked what we proposed. Most people present were still so inexperienced in organizational structures that they really couldn't be very helpful. And this was generally true worldwide. We got very little help from the outside world in determining the structure, though we had many meetings to talk about it. Ward Chamberlin, John Nettleton, Ted Weeks, and Bob Thayer engaged in many of these sessions in the USA and overseas. After about three years, we came up with the present structure, except for the latest addition of Congress Trustees. You can argue about elements within it, but because of the far-flung nature of this organization, because trustees can only meet once a year in plenary session, it seemed to me important to have that element of stability and long-range perspective represented by the Life Trustees. And equally important to have the youthful and fresh invigoration of the term trustees. I think that's a system that has stood us in good stead in meeting the needs of AFS. It's not a true parliament as many wish it were, but you cannot have an effective legislative body that meets only once a year and lacks a committee structure; it just can't be done.

Q: Which brings you to the Board of Directors.

A: Exactly. And so we had this dual concept, the Board of Directors and the Trustees, and it's imperfect but it's about the best we can afford and that we can manage. One thorny issue, particularly distressing for those who seek more democracy than I feel is possible, is the existence of Life Trustees. I'm on record to try to solve that when the last WW I driver goes off the Board. No one should be on for "life." Maybe they should be called Long Term Trustees. The language doesn't fit. What we want is a trustee who will serve until the age of 65 or 70. This has been a point over which a lot of people have choked (the Life Trustees). But I think anyone who looks back at the record of Life Trustees, looks at what a John Nettleton, a Ward Chamberlin, a Sam Walker, an Enos Curtin, or an Ed Masback (I don't have to go through the list) have meant to this organization in giving it wisdom, strength, and continuity, will agree they've served us well. And these people have cooperated with the newer ideas of returnees or others elected for terms. Additionally, people forget that what we were asking the former "Members" to do was to dissolve themselves, to give up their authority, and one way to make that palatable was to give them this concept of the life trusteeship, with a sizeable number (20) of them holding such positions.

Q: Which seemed eminently reasonable.

A: A tradeoff. But I thought it worked well and is still working well. I'm not particularly in favor of the idea of having Congress Trustees, as I don't think you'd get a thing that you don't have without them, and you've added five more large expenses. The trustee group is probably too large now, though for the once-a-year kind of meeting we have, it's desirable to have it sizeable.

Q: Of course, the interim authority of the Board of Directors is not generally easily accepted internationally.

A: All the trustees can do to that body is elect some different Directors, right? But in fact the Directors recognize that ultimate authority rests with the Trustees, and they act accordingly.

Q: And we can't have real international representation on that Board for obvious reasons

A: Mechanical reasons, availability for meetings, and the expense. But nonetheless, we can bring in people occasionally. I used to have regional coordinators or ORs or national chairmen at Directors' meetings frequently. If a good person from overseas happens to be stationed in or near New York for a time, we can elect him to the Board. We've always had a few of these and they've been helpful

Q: Would you like to compare the two world Congresses?

A: Well I only attended the last day of the Second World Congress, so I only know by hearsay.

Q: What did the First World Congress do?

A: Well I'd say that all the congresses are primarily morale builders, bringers-together of people, strengthening the motivation to continue to do a demanding task and do it well. All congresses are a major moral force in the life of the institution. The trustees would at their peril not look long and hard at proposals from a congress. And after all it's the moral force, the spiritual quality--beliefs, loyalties, and convictions---that are far more important than anything else to the survival of an organization like this. These are the great big intangible things that we touch very, very effectively at a congress. We do it, of course, by dealing with specifics, but I myself have never been in favor of trying formulate resolutions on every single subject. I think the time is too precious at a great international gathering to be bogged down in endless, often politically motivated, nit-picking debate. When in the end you get a vote, and it's 43 to 34, you haven't really proved much. We don't have the machinery, time and money, to handle the parliamentary procedure correctly. What's important is what individuals said and felt.

Q: But if you don't come out of a Congress with some kind of a tangible resolution, then people go home with a feeling of..

A: Frustration, I felt that we had enough tangible resolutions at the first one. We did the thing that we will do at every congress. debate the purposes of AFS, and in that process revise the statement. We did that at the first congress; they did it at the second, and I bet they will do it at the third. Clear thrusts emerged from the first congress. More responsibility in overseas countries. We began reverse placement on a limited basis. We started intercontinental exchanges. We gave encouragement to the idea of domestic programs. Essentially we mobilized support for various ventures through the first congress. On the concept of diversity that was such a difficult one prior to the first congress I think we gained a new perspective that for the first time realistically involved both our limitations and our aspirations. We went through the Kennedy era, if you will as an organization aspiring to so much more than we could ever do, and then experiencing frustration when we didn't do it with reference to blacks, with reference to the poor, with reference to people outside the mainstream of university preparatory programs.

Q: Well it's important to make the effort.

A: Of course, what I'm saying is that the congress gave these strivings a much needed degree of realism--- the idealism wasn't lost---for the imperfect world we had to live in. By debate of these big issues, a great deal of mutual respect was built in those congresses after initial frustrations. The first congress came toward the end of some intensive efforts for the militant, near-politicization of AFS, so there were very different tones from the second congress. We were at the end of that era in which literally, some local committees overseas were sending students here to "sort out" America, almost encouraging disorder and defiance, making life very difficult indeed for the establishment of AFS.

Q: Well, for families and local committees. . .

A: Some of those Italian and French students---when I think back on the non-sense we put up with. . . And our own staff here was so caught up in the same era of protest that they would only move later than they should. I was always in the role of trying not to be the monster, but trying to preserve AFS. Let there be no doubt we lost dozens if not hundreds of chapters in that period from student militancy or aggressiveness, or a simpler expression is lack of courtesy. It was blindness to the conditions under which they were brought here and within which they had to live. But I said all this in an annual report that was later published in Our World. "Please No Dragonslaying" it was called. That was a major issue that wasn't settled at the first congress, but I think it created a great difference in our capacity to handle the issues wisely.

Q: Also the Europa business. . .

A: Well the Europeans' discovery that they weren't the beloved leaders of the world. This was summarized by an Asian's comment during a wearying debate on the tired theme of Europe vs. the New York office. He and his colleagues, he said, felt like monkeys watching the lions fighting in a cage. You suddenly had Europeans and Americans gnashing their teeth in guilt, just weeping for the people they were saying didn't love them. In fact, that was a constructive awakening for all. So regions of the world have different needs, perspectives, and structures!

As to the second congress, I had already expressed in writing my opposition to the election of congress trustees. I maintained there's no good way to electioneer for this, no method of nomination and election better than the one we've got now. The thoughtful leadership of various opinions is evident to our constituency around the world, and you may not find it at a congress because of electioneering. I had the feeling the little I attended the second congress, that a number of speeches were being made to promote candidacies, and that's unfortunate when time is so precious. I would also say about the last congress that I didn't detect much participation in the plenary sessions from the North Americans. They were a useful, strong but not dominating element it seemed to me, in the first congress. There were differences of this sort it seemed to me. But I shouldn't compare these two, because what I know in detail is the first one, not the second

Q: Apparently there was some problem about the American Delegates at the last congress because, in the first place, the group was smaller. It consisted only of the U.S. Advisory Board

A: They were chosen in a different way.

Q: They were only 14 and there was no one else there. . .

A: To preserve an international quality to the first congress I felt there should be very limited numbers of U.S. staff. That's a difference between the two congresses. We had staff coming up day by day--a bus load would come for this day or that to catch the flavor of it. But this was another hard issue with all sorts of ideological ramifications. These philosophical aspects of AFS really weren't discussed much in Steve's time. He just ran a hell of a good program. Steve didn't have time to theorize. And I must say that by inclination I'm not one to sit around endlessly theorizing on the philosophical implications of what I'm doing, if I have a gut feeling I'm doing something good. I have always believed that placing well-chosen students in good families, giving support and encouragement to the positive development of relationships was a good thing of itself. And I wasn't about to spend my days trying to analyze how much political connotation there was to this or that experience. AFS provided an enormous process of growth and learning social awareness, perceptions and whatever the individual himself chose to bring into it. But everyone keeps asking what are its implications for American hegemony of the world? Are we just turning everybody into Americans? Pushed by these questions, I developed my own thinking about the whole process of what I call "denationalization," and I was satisfied that AFS far less than any other program skillfully reduces this hazard. Oh, I've written articles on this. If you want to know my thoughts, there's one in Our World. I feel strongly on the subject and am proud of the job AFS does in getting people back into their own societies reasonably effectively. Changed? Yes, but not alienated permanently. Everybody is dislocated a little bit when he comes home, our own AAs as much as any, but one of the glories of this program has been its success in helping people back into the mainstream of their own places. Of course they are going to be mobile people---they were that kind when they first applied for AFS. I mean, you've got to be something of an adventurer if you're living in an African village and you apply for AFS---yes, initiative and guts are needed. So the kinds of people we've attracted are bound to be mobile people just by preselection. But on the whole, we've sent back into developing and developed countries alike a lot of people with some tremendously significant awarenesses, very little affected by American propagandizing. These people understand America a whole lot better and are therefore far less liable to misjudge us as a county. Positively put they understand what we've said and why we say it. But I don't believe we've bought a lot of friends for America through AFS. I think we've produced thousands of people who make better citizens of an interrelated world And the world has got to live together. But I've never been concerned very much about this being a propaganda thing. The only times I do become concerned is when we begin to tell students what to think. There is a rising interest in what I call the indoctrination of students. What they should hope to look for, and what kind of experience they should have. We ought to be prepared to have a student in here who probably isn't going to make much splash at all but who's going to be a sensitive, loving person in a family and maybe a good musician, and hopefully be the start of generations of association between two families. I always welcome some distinctive skill. Whatever the distinctive facet may be, it can become one of the quickest handholds for meeting people and getting into things in anew place. It's been so for me. Because I like to fish I've met fishermen worldwide, and they have proved to be much more than fishermen. Or because I liked to play rugby and was pretty good at it I quickly became an insider at the Rugby School in England.

So, I've always stressed this concept over and beyond of course those many fundamental qualities we hope for in every AFS student--- intelligence, vigor, curiosity, flexibility, integrity and sensitivity. But I never felt it appropriate to stress the idea that participants should dig into world issues while they were AFSers---I'm just not impressed by this emphasis on political consciousness for selection or orientation. I think that will be for most a natural outgrowth of the kind of experience we provide. I don't think we can make people become better world citizens by directly trying to teach them. We put them in relationships where this is likely to occur. I'm not much impressed with our trying to insure that every AFSer knows a good deal about world famine. God knows, it's an important issue, and I hope they will learn something about it but don't project our organization into a formal program to do this. First we won't do it very well. Secondly, someone will add his political view to the subject and thereby distract us from our primary business

Q: But they should have an interest in the things that affect the whole world Or they're likely to have.

A: Likely, but here again, I go back to that student who's a superb musician, and a wonderful human being. I'll bet the AFS experience of host family, school and community will lead him toward activities and friendships that will make him a more internationally minded person. But let's not organize an AFS curriculum to accomplish this!

Q: Do we do that?

A: We're discussing something like it and we're getting closer to it all the time.

Q: There's a questionnaire in the current chapter newsletter

A: I just never believed in this. And I think the same thing applies to this political thing that's been such a bug-a-boo. I said a good deal about this question of political activism during the scholarship year. It doesn't go over well with those who brought you here, and it doesn't go over well with those who sent you, so you will probably get in trouble in two places. If you must be a political activist at the age of 17, stay home and do your thing. It isn't compatible to want to stay dry and have a shower. If you don't I like the water, don't take showers, right? Now that's a horrible limitation, but most of us had to learn it. And don't let anyone tell you this means I want only passive, cow-like participants in AFS. Political interest and social awareness can grow magnificently without the kind of partisan involvement which so frequently is misunderstood in another county. I personally learned more and had my values and interests shaped more in this regard during my time at Rugby than through any other experience in my life. But I never marched in a protest movement or canvassed for a political party.

Well there were things that seemed important in my time here, and I think are going to remain so. Sometimes AFS is pushed toward reckless desertion of its primary and superbly conducted business by warnings that we're growing dull from "doing the same old thing." I say to you, "just like the same old process of the birth of a child." The placement of a student has comparable implications for a student and family, a fantastic new relationship that's fresh and original with each placement, and I claim that this experience can stand by itself without our doctoring it too much. Always being available to help the student that wants to reach out, supporting----and counselling student, family, and school, but not insisting that he spend his time reading up on world famine. If music or art is what someone's interested in, let's lead him to it and let the chips fall. But this is a theory of education that's far beyond our present discussion.

Q: I was going to say, this sounds like the Yale Admissions Office. A well-balanced class, not a well balanced student.

A: Why, sure.

Q: In your life. . .

A: Without question, I've enjoyed the stimulation of far-reaching ideas and the wonderful warmth of people. But without any question it's the people I would put first; the personal associations were quite extraordinary. The quality of the people associated with us in New York, and then all over the world, I don't know where you could find associations of that richness. It has given great satisfaction to me personally. I've always liked the opportunity to deal directly with individual students and staff. I wasn't much on departmental formalities; I always wanted to have my hand in the day-to-day business which involved students, families, volunteer workers, and school people. I spent a lot of time on individual counselling problems. I guess I enjoyed it; I wouldn't have done it if I didn't. But I also feel that if you're directing an operation, your greatest hazard is isolation from the reality of the nitty-gritty. And the fact that we were so unstructured---dangerously so at times I suspect ---made it possible for me to keep involved in more than just administration. I loved it even if it did wear me out.

Part IV: Youth Takes Over

Table of Contents