Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
4 Exchange Programs and Sponsors On January 31, 1979, immediately after the establishment of diplomatic relations, President Jimmy Carter and Vice-Premier Deng Xiaoping signed a landmark "Agreement on Cooperation in Science and Technology" in Washington, D.C. This accord provided the umbrella under which subsequent federal scientific, technological, and educa- tional exchanges have occurred. Subsumed under this agreement was an earlier "Understanding on Educational Exchanges," signed in October 1978 to provide for the exchange of undergraduate students, graduate students, and visiting scholars to undertake research and study in each country. Since the late 1970s, the Sino-American educational relation- ship has achieved high-level attention from many quarters in both societies, most recently during Premier Zhao Ziyang's January 1984 visit to America, President Ronald Reagan's spring 1984 journey to China, and Chinese President Li Xiannian's summer 1985 trip to the United States. These agreements and the protocols that grew out of them prompted rapid increases in the number of individuals involved in academic exchanges. But this growth also reflects the initiatives of an expanding range of governmental agencies and of private organizations on a national scale. This chapter describes the roles and activities of these diverse government and private organizations.2 The many national-level organizations engaged in academic exchange with China are motivated by a variety of considerations, and 62
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS AND SPONSORS 63 in many cases, by more than one objective. Initially, an important motivation of the U.S. government was strategic: to assure that China and the Soviet Union did not again cooperate in ways inimical to U.S. interests. Over time, the range of motivations has broadened. Some organizations value cultural and educational exchange as a means to promote mutual understanding. For others, access to China provides opportunities to contribute to change in the PRC,3 which reflects, in some instances, secular missionary impulses. In many cases, the princi- pal motivation of organizations has been to reinforce China's "open" policy and to familiarize the Chinese with Western technology and products. For still others, China is a place to be studied, yielding infor- mation that will contribute to global scholarship. Chinese national organizations also have diverse, often multiple motivations for participating in exchange with the United States. Many Chinese view academic relationships with the United States in practical terms- such ties provide a quick way to augment China's skilled man- power pool and to overcome, to some extent, the damage done by the Cultural Revolution. For others, Western science and technology have an almost magical quality, offering a possible "solution" to China's heretofore intractable modernization problems. Finally, some Chinese see ties to prestigious American institutions as a way to enhance the visibility of their own institutions domestically and to win additional resources in the ongoing scramble for funding. The resumption of aca- demic ties also has had a very personal meaning for many Chinese and Americans who share a desire to renew ties with institutions and col- leagues that had been established in the pre-1950 era. This chapter focuses on the national exchange programs of the U.S. federal government and of private agencies. As will be seen, public- and private-sector programs have complemented one another well. Initially, programs such as the National Program of the Committee on Scholarly Communication with the People's Republic of China (CSCPRC)4 focused principally on providing single-year grants for individual research in China, with emphasis on Chinese studies and the natural sciences. Over time, new exchange programs of both the CSCPRC and other public and private agencies have diversified exchange opportunities by broadening the fields of exchange, providing multi- year grants, promoting collaborative research, assisting China in disci- plinary and institutional development, and offering opportunities to teach in China. By the mid-1980s, all of these initiatives, taken as a whole, constituted a rather comprehensive framework for academic exchange.
64 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED FEDE RAL PROGRAMS Bilateral Agreements Between 1978 and mid-1985, the number of bilateral accords in sci- ence, technology, or education between Chinese and American govern- ment agencies grew from 2 to 24 (see Appendix G). Following the normalization of U.S.-China relations, the U.S. executive branch pro- moted these bilateral agreements in the belief that it was important to institutionalize the Sino-American relationship rapidly. One way to do this was to give the major government agencies in each country a tangi- ble stake in the relationship. The resulting bilateral agreements cover a broad range of scientific areas: space technology, high-energy physics, environmental protec- tion, earthquake studies, nuclear safety, transportation, statistics, and biomedical sciences. These agreements sparked varying degrees of activity. Because most are funded under existing agency budgets rather than through special federal appropriations, the degree of interchange that has occurred reflects the importance that agency heads placed on Sino-American technological and scientific cooperation and the visibil- ity their agencies gain by promoting such ties. Since the large number of agreements and diversity of activities pre- cludes a thorough description of each, this section instead presents an overview of the most active bilateral programs and looks in greater detail at one innovative program, the Dalian National Center for Indus- trial Science and Technology Management Development. As of 1985, some of the most vigorous bilateral agreements included the Protocol on Cooperation in the Field of Atmospheric Science and Technology (signed by National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration tNOAA] in 1979~; the Protocol on the Field of Marine and Fishery Science and Technology (NOAA, 1979~; the Protocol for Scientific and Technical Cooperation in the Earth Sciences (U.S. Geo- logical Survey [USGS], 1980~; the Protocol for Scientific and Technical Cooperation in Earthquake Studies (USGS and National Science Foun- dation tNSF], 1980~; and the Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Management of Industrial Science and Technology (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1979~. Interactions between the U.S. Department of Agri- culture and the PRC were extensive until November 1983, when activi- ties under the 1979 Understanding on Agricultural Exchange were suspended after China failed to import the quantity of American grain called for in a long-term agreement. One of the most innovative bilateral programs grew out of a 1979
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS AND SPONSORS 65 protocol, signed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, China's State Economic Commission, State Science and Technology Commission, and Ministry of Education (MOE). Entitled "Cooperation in the Field of Management of Science and Technology," the protocol was designed to give China a mechanism for upgrading its management techniques. For the United States, the agreement satisfied a desire to respond to China's needs and to improve relations between the two countries. Some Ameri- can observers, looking at the long range, saw the agreement as a way to "train a group of managers who would be familiar with American techniques and equipment, would be favorably disposed to deal with American companies, and who would continue to exercise both mental attitudes as they rose through the Chinese bureaucracy to more impor- tant positions."5 The initial agreement expired in 1984 and was renewed for five years in April of that year. As a result of this agreement, the National Center for Industrial Science and Technology Management Development was established at Dalian City, China, in 1979. The center now employs a staff of both Americans and Chinese and provides a 6- to 8-month curriculum simi- lar to that in American business schools for about 200 Chinese mid-level managers annually. By the end of 1985, 87 Americans will have taught at the center. In the first four classes (through 1983), 750 individuals were trained. By the end of 1984, there were more than 1,000 graduates of the center throughout China. Of the 750 trainees in the first four classes, about two-thirds were factory managers or were otherwise involved in management. Of the remaining one-third, about half were science managers and half were college teachers. The largest single group of Dalian graduates is employed in the Beijing area.6 The most notable graduate of the center to date is Wang Zhaoguo, the former director of an auto plant who became head of China's Communist Youth League and now (late 1985) is director of the General Office of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. Another grad- uate is Ye Qing, vice-minister of China's Coal Ministry. Hong Yuan- dong, deputy mayor of Dalian City and also a graduate, acknowledges the role of the center in alumni's success, noting: "It's not true that the training was the sole reason for our promotions, but I cannot deny the basic fact that it helped."7 The Dalian Center now also offers an 8- to 10-week course for senior Chinese executives. In May 1985 the State University of New York at Buffalo began operating a master's of business administration program at the Dalian Center, with the two governments agreeing to provide a total of $2 million for this new program during its first five years. "The Chinese students will spend their last semester at the Buffalo campus
66 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED and will take internships in American companies as part of their aca- demic requirement."8 The center has been highly successful from a number of perspectives. Although both Chinese and foreign observers believe that China's mod- ernization effort requires persons trained in business and management sciences, China sends only a small number of officially sponsored PRC students and scholars to study these fields in the United States. The Dalian program provides another way to meet that need. The success of the center is also reflected in the value the Chinese place on admission, the increasing authority exercised by graduates in their work units, and the high-quality American academics who wish to participate in the program. Finally, alumni of the Dalian Center sometimes work together on common problems. Some of the center's alumni, in Shang- hai for instance, get together to address difficult business investment decision problems. Graduates also seem to be establishing "horizontal" ties that may facilitate cooperation among bureaucratically separate Chinese organizations with related functions.9 Overall, the bilateral agreements display various degrees of activity and quality. From the perspective of building a network of agency ties between China and the United States, the agreements have achieved their principal aim. The bilateral agreements are important in two respects. First, inevitably, there will be ups and downs in the U.S. relationship with China over time, the web of interagency ties provides added stability to the relationship. For instance, in mid-1983, when bilateral political relations were at a low ebb, healthy educational ties continued unabated. Second, the bilaterals, based as they are on mutual benefits, are one way in which America can play a positive role in China's economic and scientific advance, at least until such time as development assistance may become available. The U.S. government also is integrally involved, to varying degrees, with other national-level exchange activities with China. The Fulbright Program Following the 1947 launching of the Fulbright Program, China became the first country with a Fulbright Agreement.~° The current National Fulbright Program is authorized by Public Law 87-256 of 1961. Grants are awarded to citizens of the United States and other countries for educational activities that include university lectureships, advanced research, graduate study, and teaching in elementary and secondary schools. The CSCPRC-administered National Program for Advanced Study and Research in China (see below) is part of the grad-
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS AND SPONSORS 67 Hate study and advanced research component of the Fulbright Program with respect to China. Worldwide, the Board of Foreign Scholarships is responsible for setting program policy, supervising Fulbright exchanges, and approving Fulbright participants. The board is composed of educa- tional and public leaders appointed by the President of the United States. The U.S. Information Agency (USIA) administers the Fulbright Program, with the U.S. Embassy in Beijing supervising the program locally. In addition to the CSCPRC-administered National Program described below, there are other important facets of the Fulbright Pro- gram in China. The Council for International Exchange of Scholars (CIES) in Washington, D.C., is under contract with the USIA to orga- nize publicity, to receive and process applications, and to make recom- mendations to the Board of Foreign Scholarships for sending Americans to Chinese universities as Fulbright lecturers in fields that include the following: American literature, American history, business manage- ment, economics, law, political science, and sociology. CIES also brings some Chinese researchers and teachers to American universities. From 1980 through 1984, CIES sent 73 American lecturers (see Tables A-ll and A-12) to 12 Chinese universities, colleges, and institutes in eight cities (see Table A-133. Of the Chinese institutions, Beijing University and Shanghai Foreign Languages Institute received the most lecturers. The program's early focus on American studies and English language in 1980 and 1981 has expanded to include law, economics, political science, business, library sciences, and several other fields in 1984 (see Table A-12. From 1980 through 1984, CIES brought 22 Chinese lecturers (see Table A-14) and 45 Chinese researchers (see Tables A-15 and A-16) to the United States. The Chinese lecturers have lectured on topics pertaining to the study of China, while the researchers generally have undertaken research on the United States. While also administered through the Board of Foreign Scholarships, some Fulbright funds are also appropriated for the U.S. Department of Education (USED), where the Office of Postsecondary Education (Cen- ter for International Education) administers the Foreign Language and Area Studies Training Program. This program is designed to promote and improve modern foreign language training and area studies in American education. Grants are available in these areas: Doctoral Dis- sertation Research Abroad, Faculty Research Abroad, Group Projects Abroad, and Seminars Abroad, as well as Foreign Curriculum Consul- tants.~2 With the exception of Foreign Curriculum Consultant grants (which bring educators from other countries to the United States to help
68 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED develop language and area studies curricula for American schools), all other grants under the program are to send Americans abroad.~3 The CSCPRC receives monies from USED for the National Program to fund Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad and Faculty Research Abroad in the area of modern foreign languages and area studies. The competi- tions administered by USED are conducted separately from those of the CSCPRC. Interested applicants may apply to either or both of these organizations. From Fiscal Year (F`Y) 1980-1981 through 1983-1984, USED selected 17 people in its Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Program to conduct research in China. Eight of those students also were selected by the CSCPRC and are included in the total number of CSCPRC graduate program grantees. From FY 1980-1981 through FY 1983-1984, 13 individuals were selected by the USED Faculty Research Abroad Program to conduct research in China. Three individuals listed in the department's records also were selected by the CSCPRC and have been included in statistics for the National Program (discussed below). The Fulbright Program in China, as is the case with the Fulbright Program worldwide, has difficulty in attracting enough high-quality American applicants, especially younger persons. i4 Several factors cause this problem, including the low stipends that deter Americans with young families from participating in the exchange. Young faculty also find that in their attempt to gain tenure at U.S. universities and col- leges, a year abroad as a Fulbright lecturer does not necessarily enhance their prospects at many institutions. The Fulbright Lecturer Program is particularly important because it emphasizes the fields of American studies, American literature, Ameri- can history, and economics. More recently, limited attention has been given to sending Americans to lecture on business management, library science, law, and political science. Few students in these fields are sent abroad by the PRC, though the fields are critical to China's capacity to understand the United States and to the success of Beijing's educational and economic goals. National Science Foundation The NSF inaugurated its program of Sino-American scientific cooper- ation in December 1980 by signing the U.S.-China Protocol on Cooper- ation in the Basic Sciences with the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS). is Activities under the protocol are coordinated by the U.S.-China Joint Working Group on Cooperation in Basic Sciences, staffed by Americans from NSF and Chinese from CAS, CASS, and MOE.
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS AND SPONSORS 69 Currently, emphasis in this program is on cooperative research in a wide range of disciplines.l6 The NSF program provides support for scientific cooperation between the United States and China through joint seminars and joint research projects. Since the inception of the program, joint research projects have been undertaken in fields that include the following: archaeology, applied mathematics, astronomy, engineering sciences, linguistics, international studies, materials sci- ence, natural-products chemistry, systems analysis, plant studies, earth sciences, and information sciences. Between December 1980 and November 1984, the program supported a total of 43 cooperative research projects and 12 joint seminars and workshops. The NSF cooperative program has several notable strengths. Because many projects are conducted over two-year periods and involve researchers from both nations, access problems are less likely to arise. One scientist who received grants (at separate times) from the CSCPRC and the NSF indicated that the multiyear character of research projects under the NSF program permits scientists to tackle more complex projects in a sustained and comprehensive manner than is possible under the single-year grants from the CSCPRC. Another notable fea- ture of the NSF-funded joint research projects is that between Decem- ber 1980 and November 1984, 16 of the projects directly involved Chinese university researchers.~7 This is consistent with Beijing's desire to improve the research capabilities of Chinese universities. On November 13, 1984, the fourth meeting of the U.S.-China Joint Working Group on Cooperation in Basic Sciences was held in Washing- ton, D.C. That meeting expanded the scope of cooperation under the Basic Sciences Protocol to encompass all fields of basic science, engi- neering, and social sciences eligible for joint support by the two sides. Previous cooperation had been limited to certain fields by mutual agree- ment. Extension of the protocol for a second five-year period will occur in April 1986.~8 CSCPRC PROGRAMS The CSCPRC was founded in 1966 under the joint sponsorship of the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS), the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the Social Science Research Council (SSRC). With the outbreak of China's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution late that year, 1966 was not an auspicious time for Americans to try to develop scholarly dialogue with academics in China. Nonetheless, the CSCPRC's founders hoped that monitoring intellectual developments in China and fostering interpersonal ties where possible would pay off when political circumstances changed. Such a change occurred in Feb-
70 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED wary 1972 when President Richard M. Nixon and Premier Zhou Enlai signed the Shanghai Communique. In the wake of that communique, both governments recognized the CSCPRC as an agency to facilitate scholarly exchange programs. In 1972 the CSCPRC began a multidis- ciplinary exchange program. By the spring of 1985, 40 American dele- gations had visited China and 50 Chinese delegations had traveled to the United States (see Appendix H). In September 1978, USICA (U. S. International Communication Agency, which was called U.S. Information Agency before April 1978 and after August 1982) designated the CSCPRC to administer the National Program for Advanced Research and Study in China in antici- pation of the October signing of the "Understanding on Educational Exchanges." In this Understanding, the United States expressed the wish to send 10 "students" to China in January 1979 under the new National Program and 50 additional "students" under the same program by Sep- tember 1979, "as well as such other numbers as the Chinese side is able to receive." At about the same time, the U.S. government decided to grant an unlimited number of academic visas to Chinese students and scholars who were accepted into bona fide academic programs in American institutions of higher education. As a result of this decision, there has been no direct relationship between the number of Americans going to China and the number of Chinese coming to the United States. Ameri- can academic ties with China, therefore, are fundamentally different from those with the Soviet Union, which maintain a strict numerical equality of "person-months." The American decision not to require such numerical correspondence in its educational exchange relationship with China was wise. However, that decision does diminish CSCPRC capac- ity to negotiate access for National Program students and scholars. Since its inception, the National Program has received funding from the NSF, USIA, the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), and USED. Total budget allocations during program years 1978-1979 through 1984-1985 have exceeded $7.4 million, of which 17 percent has come from NSF, 48 percent from USIA, 18 percent from NEH, and 18 percent from USED. The National Program consists of two components: a graduate pro- gram and a research program, both of which support long-term research and study in China. From January 1, 1979, to July 1, 1985, about one-third of the total number of National Program grantees were in the graduate program, and approximately two-thirds in the research program (see Table 4-1~. More than one-half of all grantees have been in the social sciences
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS AND SPONSORS TABLE 4-1 CSCPRC National Program Grantees, by Program Category and Program Year, 1978-1979 Through 1984-1985 71 Total for Program Graduate Research National Year Program Program Program 1978-1979a 6 7 13 1979-1980 22 30 52 1980-1981 10 30 40 1981-1982 16 22 38 1982-1983 18 21 39 1983-1984 8 30 38 1984-1985 11 27 38 Total 91 167 258 NOTES: Program year 1978-1979 began January 1, 1979; all other program years begin on July 1 of each year. Extendees are not included in this table. SOURCE: CSCPRC National Program files. (including history) and the humanities (Table 4-2~. In the social sciences (see Table A-17), there has been little change in the yearly number of grantees in anthropology, economics, political science, and sociology, despite the 1981 controversy over field work in China. National Program grants have been awarded to individuals from 85 U.S. institutions of higher education and 16 other institutions. Fifty- two percent of total grants awarded went to individuals from 12 U.S. universities (see Table A-18), reflecting the large percentage of graduate students selected from the major East Asian Studies centers. About one- half of National Program grantees have been from publicly supported schools. Like the Americans who went to China under the pre-1950 Fulbright Program, scholars under the National Program have been concentrated in China's capital. The principal host units for more than one-half of National Program grantees were located in Beijing, and about 10 per- cent were in Shanghai. The remaining one-third were widely distrib- uted among China's provincial-level units (see Table A-l9~. Of the 29 provincial-level units, only 8 have not served as principal host for a National Program grantee from January 1, 1979, to April 1, 1985. Some of these 8 units Guangxi, Heilongjiang, Henan, Jiangxi, Ningxia,~9 Shanxi, Xinjiang, and Tibet have had grantees working in them. Former participants point to both strengths and weaknesses in the National Program; what some view as strengths are problematic to others. In the view of participants, the main strengths were the capacity of the program to make initial contacts with a broad range of Chinese
72 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED TABLE 4-2 Percentage Distribution of CSCPRC National Program Grantees by Field Designation, for Program Years 1978-1979 Through 1984-1985 Total for Field of Graduate Research National Study Program Program Program Agriculture 3 2 3 Business management 0 1 Computer science 0 1 Education 1 0 Engineering 0 2 1 Health sciences 2 4 3 Humanities 30 12 18 Law 7 1 3 Library/archival sciences 0 0 0 Life sciences 0 13 8 Mathematics 0 2 1 Physical sciences 1 13 8 Social sciencesa 37 39 38 Other 19 13 15 Total 100 100 100 N= (121) (198) (319) NOTES: Figures were determined by counting fields of study indicated by National Pro- gram grantees on their applications. Since many grantees indicated two fields, the "N" of 319 Is higher than the total number of grantees (258~. Percentages were rounded to the nearest 1 percent. Program year 1978-1979 began on January 1, 1979; all other program years begin on Julyl. The symbol "" indicates a value less than 0.5 percent. aIncludes history. SOURCE: CSCPRC National Program files. host units, CSCPRC's "connections" in China, and the prestige presum- ably conferred on winners of a national, peer-reviewed, high-quality grant competition. Some participants were critical of the National Pro- gram's requirements for minimum and maximum grant periocls, its nonreciprocal nature, the long lead times required for participants in the program, and self-censorship of difficult research projects by faculty and scholar applicants. Some respondents also criticized the close ties to officialdom in both countries that were praised by others, illustrating the double-edged quality of such links. Close ties to officialdom may be essential to solve one scholar's problem while they may subject other scholars to unwelcomed attention. The CSCPRC also has run the reciprocal "Distinguished Scholar Exchange Program" (DSEP) since 1979.2° Like the National Program,
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS AND SPONSORS 73 DSEP is a national-level, peer-reviewed competition. Under DSEP, equal numbers (in terms of person-months) of Chinese and American scholars travel in each direction annually. DSEP has a distinctive nomi- nation procedures half of the Americans who go to China are nomi- nated by the Chinese and half of the Chinese who come to the United States are nominated by the Americans. Under the DSEP program, 129 Chinese came to the United States (see Table A-20) and 164 Americans traveler] to China (see Tables A-21 and A-22) from 1979 through 1985. Among both Chinese and Americans, the distribution of fields of study offsets the "natural" proclivities of each side (Table 4-3~. Among Americans going to China under DSEP, there is a higher proportion of natural scientists than is the case in either the National Program or the university-to-university programs (see Chapter 5~. There is a higher proportion in the social sciences and humanities among Chinese coming to the United States under DSEP than there is among the total number of students and scholars the Chinese government chooses to send abroad. TABLE 4-3 Percentage Distribution of American and Chinese DSEP Granted by Field Designation, 1979-1980 Through 1984-1985 Chinese American Specific Field Designation Granteesa Grantcesa Agriculture 1 2 Business management 1 Computer science 2 1 Education 1 0 Engineering 12 11 Health sciences 4 1 Humanities 11 10 Law 0 1 Library/archival sciences 0 Life sciences 8 9 Mathematics 3 4 Physical sciences 20 17 Social sciences 27 26 Other 10 14 Total 100 100 NOTES: Program years begin on July 1. Figures were determined by counting fields of study indicated by grantees on their applications. Since many grantees indicated two fields, the total "N" is higher than the total of grantees (129 Chinese and 164 Americans). The symbol "" indicates a value less than 0.5 percent. aFigures have been rounded to the nearest percentage point. SOURCE: CSCPRC Distinguished Scholar Exchange Program (DSEP) files.
74 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED In recent years the CSCPRC began several initiatives that reflect new directions in academic exchanges with China. First, in early 1984, the CSCPRC began to administer the Science, Technology, and Economic Development Program for the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering, an initiative in applied science and technology with Chi- na's State Science and Technology Commission (SSTC). Under this pro- gram, American applied scientists from industry and academe in the United States are brought together with their Chinese counterparts from production ministries and other research institutes. Together, the two groups have held workshops on agricultural and energy technolo- gies and on issues of science and technology management. This program responds to China's emphasis on applied science and attempts to involve American industry more extensively in academic exchange with the PRC. As a second initiative, the CSCPRC and NAS opened a representative office in Beijing in July 1985. Functioning as a liaison body, the office will coordinate the academic, scientific, and technical exchange activi- ties with CAS and other relevant Chinese organizations. The office is supported through specific grants to NAS from the Henry Luce Founda- tion, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and the Ford Foundation. Additional support is provided through a general grant to NAS from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation to promote and maintain nongovernmental programs between the scientific communi- ties of the United States and the PRC. This ongoing presence is one more indication that the Sino-American relationship is becoming institution- alized. Both sides are building the infrastructure necessary to support a larger and more interactive relationship. Finally, the CSCPRC and the Chinese are now exploring the possibil- ity of establishing a long-term research presence in several Chinese urban and rural localities. If such sites are established, they could involve multidisciplinary teams, conceivably composed of Chinese and American scholars. This plan would give American and Chinese scholars important opportunities to observe change at the local level, over time, both individually and in teams. This is a significant research need that should be addressed regardless of the fate of this particular plan. These three new CSCPRC initiatives reflect some of the exciting changes occurring in Sino-American academic relations: greater emphasis on applied science, the creation of institutions in China that will facilitate academic interchange, and the opportunity for sustained multidisciplinary research in particular localities in China. The national-level programs discussed above are fairly comprehen-
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS AND SPONSORS 75 sive, and overlap among them is not a serious problem. Nonetheless, they leave three areas of academic need unmet. First, a flexible travel grants program would be a valuable aid in facilitating the participation of American scholars in Chinese conferences, especially in the sciences. Second, American natural scientists lack adequate support to conduct their own individual research in China. The NSF and the CSCPRC, with their limited resources, have a fairly high rate of proposal rejection (about 4:1~. Both organizations have indicated that, were additional monies available, significantly higher numbers of worthwhile proposals could be funded. Finally, there is very little federal support for pro- grams in the applied sciences, technology, and agriculture. CHINESE UNIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND OTHER ACTIVITIES OF THE WORLD BANK Because the World Bank is an international organization designed to promote worldwide economic and social development, its activities generally fall outside the scope of this study. However, the Bank is undertaking education projects in China in which many American scholars are participating. As of mid-1985, the World Bank was actively involved in projects on university development (particularly equipment and instrumentation), agricultural education and research, television eclucation, and rural health and medical education. In addition, the Bank has plans for programs designed to upgrade provincial universi- ties, technical education, instructional materials, and curriculum design (see Appendix I). One World Bank program, the Chinese University Development Project, has extensive American professional and administrative partici- pation. Under the program, Chinese faculty are sent to the West or to Japan for study or training. According to Chinese MOE figures covering the period from September 1982 to April 1984, 60 percent of the 1,182 Chinese faculty who received these awards had gone or planned to go to the United States (see Table A-3. * The four-year project, administered by the Chinese MOE, is funded with a $200-million loan and credit agreement with the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank) and the Inter- national Development Association. The project focuses on 28 major Chinese universities (see Table A-3), attempting to strengthen their *As of March 31, 1985, the MOE reported that 1,532 students and visiting scholars had been sent abroad under this project. Of that total, 894 (or 58 percent) went to the United States (see Table A-23, Part II).
76 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED undergraduate and graduate teaching programs in physics, chemistry, computer science, engineering, and biology. The project also supports research development programs at these universities through the crea- tion of 47 key laboratories and establishment of research and analytical centers on the university campuses. Two panels advise the Chinese MOE on the overall implementation of the project. One is the Chinese Review Commission chaired by Zhang Guangdou, eminent hydraulic engineer, vice-president of Qinghua University, and member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Working with the Chinese Review Commission is the International Advisory Pane} chaired by physicist Dale R. Corson, president emeritus of Cornell University and member of the National Academy of Engi- neering. The National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C., pro- vides an administrative base for the International Advisory Panel. This pane] is composed of specialists from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, and The Netherlands. The International Advisory Panel works with the MOE, the Chinese Review Commission, and the administrations of the project universities in the following areas: 1. The selection of teaching and research equipment to be procured with project funds; 2. The updating of undergraduate curricula, the designing of graduate programs, and the development of research programs; 3. The further training of university faculty of the designated universi- ties through the selection and placement of fellows for study outside of China; 4. The improvement of university management in five specific univer- sities; and 5. The expansion of managerial capacity of the MOE in the areas of statistics, accounting, monitoring and evaluation, and the prepara- tion of future sectoral investments. One of the most important functions of the International Advisory Panel is to work with the MOE and the project universities in the selection and appointment of subject area foreign specialists for short- term technical assignments in China. The foreign experts consult on graduate and undergraduate curriculum development, advise on the development of research programs, conduct seminars, lecture, and help strengthen university management programs. This program is important for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it reflects China's desire to strengthen the research capa- bilities of its universities. Such capabilities had, to a considerable
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS AND SPONSORS 77 extent, deteriorated in the years after 1949 because of the strategy of concentrating research in the Chinese Academy of Sciences and ministe- rial research institutes. Moreover, the focus of the University Develop- ment Project on instrumentation in the basic sciences is filling a major gap that must be closed if effective research is to be conducted in China. CH~NA-RE~ATED ACTIVITIES OF AME:TUCAN PRIVATE PHILANTHROPIC ORGANIZATIONS: AN OVERVIEW In his excellent overview entitled "American Philanthropy and Edu- cational Exchange with the People's Republic of China," Francis Sut- ton notes that, overall, American foundations have devoted and continue to devote only modest resources to international activities. Tradition and the tax laws have continued to make the total output of American philanthropy impressive. But it is notorious that most of it goes to local and national causes and purposes with perhaps not more than 2 To going to foreign parts or to international matters in the U.S.... The interests of a few large foundations may give an impression of a special vocation for international matters among the endowed foundations, but in fact the number of foundations among the more than 22,000 in this country that have regular international programs is very small.... A reasonable guess at average recent levels of foundation international giving would be of the order of $100 million.... The rise of corporate philanthropy to totals comparable with foundation philan- thropy seems not to have brought any major additions to international activi- ties.... But, by and large, the maxim that charity begins at home has been at least as loyally maintained by corporate philanthropy as by the other forms of American philanthropy.22 Nonetheless, with the normalization of Sino-American relations, American philanthropic foundations are again viewing China as a par- ticularly attractive site for their international activity. This attraction is rooted in both past and present circumstances. First, some of the organizations most involved in China today (e. g., the Rockefeller Foundation23 and the China Medical Board) were heavily involved in China prior to the Communist victory. Gratified by the impact of their previous philanthropic work in China, such organiza- tions view renewed involvement as desirable. Second, foundations con- tinually are in search of new and exciting activities and, as Sutton points out, respond to public enthusiasms. The new relationship with the PRC has captured the interest of large segments of the American populace, and foundations are responding accordingly.24 The comparatively rapid "opening" of China in the 1970s and 1980s presented foundations with many important opportunities, particularly in China's education sector
78 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED where the Cultural Revolution and the isolation of the previous 20 years had exacted a particularly heavy toll. Beyond the charitable objective of relieving human distress, founda- tions generally pursue three other goals, singly or in combination, in their international activities: they seek (1) to strengthen American expertise in areas of strategic importance to the United States; (2) to enhance economic and social development in the belief that this will promote well-being, political stability, and international peace; and (3) to improve international understanding.25 All three of these goals have helped draw foundations to China. In supporting activities in China, American foundations historically have emphasized the liberal arts and natural, agricultural, and medical sciences. Today, foundations support programs to train Chinese students in the humanities and social sciences, particularly law, economics, international studies, and sociology. These fields fit comfortably with long-standing foundation proclivities; they are also areas on which the Chinese placed virtually no emphasis until very recently. Foundations, therefore, perceive an important gap to be filled and, as with agricul- ture and medical projects in China, these funding patterns also fit well with their traditional priorities and past work in China. Because foundations are so numerous and their range of activities so broad, this report provides an overview of only some of the larger and more innovative philanthropic activities in the three broad fields that have received particular emphasis: education, health and medical sci- ences, and culture and the arts. Education The education-related activities of American philanthropic organiza- tions in China have focused on the social sciences and humanities. Foundations currently are supporting the training of the Chinese per- sonnel needed to build or to reconstitute fields that were neglected or undermined in the PRC and are helping to develop library resources. To improve understanding of China among Americans, U.S. philanthropic organizations have spent sizable resources on training American China specialists, on supporting academic research on China, and on under- writing conferences and seminars. The following discussion is not a comprehensive account of all American foundation educational activity in the PRC or of its total support for Chinese studies in the United States. It is an overview intended to convey the breadth and magnitude of foundation involvement with China. The programs of the Asia Foundation are typical of foundation
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS AND SPONSORS 79 efforts to develop the social sciences in China and to strengthen Chinese libraries. From 1979 through 1983 the foundation sponsored 109 Chi- nese in the United States and 55 Americans in China at a cost of more than $600,000. It has focused its resources on law, international rela- tions and strategic studies, international trade, international communi- cation, and science and technology planning. In cooperation with China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the founda- tion provided advanced training for young diplomats in American uni- versities. In the field of international relations and strategic studies, it has sponsored senior research fellows (normally for a year) at major American universities. The foundation also has been helping China's College of Foreign Affairs develop its faculty by sending its lecturers to American universities and by inviting American professors to lecture in China. A similar project in international trade has helped train 13 younger lecturers for the Beijing Institute of Foreign Trade and has brought several American professors to lecture there under foundation auspices. To encourage closer economic relations between the United States and China, the Asia Foundation has been cooperating with the Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations and Trade by offering advanced training in American business law to ministry staff members. The foundation has also promoted journalism education. Three senior members of the New China News Agency each spent a year as visiting scholars, while two other veteran newspapermen participated in the Nieman Fellowship Program at Harvard. Young journalism lec- turers received advanced training in an American university. Finally, one of the major undertakings of the foundation has been its Books for Asia Program, which distributes books and professional journals to libraries in China.26 The Ford Foundation not only has been a major force in the develop- ment of Chinese studies in the United States but also has consciously sought to contribute to the development of fields in China that are central to that country's economic success and "open" policy. Consistent with both Chinese and American priorities, activities funded by the foundation have centered on the fields of law, economics, and interna- tional relations. Total Ford Foundation commitments for China-related activities during the Fiscal Years 1979-1984 approximate $7 million, and in late 1984, commitments were running at the rate of more than $1.5 million per year.27 With respect to economics, the Ford Foundation has been working with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) in the area of economics management since 1979. In 1985 the foundation supported
80 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED an expanded program on economics education and research in China involving seven Chinese university economics faculties and the institutes of economics in CASS. The program will offer young Chinese teachers and researchers year-long training in economics in the PRC and a doc- toral fellowship program for selected Chinese in North American uni- versities, and it will sponsor collaborative research projects. The foundation expects to commit approximately $800,000 for this program in 1985 and 1986; these funds may be augmented by monies from other sources. The program will be managed on the U.S. side by a committee cochaired by Professors Gregory Chow of Princeton University and Dwight Perkins of Harvard University, with administrative support from the CSCPRC. The foundation also has been working with the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences and other Chinese institu- tions to strengthen research and training in agricultural economics. In 1983 it provided the Agricultural Development Council with $290,000 for this purpose. In the field of law, the Ford Foundation has been active since 1981, when it provided funds for three American scholars to lecture in China and supported a conference in Beijing on the role of law in the United States and China, the first such conference since 1949. In 1983 the foundation provided a two-year grant of $575,000 to the U.S. Commit- tee on Legal Education Exchanges with China (USCLEEC), chaired by Professor R. Randle Edwards of Columbia Law School. USCLEEC's programs include the exchange of legal scholars (including Chinese stu- dents doing advanced legal education degree work in the United States), U.S.-Chinese law conferences, and library development, as well as the acquisition of Chinese legal materials for American libraries.28 The Ford Foundation has also helped fund major conferences on international issues; supported visits to the United States, Asia, Africa, and Latin America by scholars from CASS and other Chinese institu- tions; and financed visits to China by American specialists on Latin America and Africa. It has contributed funds to a variety of CSCPRC programs, most notably DSEP, its Social Sciences and Humanities Panel, and the representative office in Beijing. Finally, in international relations the Ford Foundation played a piv- otal role in the 1984 establishment of the Committee on International Relations Studies with the People's Republic of China (CIRSPRC). CIRSPRC was created at the initiative of several foundations con- cerned with international relations; it is administered by the Institute of International Education (IIE) in New York. Chaired by Robert Scala- pino of the University of California at Berkeley, the committee sees its
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS AND SPONSORS 81 mission as helping to strengthen China's principal institutions of inter- national relations research, training, and policy analysis while promot- ing collaboration between American and Chinese specialists. As of summer 1985, the committee had received funding from the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) totaling $1.1 million. The committee initially planned for a three-year program but anticipates that it could extend to five years. CIRSPRC limits its activities to the following topics: · contemporary international political, security, and strategic issues; · contemporary international economic issues; · comparative government in relation to linkages between domestic political and economic factors and international relations in various world regions; · modern international relations history; · international relations theory and research methodologies. The committee is working initially only in Shanghai ant] Beijing with the following Chinese institutions: the Shanghai Institute of Interna- tional Studies, the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, Fudan Univer- sity, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the Institute of International Relations (Ministry of Foreign Affairs), the Beijing Insti- tute of International Strategic Studies (Ministry of National Defense), the Institute of Contemporary International Relations, the Center for International Studies (State Council), and Beijing University. CIRSPRC hopes eventually to establish relationships with institutions outside these two major cities. Program activities include advanced training in the United States for PRC scholars, lecturing and collaborative research in China by Ameri- cans, study tours for staff members of Chinese or American institutions, research conferences and workshops, and library development and materials exchange. In February 1985, CIRSPRC agreed in principle to fund 11 Chinese candidates for graduate degree study and 7 visiting scholars (from eight different Chinese institutions) for academic year 1985-1986.29 Illustrating the wide range of American educational philanthropy in China is the work of the Trustees of Lingnan University, a New York- basec] organization that functions as a foundation. Trustees of Lingnan University was incorporated in New York State in 1893 to support the development of a college in Canton (Guangzhou) that later became Lingnan University. After 1949 the Arts and Sciences Schools of Lingnan were merged with Zhongshan University, which then moved to the former Lingnan campus. Subsequently, the American board of
82 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED trustees functioned as a foundation, supporting the education of Chi- nese elsewhere in Asia, and worked chiefly with institutions of higher education in Hong Kong.30 The Trustees resumed activity in the PRC in 1979 and have concentrated on projects at Zhongshan University, ini- tially with emphasis on sociology and management. In 1979 the Trustees made the first of several grants to assist CASS in reestablishing sociology as a discipline in China, and allocated funds for workshops and advanced study for Chinese scholars at the University of Pittsburgh and elsewhere. Grants also were made in 1979, 1980, and 1982 to support English as a Second Language (ESL) work in China and the United States. After 1981 the Trustees gave particular attention to efforts by Zhong- shan University to build a department of sociology. In 1981, two grants totaling $70,000 were made for a variety of initial needs: extended research stays and shorter study tours in the United States and Hong Kong for prospective sociology faculty members, lecturing at Zhong- shan by American and Hong Kong scholars, and essential equipment purchases. In 1982 and 1983, renewal grants included support for field studies in China by Zhongshan students.3i The Trustees began a series of annual grants to the university's new business management department in 1982, and in 1984 provided modest assistance to the chemistry department in order to strengthen general science education. In total, the Trustees of Lingnan University has provided more than $500,000 to Zhongshan University, most of which was designated for faculty advanced study and research in the United States, Hong Kong, or else- where in Asia. Finally, Trustees of Lingnan University has awarded grants to the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) to help pay for study there in sociology, business management, comparative literature and language, and related fields by persons from various PRC universi- ties and colleges. The activities of the Henry Luce Foundation show the degree to which Christian missionary impulses and the American belief in the transforming power of education have merged, particularly in the nine- teenth and early twentieth centuries, to undergird philanthropic inter- est in education in China and the education of Americans about China. Born in Shandong Province in the late nineteenth century, Henry R. Luce was the son of a Presbyterian minister who was considered one of the founders of Yenching University, the buildings of which are now part of Beijing University. Luce became the cofounder of Time Incorpo- rated and editor-in-chief of Time Magazine. He established the Henry Luce Foundation in 1936.
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS AND SPONSORS 83 From 1978 to 1984 the Luce Foundation's work with respect to China fell into three categories: (1) grants under the Luce Fund for Asian Studies; (2) grants under the Luce Fund for Chinese scholars; and (3) general program grants to a variety of educational institutions, includ- ing exchange organizations. During this period, the foundation spent more than $4 million for these programs. One primary exchange activity of the Luce Foundation the Luce Fund for Chinese Scholars was established in 1981 with $1 million, and an additional $1 million was allocated in late 1983 to assure the continuation of the fund through academic year 1986-1987. The pur- pose of this fund is to bring senior Chinese humanities scholars and social scientists (for periods of six months to one year) to one of 17 leading Chinese studies centers in the United States. Part of the philoso- phy in setting up the fund was to help counterbalance the heavy empha- sis on science and technology in American exchanges with China. The Luce Foundation also contributed to the USCLEEC's Law Library Development Program and has funded an Educational Testing Service project with China's Ministry of Education to improve selection ant! admission in China's higher-education system. Although not a foundation, the United Board for Christian Higher Education in Asia has also contributed to educational development in China through its philanthropic activities. The board is an association of 10 Protestant denominations that, prior to 1949, had established 13 Christian universities in China. In 1979, when the U.S. government resolved American property claims with China, the board received monies from that settlement and decided to spend these and other reve- nues on educational projects in the PRC.32 Board expenditures for its China program totaled $1,895,000 from 1981-1982 through 1984- 1985.33 Following its 1980 agreement with China's MOE, the United Board has established major working relationships with Shaanxi Teachers Uni- versity and Sichuan University to help establish two regional library centers by providing books and periodicals and by training librarians and other faculty. The board also has contributed to the development of humanities and social science faculty and other scholars from other Chinese institutions of higher education. At these other institutions the board occasionally also has provided aid for library development and the exchange of visiting professors. Since the beginning of its agreement with the MOE, the board has sponsored (directly or indirectly) 141 scholars, 44 of whom were under 1984-1985 grants. Most United Board grants are made at the request of
84 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED PRC institutions of higher education on behalf of their social science and humanities faculty who are assured of jobs on their return. Not only have long-established philanthropic organizations played an important role in recent educational work in China, new foundations are being established to promote such activities as well. One striking example is illustrated by the work of Santa Clara University Professor Shu-Park Chan (Chen Shubo). Chan has reached agreement with Chi- nese authorities to establish the China Experimental University in the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone near Hong Kong.34 With Chan as the university's first president, a China Experimental University Founda- tion has been established (with plans to establish an office in Japan), and according to the foundation, "The Chinese Government has pledged 500 acres of land and U. S. $100 million for the construction...."35 However, the university will rely on non-PRC sources to cover operating costs, equipment, overseas staff salaries, travel, and so forth. There already are many indications that other Chinese institutions will seek similar kinds of American involvement in their development. American foundations and philanthropic organizations have~also worked to increase Americans' understanding of Chinese culture, his- tory, and contemporary society. The Ford Foundation's involvement with China began in the early 1950s with efforts to develop Chinese studies in American universities. Since 1952 the foundation has invested some $40 million in support of major university centers of Chinese studies; the collection, storage, and distribution of Chinese language library materials; and the joint committees (now combined) of the SSRC and ACLS for the study of Chinese civilization and contemporary China.36 Its contributions to the CSCPRC were mentioned earlier. Along with Ford, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation also has been a major contributor to Chinese and East Asian studies in the United States through its support of research and training projects conducted by the American Council of Learned Societies and through grants to organiza- tions such as the Asia Foundation and the Association for Asian Studies. From 1978 through October 1984, the Mellon Foundation contributed $4.8 million toward these activities.37 The Luce Foundation has also supported studies on China through its Luce Fund for Asian Studies. The fund, established in 1975, was designed to stimulate new research on America's relations with East Asia and Southeast Asia. Ten major university centers of Asian studies participated in this program, receiving a total of $3 million over a six- year period. Several projects dealt with various aspects of U.S.-Chinese relations. Although the Luce Foundation discontinued this program, it
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS AND SPONSORS 8S still considers requests for support of specific projects on an ad hoc basis under its general program grants.38 The Wang Institute of Graduate Studies, although a relative new- comer to the philanthropic community, has begun programs of great importance to Chinese studies. In 1983 the Wang Institute initiated its Fellowship Program in Chinese Studies to support "full-time, postdoc- toral research on any period or area of Chinese Studies in humanistic and social sciences." During the years 1984 and 1985, 13 fellows received grants totaling $250,000, the 1985-1986 academic year budget has been increased to $200,000. Fellows can use these grants as they see fit in conducting their research, and several have used part of their funds for work in the PRC. While American citizenship is not required of the applicant, he or she must hold a doctoral degree in a relevant discipline and have knowledge of China through academic accomplish- ment and proficiency in the Chinese language or in another relevant foreign language. The Wang Institute will sponsor two conferences in 1986, one concerning ancient China and the other focusing on linguis- tics.39 One of America's most pressing needs in Chinese studies and its rela- tions with the PRC is the enhancement of the Chinese language capabil- ities in the United States. One U.S. organization, the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, has tackled this problem head-on in some of Ameri- ca's secondary schools. The Dodge Foundation's China Initiative has enabled 36 high schools (1983-1984) to offer Chinese language courses through grants totaling $1.4 million, plus an additional $200,000 for curriculum development and teacher workshops.40 Some of America's foundations have turned their attention to the more general need to educate the American public about China. One of the most notable organizations is the Johnson Foundation of Racine, Wisconsin. Since its establishment in 1959, the foundation has held, at its Wingspread Conference Center, approximately 40 China-related conferences involving both Chinese and Americans from many profes- sions. Wingspread conferences have addressed such varied topics as teaching about China in the schools, U.S.-Chinese relations, and sci- ence, agriculture, education, urban planning, and the media in China. Many of the foundation's programs were carried out in cooperation with the National Committee on United States-China Relations, Inc. (see below), the CSCPRC, and the China Council of the Asia Society. From 1979 to 1984, the foundation contributed about $177,000 to China programs through Wingspread conferences. The results of these conferences have reached large audiences through the foundation's radio programs and the publication of many conference reports.4i
86 A RELATI ONSHIP RES TORED Health and Medical Sciences During the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth, the medical projects of philanthropic organizations were among the most conspicuous activities of Americans in China. Although these activities were criticized by some Chinese both before and after Liberation as vehicles for "cultural imperialism," the medical legacy of this earlier era still influences today's China. In his Foreword to China Medical Board and Peking Union Medical College by Mary E. Ferguson, Raymond B. Fosdick, president of the Rockefeller Foundation from 1936 to 1948, articulated a rationale for philanthropic medical activities both in China and elsewhere. In creating the Peking Union Medical College we were far wiser than we realized. The concept of modern medicine which was introduced there set in motion influences in China that cannot be stopped. The conflict of ideolog~es- what Gibbon called "the exquisite rancor of theological hatred" does not relate to medicine, for health is something that all men desire, and there is no limited supply for which nations must compete. Modern medicine is one of the ties that bind the human race together regardless of ideologies and boundary lines. It is one of the rallying points of unity and is thus a foundation stone in the ultimate structure of a united society.42 Writing in 1951, Fosdick noted that China and the International Health Division had been the two most enduring interests of the Rock- efeller Foundation.43 Through its creation of the China Medical Board (discussed below) and the board's construction of Peking Union Medical College (PUMC), the Rockefeller Foundation's activities had consider- able medical and scientific impact in the pre-1950 era. When China's post-Mao Zedong leaders became receptive to American philanthropy, the Rockefeller Foundation's renewed involvement was a natural con- tinuation of its earlier interests. From 1980 through May 1984 the Rockefeller Foundation allocated more than $1.3 million in grants to the PRC. Most of these funds were dedicated to projects on population and plant genetics.44 The founda- tion's population-related assistance to China has given training oppor- tunities to Chinese scientists, financial support for returning Chinese scientists to continue studies begun during training abroad, grants ena- bling selected Chinese institutions to do work in reproductive biology, and support and assistance for CAS and the Chinese Academy of Medi- cal Sciences (CAMS). From 1979 to mid-1984 the foundation awarded fellowships to 22 Chinese scientists to spend 36 fellowship years study- ing in Western laboratories, primarily in the field of reproductive biol-
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS AND SPONSORS 87 ogy. To CAS's new Institute of Developmental Biology, the foundation contributed $350,000 toward the costs of designing and equipping a modern laboratory facility.45 The Rockefeller Foundation's involvement in medicine in China began in 1914, when the foundation established the China Medical Board "to take up medical work in China as recommended by the Commission tthe 1914 Rockefeller Foundation Commission sent to China to 'Survey Current Medical Work and Education']...."46 The China Medical Board quickly reached an agreement with the London Missionary Society to purchase the Union Medical College in Peking in July 1915. During the next three decades and more, PUMC was built into one of Asia's premier medical and training centers. It was national- ized by the PRC in early 1951. Following China's opening to the West in the late 1970s, the China Medical Board resumed its support of medical training and institutional development in the PRC. The board's first allocations went to the insti- tution it supported prior to Liberation, now called Capital Medical College.47 In 1980 the board allocated $250,000 for architectural advice on the design of a teaching hospital at Capital Medical College and $300,000 to replace pipes and boilers in the old PUMC Hospital. In August 1984 the board reported that since 1979 it had allocated a total of approximately $9 million for the following purposes: a series of grants to Chinese medical schools to enable doctors to come to the United States for one year's study, for matching funds to eight Chinese medical schools for overseas fellowships, for matching and nonmatch- ing funds to eight Chinese medical schools for research, for permanent matching endowment grants to seven Chinese schools for medical library support, and for a permanent matching endowment to Capital Medical College in Peking. In addition, various nonmatching funds have been allocated to the Chinese institutions involved, as well as funds for capital improvements.48 Other philanthropic organizations have also been significantly involved in cooperative medical training programs with the PRC. The Arthur M. Sackler Foundation and affiliated organizations have financed 16 grants that allow Chinese professionals to study in Ameri- can universities for periods of 1 year to 18 months. Covering the aca- demic years 1980-1981 through 1983-1984, the grants are part of a larger understanding with China's Ministry of Public Health. Nine grants were for students to enroll in programs of advanced English for technical interpreters and translators at Georgetown University. A sec- ond program provided grants to seven qualified doctors of medicine and other specialists in biomedical fields for postgraduate studies. Total
88 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED expenditures by the Sackler Foundation and affiliates on Chinese academic-related programs and activities for the period 1980-1981 through 1983-1984 were $190,000.49 Project HOPE, an American private voluntary organization, is help- ing the Chinese improve their health care and medical education sys- tems by creating or strengthening regional specialty care centers at leading medical universities. Since 1983, Project HOPE has helped the Chinese establish pediatric intensive-care units, learning resource cen- ters, a new four-year nursing program, and a master's-degree program in health administration, and has trained Chinese health professionals in stomatology (oral and facial surgery), coronary surgery, intensive care, neonatal care, preventive dentistry, hospital administration, biomedical engineering, and adult heart surgery. During this time more than 75 medical educators from leading U.S. universities and hospitals have helped their Chinese colleagues incorporate the latest medical advances into the health care system. Project HOPE has also helped improve learning resources in China by donating more.than 75,000 textbooks to health sciences libraries throughout the country.50 Culture and the Arts A major portion of American philanthropic support for art and cul- tural education activities with China has gone to the Center for United States-China Arts Exchange. Established October 1, 1978, the center is a nonprofit national organization that promotes and facilitates exchanges of specialists and materials in the literary, performing, and visual arts between the United States and the PRC. The primary objec- tive of the center is to stimulate public interest in the arts of both countries and to encourage collaboration among American and Chinese artists. Initial funds for the center came from the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF), and the Henry Luce Foundation; Columbia University contributes office space and some direct costs. The center is not a funding organization; it relies on contributions of money, materials, and services from foundations, corporations, and individuals to carry out its programs. The anticipated expenses for FY 1984-1985 were approximately $530,000, 3~/2 times the expenditure during the center's first year of operation.si The center's programs have focused on bringing Chinese to the United States and sending Americans to China to lecture, teach master classes, and give and attend performances. The response to these perfor- mances in both countries suggests that the center has had an enduring
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS AND SPONSORS 89 impact directly on Chinese and American audiences. In May 1983 Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman, directed by the playwright, opened in Beijing and drew full houses until the fall of that year. The production had the largest audience of any Western play in recent Chi- nese history. Isaac Stern's film From Mao to Mozart, a project facili- tated by the center, brought the reality of the Cultural Revolution home to a broad American audience.52 The Atlantic Richfield Foundation not only has contributed to the Center for United States-China Arts Exchange, it also made a grant of $177,000 to the Museum of the American Indian for an exhibition of American Indian arts that was held in China in 1981.53 The Asian Cultural Council, the only foundation in the United States devoted exclusively to Asian-American cultural exchange in the arts, has contributed to the Center for United States-China Arts Exchange, but also has initiated numerous fellowship exchange programs of its own. The council has provided grants to both Chinese and American artists and specialists to support the teaching of the arts, attendance at workshops, travel, and observance of cultural activities. From 1978 to 1984 the council provided about $133,000 in grants to fund more than 40 musicians, dancers, visual artists, photographers, architects, theater specialists, and scholars and to support several performing arts troupes, artistic publications, and art exhibitions.54 The council has provided grants to both Chinese and Americans to support teaching of the arts, workshop attendance, travel, observing of performances, and art exhi- bitions. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, in addition to its general support of the Center for United States-China Arts Exchange since 1978, has approved $475,000 to support the United States-China Arts Education Project, an innovative joint undertaking of the center and Harvard University's "Project Zero."55 Over three years, the Arts Education Project will conduct a comparative study of arts education in the United States and the PRC. The study will include the exchange of arts educa- tors. The Arts Education Project is the direct result of a project sup- ported by the RBF in 1982 with a grant of $60,500 to the Center for United States-China Arts Exchange. Those funds were used to cover the costs of sending eight American specialists to Beijing and Shanghai in connection with a conference on arts education at the secondary-school- age level jointly sponsored by the center and the PRC Ministries of Culture and Education. In summary, American foundations and philanthropic organizations have concentrated their activities in and about China on the social sciences, humanities, health sciences, culture and the arts, and, to a
go A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED limited extent, agriculture. These initiatives are part of a larger purpose to facilitate economic and social development and to enhance mutual understanding, thereby promoting world peace. This broad objective sets foundation programs apart from other American pro- grams in China. First, the foundations seek to identify areas of need unmet by other national-level initiatives. Second, the foundations have emphasized directly strengthening and developing Chinese institutions to a much greater degree than have federal programs. Finally, they have sought to develop American competence on China through fellow- ships and institutional support. The efforts of philanthropic organizations like the Ford, Mellon, and Luce foundations have greatly influenced the development of the entire Chinese studies field in the United States. In China, the past and present programs of the Rockefeller Foundation, the China Medical Board, and the Ford Foundation have had and will continue to have considerable impact. One further effect of foundation activity is worthy of mention. Para- doxically, although there is great continuity between the pre-1950 project themes of some foundations and their present activities in China, the central imperative in foundation programs today is to iden- tify and promote new initiatives. The tendency within other national- scale bureaucracies involved with exchanges is to preserve successful old programs. The dialectic between these two impulses serves the nation well. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS In the course of this study, inquiries were sent to more than 50 profes- sional associations identified in a directory* of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) as having international aca- demic or educational programs (see Appendix F3. The plethora of pro- fessional associations in the United States makes it impossible to describe all their activities; those reported below simply illustrate the range of programs currently under way. These activities include delegation trips and study tours as well as joint conferences and symposia across a wide range of fields, including education, political science, library and infor- mation science, agriculture, cancer research, physics, psychology, engi- neering, computer graphics, metallurgy, and basic health sciences. *1983/84 Directory of the AAAS Consortium of Affiliates for International Programs.
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS AND SPONSORS 91 Four professional associations appear particularly active in academic exchanges with the PRC: the AAAS; the American Physical Society (APS) (discussed in detail in Chapter 7~; the Computer Society of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE-CS); and the American Society for Metals (ASM). Other associations, such as the American Political Science Association (see Chapter 7) are just begin- ning cooperative activities with the PRC. Since November 1978, when the Board of Directors of the AAAS traveled to China, the AAAS and the China Association for Science and Technology (CAST) have exchanged several delegations, with emphasis on joint symposia and study trips. Most recently, a joint symposium, "Science in China's Past: Recent Discoveries," was held at the 1984 AAAS annual meeting in New York. The papers presented at the meet- ing focused on the reconstitution of ancient metallurgical processes by studying artifacts (archaeological metallurgy), studies of traditional Chinese medicine, and new research issues in the history of Chinese science influenced by archaeological discoveries. During the summer of 1984, a delegation of American scientists visited China to participate in a joint symposium on arid lands issues at the Institute of Desert Research in Lanzhou. In the future China plans to send a CAST man- agement techniques delegation to the United States and an arid lands delegation to the AAAS annual meeting. Aided only by small grants from NSF in 1978 and the International Foundation in 1981, the AAAS has borne its portion of the costs of its exchange program with CAST. The association's arrangements with CAST are typical of such exchange agreements: the sending side pays international transportation and the receiving side the domestic costs.56 The American Coordinating Committee of the American Physical Society has participated since fall 1983 in a small but unique exchange program with the PRC. This undertaking places experienced Chinese Ph.D.-level scholars in American universities so that they can gain expe- rience in modern research techniques. The uniqueness of the program lies principally in the fact that the scientists are carefully selected, mature physicists (ages 35 to 50) who are capable of assuming leader- ship roles in physics upon their return to China. The Chinese scholars are selected by CAS in cooperation with China's MOE. The American Coordinating Committee then matches them with prominent professors in American universities on the basis of their current research interests and abilities. After their arrival in the United States, the visitors partici- pate as a group in regular "Chinese scholar meetings" to share experi- ences and plan for the future. The areas of research being emphasized in this particular program are condensed-matter physics and atomic,
92 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED molecular, and optical physics. In 1984, 14 Chinese scholars were work- ing at American universities under this program. Under a financing arrangement stipulated in a Memorandum of Understanding signed by APS, MOE, and CAS, China would pay all travel expenses between China and the United States. During the first vear of the program, the Chinese also would pay the stipends of the MOE scholars and the Americans would pay the stipends of the CAS scholars ($12,000 each, per year). Thereafter, the Americans would assume responsibility for all stipends. Another feature of the program is that the Chinese offered to pay all expenses for U.S. host professors to visit China for up to one month each, thus advancing the goals of the program by directly exposing American professors to Chinese research interests. U.S. universities pay the American share of the stipends wherever possible, supplemented by funds from an Exxon Educational Research Grant ($20,000 per year). Other monies for running the program come from three separate sources: (1) The American program manager is a professor at the City College of New York, which donates a portion of annual administrative expenses. (2) APS contributes financially to vari- ous administrative expenses and travel in the United States. (3) The New York Academy of Sciences pays the costs of periodic meetings of the scholars in New York City.57 This program shows how many academic activities with China represent the collective efforts of many groups. Since 1979 the American Society for Metals has sent one delegation to China and received two delegations from the Chinese Society of Metals. The international airfares of the Americans traveling to China and domestic costs of the Chinese while in the United States generally were borne by the employers of the participating ASM members. This type of industrial support for exchange with China is widespread. Many com- panies have devoted considerable resources and employee time to host- ing Chinese groups and permitting their employees to participate in a variety of educational endeavors related to China. ASM has also co- sponsored three conferences that included Chinese scholars; one of these, the U.S.-China Bilateral Metallurgical Conference, was held in Beijing in November 1981.58 The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), a transnational organization with a quarter of a million members world- wide, started sending annual delegations to China in 1977 for the pur- pose of technical and cultural exchange. In addition, nine IEEE- society-based study groups have visited China since 1978, delivering lectures on a variety of topics in the fields of circuits and systems, communications, computer technology, control systems, magnetics,
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS AND SPONSORS 93 power engineering, quantum electronics, and radar/microwave theory. In 1978, IEEE began hosting Chinese delegations to the United States. The interests of these groups have encompassed many disciplines. Dur- ing its centennial year, IEEE received a group composed of representa- tives from three of its sister societies in China. Over the past few years Chinese representatives have attended many IEEE conferences, and IEEE has sponsored or cosponsored three conferences in China: the First International Conference on Computers and Applications (June 1984), the International Conference on Properties and Applications of Dielectric Materials (June 1985), and the China 1985 International Conference on Circuits and Systems (June 1985~. On July 17, 1985, IEEE celebrated the establishment of its first section in China, the IEEE Beijing Section, with a membership of 133.59 As the preceding examples illustrate, the principal exchange activities of professional associations have been delegations, conferences, and symposia. In the case of the American Physical Society, they have also included a program to bring Chinese scholars to the United States for long-term study. Much of the activity by professional associations actu- ally involves interested members. Very often, the members themselves or their employers pay for these efforts, making it impossible to estimate either the magnitude of their financial commitment or the numbers of persons participating in such programs. OTHER EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE ORGANIZATIONS Institute of International Education Founded in 1919 with a staff of four, the Institute of International Education (IIE) now administers 163 programs for governments, foun- dations, corporations, universities, binational agencies, and interna- tional organizations. As of 1984, its budget was $92 million; it had a staff of 300 in its New York City headquarters, six regional U.S. offices, and six overseas offices. IIE recently has expanded its activities in the PRC, including the mid-1985 opening of a seventh overseas office in Guangzhou. The China Guangdong Consultative Center of Talent Development, a provincial government agency, joined with IIE in 1984 to open the IIE/Guangdong American Study Information Center in Guangzhou, which provides counseling and advisory services to Chinese students considering study or training in the United States. The office, which formally opened in October 1985, offers the counseling and a reference library to Chinese students without charge. Both parties share adminis-
94 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED trative costs of the office, which is administered by a policy guidance committee composed of one representative of each party. Codirectors hired by IIE head the office, which will be staffed by Chinese personnel and American volunteers. The Luce Foundation has provided major support for this project; additional funds have been contributed by the United Board for Christian Higher Education in Asia and Trustees of Lingnan University.60 National Committee on United States-China Relations, Inc. The National Committee on United States-China Relations, Inc., was founded in 1966 by interested American citizens. The National Committee was established in the twin beliefs that public education about China was essential if relations between the two countries were to improve and that a public body should be established to stimulate seri- ous policy discussion of Sino-American relations. The National Com- mittee's membership and leadership have always been drawn from a broad cross-section of America's business, academic, public service, and community readerships. National Committee funders are USIA, USED, the Luce Foundation, RBF, the Ford Foundation, the Kettering Foun- dation, and NEH, as well as other foundations, corporate sponsors, and private contributors. With its 1972 hosting of China's Ping-Pong team in the United States, the National Committee, which had played a modest domestic role in public education about China, became an organization central to exchanges with the PRC. The initial exchanges were principally in athletics, the performing arts, and education. Over time, the National Committee sharpened the focus of its activities, with exchanges in the performing arts managed, for the most part, by the Center for United States-China Arts Exchange referred to above. Public education activi- ties in the United States have been handled by the China Council of the Asia Society. By 1976 the National Committee was primarily concerned with exchanges in the areas of public policy, governance, and interna- tional affairs. More recently, economic management and development, communications, and education have also become high priorities.62 From 1972 to 1985 the National Committee sent 63 delegations com- prising 1,288 persons to China and has received 91 delegations with a total of 1,077 members from the PRC. Since 1972, when the National Committee's exchanges started, the organization has spent about $6.4 million. Not all of these funds have been devoted to exchanges of delegationssome have been allocated to other programs, such as those mentioned below.
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS AND SPONSORS 95 Two National Committee programs deserve special mention: the Scholar Orientation Program and the Binational Dialogue. From its inception in the summer of 1980 through mid-1985, the Scholar Orien- tation Program involved more than 300 Chinese scholars. The program brings together Chinese scholars and professionals studying in American universities or research institutes for a 12- to 14-day series of lectures and seminars on American history and government and social and eco- nomic systems. Meetings with leaders in all branches of U.S. govern- ment, business, professional, and university affairs are an integral part of the program, as are visits to East Coast sites of historic and cultural interest. Chinese participants have been drawn from various profes- sions, with the majority representing law, economics, management, journalism, foreign policy, American history, and English language and literature.63 The National Committee's Binational Dialogue, carried out in con- junction with the Chinese People's Institute of Foreign Affairs, is an annual series of gatherings that bring together a core group of distin- guished citizensdecision makers and opinion leaders of both coun- tries.64 The first meeting was held in Tarrytown, New York, in Sep- tember 1984. The second took place in Tianjin, China, in October 1985. The principal rationale of the Binational Dialogue is a belief in the need for continuing, high-level, and unofficial discussion with PRC leaders on international questions. Moreover, it was hoped that this forum would acquaint leaders in both countries particularly the potential leaders of the future with one another's needs, problems, and aspirations. Finally, generational change in China made the latter consideration particularly important, as explained by a representative of the National Committee: On the Chinese side, a historic transition is now under way. The generation conversant with the United States through pre-1949 education is passing from the scene. This generation was crucial in helping reestablish the links between the two societies and in interpreting America to China's political leaders. Few people familiar with the United States are today in sufficiently influential positions to take the places of the members of that generation.65 Yale-China Association Founded in 1901, the Yale-China Association is a private, nonprofit organization that administers programs designed to enhance education and research in China and to improve American understanding of China and the Chinese people. The association is independently incor- porated and is administered and funded separately from Yale Univer-
96 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED sity. The Yale-China Association is affiliated through cooperative agreements with Hunan Medical College and Huazhong Normal Uni- versity in the PRC and with the Chinese University of Hong Kong.66 The association's principal activities are its English-language- teaching and medical exchange programs. Participants in the English- language-teaching programs, which began in 1980, spend two years in China. American participants in the medical exchange program, which started in 1979, spend from 1 month to 1 year in China; Chinese partici- pants visit New Haven for 6- or 12-month stays. The Yale-China Associ- ation also has occasionally funded individual Chinese scholars to work at Yale. From 1979 through 1984, the Yale-China programs had 63 American and 26 Chinese participants. Total expenditures during that period were close to $500,000.67 During the 1980-1984 period, about 5,000 Chinese students and scholars have received English language instruction and exposure to American culture from the Yale-China teaching programs. Fourteen Chinese physicians have carried out research or clinical observation at Yale, and 14 Yale physicians have taught and conducted research in China under the association's Medical Exchange Program.68 The association is financed by private contributions, revenues from Claims Settlement with China, corporate and foundation grants, NEH Challenge Grant monies, and income from the association's endowed funds.69 In addition to the exchange organizations mentioned above, there are many other programs of importance, including Stanford University's U.S.-China Relations Program, Volunteers in Asia, the Oberlin-Shanxi Project, the United States-China People's Friendship Association, and the Council on International Educational Exchange. CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS 1. The fundamental concept underlying the American government's promotion of bilateral agreements with Chinese governmental counter- part agencies has been the belief that it is essential to institutionalize the Sino-American relationship rapidly. One way to do this is to give the major bureaucratic entities in each country a tangible stake in the rela- tionship. Bilateral agreements, and the linkages between American private-sector agencies and all levels of Chinese society, have provided added stability to the bilateral relationship. Nonetheless, because the relationship is still fragile, the maintenance and further strengthening of institutionalized ties is important. 2. On balance, the programs of the U.S. government, private Ameri-
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS AND SPONSORS 97 can foundations, professional associations, and other organizations complement one another well. Nonetheless, three areas of academic need remain unmet: (1) There is no flexible travel grants program that would facilitate the participation of American scholars, especially in the sciences, in Chinese conferences. Foundation and federal funds for this purpose could be used effectively. (2) American natural scientists lack adequate support for engaging in their own individual research in China. (3) There is very little federal support for programs in the applied sciences, technology, and agriculture. More resources should be made available for these three purposes. 3. National-level exchange initiatives with China rapidly became involved in the development of institutions and programs after normal- ization. Because efforts to build institutions and to develop disciplines are designed to produce change, they inevitably create controversy in the society involved. Many of the programs discussed in this chapter focus on the social sciences and humanities, disciplines that embody values that were controversial in China before 1949 and are still so. The Chinese have historically wrestled with the problem of how to modern- ize without sacrificing the values central to their own national identity. It is essential, therefore, that American institutions facilitate change in a manner that is neither disruptive nor overbearing. 4. As American agencies become increasingly involved in institu- tional development in the PRC, they should remain mindful that Amer- ican institutions require adequate support to help U.S. citizens better understand China and to promote American scholarship in and about China. Such investments paid off handsomely in the past. In the 1970s both the American public sector and the private sector were able to move rapidly to establish and consolidate extensive ties with China because both sectors had made major human and financial investments in Chinese studies during the 1960s and 1970s. Given today's rapidly expanding opportunities, there is an even greater need to maintain and enhance the American capacity to understand Chinese society, history, and culture. The United States needs to maintain, and indeed strengthen, the Chinese studies infrastructure of libraries, Title VI lan- guage and center grants, and opportunities for language study and research in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the PRC (see Chapter 6~. 5. Change in China is creating new possibilities for study, coopera- tive and multiyear research, applied-science cooperation, and Ameri- can involvement in PRC education. Given the diversity of America's academic ties with the PRC, national leadership is needed in order to assess emerging exchange opportunities, to monitor trends in the rela- tionship, to mobilize economic and intellectual resources, and to focus
98 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED attention on the issue of access. Therefore, there continues to be a need for an institution such as the Committee on Scholarly Communication with the People's Republic of China that has performed these functions in the past. NOTES Douglas R. Boyen, ea., Open DOOTS: 1980/81, Report on International Educational Exchange; Open DOOTS: 1981/82; Open Doors: 1982/83; and Open DOOTS: 1983/84 (New York: Institute of International Education, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, respec- tively), Table 2.6. 2. This chapter is based on the authors' compilation and analysis of information from the following sources: The program fifes of the Committee on Scholarly Communication with the People's Republic of ChinaRecords covering 1979 through 1984 for participants in the CSCPRC's National Program for Advanced Study and Research in China and Distin- guished Scholar Exchange Program (now called the Visiting Scholar Exchange Pro- gram [VSEP], but referred to in this study as DSEP) have been computerized and analyzed in much the same manner as the United States Information Agency (USIA) and visa application data sets used in Chapter 3. Letters to foundations and professional associationsRequests for information on contributions to Sino-An~erican educational exchanges were sent to 54 professional associations and 51 foundations. Responses were received from 25 professional associ- ations and 32 foundations (see Appendix F). Additional SourcesQuantitative information about the participants in the Ful- bright Program and other activities was provided by the USIA, the U.S. Department of Education (USED), the Institute of International Education (IIE), and the Council for International Exchange of Scholars (CIES). In addition, telephone interviews were conducted with all federal agencies having bilateral agreements with the PRC, and questionnaires were sent to 64 Asian studies programs at American universities. 3. For an excellent discussion of these impulses throughout history, see Jonathan Spence, To Change China: Western Advisers in China, 1620-1960 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1969~. 4. The CSCPRC's National Program for Advanced Study and Research in China offers support for visits to China by scholars and advanced graduate students in the sciences, engineering, social sciences, and humanities. The National Program has two compo- nents: (1) the graduate program, which offers support for individuals with an M.A. (or persons enrolled in a graduate or equivalent professional study program) to either enroll in courses or conduct dissertation research at Chinese universities; and (2) the research program, which supports individuals with a Ph.D. or the equivalent to conduct research in China. 5. U.S. Department of State cable, unclassified sections, No. 03901, March 1984. 6. Ibid. 7. Wendy Lin, "China Joins with U.S. Universities in Effort to Teach High-Level Mana- gerial Skills," Chronicle of Higher Education Jan. 23,1985), P.36. 8. Ibid. 9. U.S. Department of State cable, unclassified sections, No. 12806, June 1985, PP.1-4. See also, Richard W. H. Lee, "Training Ground for a New Breed of Professionals," China Business Review (May-June 1985), P.42. 10. Wilma Fairbank, Americans CUitUTal Experiment in China, 1942-1949, Cultural
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS AND SPONSORS 99 Relations Programs of the U.S. Department of State, Historical Studies: Number 1 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, June 1976), pp. 153-155. 11. CIES, Annual Report, 1983, p. 18. 12. Fulbright Program Exchanges, 1983, p. 25. 13. From FY 1980-1981 through FY 1983-1984, the Foreign Curriculum Consultant program has brought a total of three Chinese professors to the United States for 10 months each, one during FY 1980-1981 and two during FY 1981-1982. 14. Beverly T. Watkins, "'The Fulbrights,' Prestigious and Romantic, Are Having Trouble Luring Young Scholars," Chronicle of Higher Education Dune 1985), pp. 23-25. 15. National Science Foundation, Division of International Programs, "U.S.-China Cooperative Science Program: Program Announcement and Guidelines for Prepara- tion of Proposals," December 26, 1984, p. 1. 16. U.S. Department of State cable, No. 366456, December 1984, p. 2. 17. Ibid. 18. Rose Bader, program manager, National Science Foundation U.S.-China Coopera- tive Sciences Program, Apr. 10, 1986. 19. One National Program grantee received an extension that enabled him to spend considerable time in Ningxia, although his principal host for the initial grant was located in Beijing. 20. This program was known as the Senior Scholar Lecturer/Researcher Program during the 1979 program year. DSEP is a CSCPRC program that provides opportunities for American and Chinese scholars to lecture, conduct seminars, engage in collegial discussion, explore prospects for research in their discipline, or initiate actual research projects. The program is open to American scholars at the full or associate professor levels, or their equivalent, whose visits will make significant contributions to develop- ment of academic exchanges in a discipline, especially collaborative research projects. 21. Francis Sutton, "American Philanthropy and Educational Exchange with the People's Republic of China," prepared for the Conference on Sino-American Educational and Cultural Exchange, at the East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, February 1985. 22. Ibid., pp. 1-3. 23. Mary Brown Bullock, An American Transplant: The Rockefeller Foundation Peking Union Medical College (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980~. 24. Sutton, "American Philanthropy and Educational Exchange," p. 27. 25. Ibid., pp. 1-32. 26. The above information comes from a letter from Robert S. Schwantes, Executive Vice-President, The Asia Foundation, October 1, 1984; and the Bay Area East Asia Newsletter, Vol. 6, No. 3 (November 1984), p. 2. Updated in October 7, 1985, letter from Robert S. Schwantes. 27. "The Ford Foundation and China" (New York: The Ford Foundation, September 1984~. 28. Ford Foundation Letter, Vol. 14, No. 5 (Oct. 1, 1983), pp. 4-5. Updated in telephone conversation with Peter Geithner's office, Oct. 16, 1985. 29. Douglas P. Murray, "CIRSPRC's First Year," China Exchange News, Vol. 13, No. 2 (June 1985), pp. 2-4. Updated in Oct. 1, 1985, letter from Douglas P. Murray. 30. Douglas P. Murray, "Foundation Support for Sociology in China: The Trustees of Lingnan University," in China Exchange News, Vol. 12, No. 4 (December 1984), p. 16. Updated in Oct. 1, 1985, letter from Douglas P. Murray. 31. Ibid. 32. Ibby Turnipseed, United Board for Christian Higher Education, phone conversation, Oct. 9, 1985.
100 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED 33. Information from letter of C. T. Hu, China Program Director, United Board for Christian Higher Education in Asia, July 6, 1984. 34. FBIS, Aug. 8, 1984, p. R4, from Tianjin Riboo. 35. China Experimental University Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1985), p. 3. 36. "The Ford Foundation and China" (New York: The Ford Foundation, September 1984). 37. Letter from James M. Morris, program director, Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Oct. 16, 1984. Updated by James M. Morris's office in telephone conversation, Oct. 1, 1985. 38. Information from letter of Terrill E. Lautz, program officer, Henry Luce Foundation, Inc., Nov. 5, 1984. Updated in telephone conversation with Terrill E. Lautz, Oct. 22, 1985. 39. Information from letter of Margaret C. Fung, director, Wang Institute of Graduate Studies, Nov. 19, 1984, telephone conversation with Dr. Fung, July 1985, and letter received on Oct. 3, 1985. 40. Information from letter of Scott McVay, executive director, Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, Oct. 31, 1984. Updated in telephone conversation with Scott McVay's office, Sept. 30, 1985. 41. Information from letter of Rita Goodman, vice-president, The Johnson Foundation, June 6, 1984. 42. Mary E. Ferguson, China Medical Board and Peking Union Medical College: A Chronicle of Fruitful Collaboration, 1914-1951 (New York: China Medical Board of New York, 1970), p. 5. 43. Ibid., p. 13. 44. Letter from Jonathan Wiener, Information Service, The Rockefeller Foundation, May 29, 1984. 45. The Rockefeller Foundation, "Rockefeller Foundation Assistance to China in Popula- tion Matters." Mimeographed, June 1984. 46. Ferguson, China Medical Board and Peking Union Medical College, p. 21. 47. In 1985 the old name of Peking Union Medical College was restored. 48. Letter from Patrick A. Ongley, president, China Medical Board of New York, Inc., Aug. 27, 1984, and telephone conversation with Dr. Ongley, July 1985. 49. Information from letter of Curtis C. Cutter, executive director, Foundation for Nutri- tional Advancement, Aug. 31, 1984. 50. Information from letter of William B. Walsh, Jr., vice-president, operations, the Project HOPE Health Sciences Education Center, Sept. 25, 1984, telephone conversa- tion, and letter from Kristen Foskett, director of public affairs, Project HOPE, Oct. 9, 1985. 51. Information from letter of Chou Wen-chung, director, the Center for United States- China Arts Exchange, Sept. 26, 1984, and U.S.-China Arts Exchange Newsletter, Vol. 5 (Summer 1984), p. 15. Updated in telephone conversation with Susan L. Rhodes, assistant director at the center, Oct. 18, 1985. 52. Ibid. 53. Letter from Eugene R. Wilson, executive director, Atlantic Richfield Foundation, Oct. 31, 1984. 54. Letters from Ralph Samuelson, associate director, Asian Cultural Council, Sept. 7, 1984, and Oct. 4, 1985. 55. Project Zero is a research unit at the Harvard Graduate School of Education that is devoted to the study of creativity and artistic thinking, and is named "Zero" because when philosopher Nelson Goodman founded the project in 1967, very little was
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS AND SPONSORS 101 known about the cognitive and developmental processes involved in artistry. Informa- tion from Project Zero pamphlet and letters from William F. McCalpin, program associate, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Oct. 1, 1984, and Sept. 30, 1985. 56. Information from letter of Lisbeth A. Levey, coordinator, AAAS China Exchange Program, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dec. 22, 1984. 57. Information from letter of Mildred S. Dresselhaus, president, American Physical Society, Nov. 27, 1984, and letter from W. W. Havens, Jr., executive secretary, APS, Oct. 7, 1985. 58. Information from letter of Sarina Pastoric, manager, Society Activities, American Society for Metals, Nov. 27, 1984, and telephone conversation with same, July 1985. 59. Information from telephone interview with Barbara Ettinger, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., Aug. 12, 1985, and letter, Oct. 10, 1985. 60. Memo from Peggy Blumenthal, IIE, Apr. 26, 1985; telephone conversation with Peggy Blumenthal, Aug. 29, 1985; and letter from same, Oct. 1, 1985. 61. Information from telephone conversation with Jan Berris, vice-president, National Committee on United States-China Relations, Inc., July 17, 1985. 62. Jan Berris, "International Relations Programs of the National Committee on United States-China Relations," China Exchange News, Vol. 13, No. 2 dune 1985), pp. 6-8. 63. Information from letter of Janet A. Cady, program director, National Committee on United States-China Relations, Inc., Sept. 3, 1984. Also, information from Jan Ber- ris, vice-president of the National Committee, July 17, 1985, and letter, Oct. 10, 1985. 64. Berris, "International Relations Programs of the National Committee on United States-China Relations," p. 7. 65. Ibid. 66. "Yale-China Association: Annual Report, 1983-1984," inside cover. 67. Information from letter of John Bryan Starr, executive director, Yale-China Associa- tion, Jan. 17, 1985, and telephone conversation, Oct. 23, 1985. 68. "Yale-China Association: Annual Report, 1983-1984," p. 4. 69. Ibid., p. 3.
