"To flourish, liberal education must be universal," wrote Stringfellow Barr, a mem-ber of the University of Chicago's Committee to Frame a World Constitution in 1947 and president of St. John's College after introduction of the "New Program" based on the great books. "It is either education for all men, or it is hypocrisy. Only a reign of law between nations will permit any government to concern itself seriously with the liberal education of its citizens." Barr was a leader among educators following World War II aiming to make fundamental reforms in American higher education to prepare the way for real world citizenship. Like others in his circle, he supported reform of the United Nations along the lines of world federal government, in order to guarantee the rights, as well as enjoin the duties, of world citizenship under a world state.
Toward the end of that early world federalist movement, Scott Buchanan, Barr's col-league and dean of St. John's, gave a commencement address in 1952 in which he re-flected on the political struggle for world government in the context of liberal educa-tion. "Some of you will, I take it, become citizens of the world. This may mean that you see the need for a world government or a universal church, as Toynbee suggests, but it more probably will mean that you will want to see that the laws that you live un-der are made truly universal and the God you serve less like an idol."
Barr and Buchanan may be taken as world educators in the strict sense that they aimed to develop liberal education as a foil to national education, taught principally in the high schools, in order to build identities with all humanity, which they saw as nec-essary for a free and desirable world federal government. Their idea was to end the in-ternational anarchy of states, only slightly modified by the new United Nations estab-lished in 1945, and to inaugurate the effective rule of world law under new representa-tive global institutions. The rule of law, they argued following Immanuel Kant, was the ground of freedom, and, following Alexander Hamilton, the remedy for the legislative defects of the Confederation. World citizenship, in their minds, would be the very ba-sis of a popularly representative world federal government. Such a government would be the work of the sovereignty of the people. A constitution of the world would vest the powers of the people in a higher form of government to protect their lives and liber-ties. A bill of human rights and duties, as in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, would declare the benefits and responsibilities of all human beings under such a government.
Hence, in this account, we will define "world education" strictly as education that would develop the promised world federation and hence world citizenship. Then, since the project of world federal government has proved very difficult to accomplish, we will turn to the broader field of "international education," not consciously designed to create world government but to advance all the processes of international under-standing and cooperation, particularly since the end of the Cold War and the coming of economic and cultural globalization. International education, then, is more open-ended and does not presume to foresee exactly where humanity is headed; it anticipates a fu-ture of political creativity not yet seen in any history of national states.
Historically, one of the precedents for the world federalist movement was Winston Churchill's proposal of Anglo-French union at the darkest hour of Nazi German inva-sion on 16 June 1940. One of the reasons it failed (though it inspired Monnet) was the lack of popular participation in the making of such a European union. There was a vast work of world political education ahead. World War II mobilized some 125 million uni-formed soldiers in a great war for democracy. By 1944, the people-soldiers and civil-ians on the home front-demanded that never again should there be another great war. They demanded international institutions to prevent it, and the leaders of the nations consented to the establishment of a revived league of sovereign states, the United Na-tions Organization. The time was a "period of flux," when even greater things could have been created, as former U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union William Bullitt ex-plained to world federalists of the time. Past educational efforts had taught many peo-ple what world citizenship would mean, thought student federalist Harris Wofford, and thus had helped prepare the future. Wofford expected that world education would carry humanity soon through the next step.
When atomic bombs were first used in war (after establishment of the U.N.), the atomic scientists were far ahead of most people in demanding the international control of atomic energy. They imagined an "atomic development authority" that would have had the minimal powers of a world government limited to the control of nuclear weap-ons. They were successful in educating the public that nuclear war could not be "won," but their international control mechanism, which called for abolition of the Security Council veto on nuclear issues, did not even get full U.S. support. Their plan-negotiated for the United States by Bernard Baruch in the U.N.-slowly failed through 1946. Scientists like Albert Einstein concluded that the control of nuclear weapons re-quired extensive education at home and abroad. It could not be achieved on an emer-gency basis.
Soon after Hiroshima, there was an impressive conference of internationalists in Dublin, New Hampshire, convened by Grenville Clark, Wall Street lawyer and associ-ate of Henry Stimson in the War Department. "Go back to your home," said Stimson after D-Day 1944, "and figure out a way to stop the next war and all future wars." The Dublin conference produced a ringing call for world government in response to atomic energy: "It is almost axiomatic that there can be no peace without order and no order without law. There can be no world peace until there is world order based upon prin-ciples of the limitation and the pooling of national external sovereignty by all nations for the common good of mankind." But Clark and his conferees, including Emery Reves, author of the best selling Anatomy of Peace, could see that what was needed was a massive program to educate people to demand world federation.
A follow-up conference at Rollins College under Hamilton Holt, a veteran of the public campaign to move Woodrow Wilson to advocate the League of Nations after the First World War, came to the same conclusion: Mass education was the means to trans-form the United Nations into a world government.
As the U.S. plan for the international control of atomic energy failed (though at the decisive vote in December 1946 only four clauses, all about the veto, were in dispute), Bernard Baruch, too, put his hopes in education. The abolition of war was what he aimed at: "Then would be turned loose the energies of mankind, the development of their bodies and spirit, and the comforts of education. It would release more energy than atomic energy could develop."
What "education" came to mean in the remaining years of flux is indicated by the political campaigns of the several world federalist organizations. United World Feder-alists (UWF), the mainstream, mass membership, American organization, formed rather late-two weeks before President Truman announced the containment doctrine, which marked the beginning of the Cold War in 1947. But it took time to reverse wartime good feelings for our brave Soviet ally, and the Cold War did not become a fixture of international relations definitely until the Korean War in 1950. There were hopes that UWF would grow to many millions demanding world peace under world law: radio commentator Raymond Gram Swing estimated that fifty million would be about right to produce such a transformation. If there had been that order of public sentiment, we would all be world federal citizens now. But the reality was that UWF grew to at most 47,000. (That was about the size of the Communist party of the U.S.A., which has drawn far more scholarly and public attention. UWF was the antithesis of the CPUSA.)
UWF's aim, according to a political action manual distributed to its state branches and local chapters, was to "elect in this country a [national] government that will put out its full efforts to get world government." Its methods were those of similar pressure groups in American electoral politics: organizing committees and chapters, writing let-ters, collecting signatures to petitions, distributing educational literature, holding public meetings and mass rallies, cooperating with other organizations, sending delegations to officials, lobbying with representatives, putting referenda on the ballot, preparing reso-lutions for legislation, testifying at congressional hearings, bringing the issues before party conventions and campaigns, and supporting candidates for office who had de-clared themselves in favor of world government.
UWF was never a political party, though that was a hope of some of the more radi-cal young members of Student Federalists, who were merged into the larger organiza-tion as the Student Division. UWF remained a non-partisan, conservative, profoundly critical pressure group in the mainstream of American politics. By the time of its first annual convention in St. Louis, Missouri, on 1-2 November 1947, UWF had weathered its start-up problems, had a firm membership of 16,000 in 17 branches and 315 chapters, and proposed a budget for 1948 of $500,000. By 1949, UWF was in the lead of all world federalist organizations at state and national levels, and it was the main support for the international organization, the World Movement for World Federal Government, which peaked at 52 national organizations and 21 affiliated organizations in 21 countries (total individual membership: 151,000).
World federalists succeeded in passing
resolutions favoring U.S. participation in a world federal government
in some 22 American states, and they introduced 16 resolu-tions
in the U.S. Congress, which led to instructive hearings in the
House of Representa-tives in 1948 and 1949 and in the Senate
in 1950. UWF's lead bill, HCR-64, was co-sponsored by 111 representatives,
including John F. Kennedy, Christian Herter, Peter Rodino, and
Jacob Javits. In the Senate, that world federalist bill was supported
by 21, including Hubert Humphrey, Wayne Morse, Claude Pepper,
and J. William Fulbright. One of their state resolutions was
the "California plan" providing for a Constitutional
amendment to permit delegation of U.S. sovereign powers to a
higher legal union, analogous to some 37 national provisions.
The plan passed in California, Maine, North Carolina, Connecticut,
New Jersey, and Florida. It was introduced or planned in ten
more before the Korean War put a stop to everything.
Barr and Buchanan then by their lights of liberal education transformed the Founda-tion for World Government into a kind of think tank for the long-range project of pre-paring humanity for the revolutionary project of world political union. Their motto was, "It's earlier than you think!" World government and world citizenship are far into the future. Most of their work took place in brilliant seminars led by Scott Buchanan and in funded studies that resulted in rather unsuccessful books prepared in the early Cold War in such new fields as functional economic and social cooperation, Gandhian nonviolence, individual educational field work anticipatory of the future Peace Corps, world development corporations like the new World Bank or future U.N. Development Programme, statecraft on the models of the Fabian Society and the World Zionist Or-ganization, world citizenship following French, not American, models, a federation of the federalists leading to establishment of a world federalist political party, and univer-sity institutes for world federation to conduct the intellectual research and publication necessary to guide humanity through a very long struggle toward the necessary gov-ernment of the whole.
There were two other notable developments of world education in the history of world federalism. Harry Truman, of course, won the election of 1948, against the Re-publican favorite, Thomas E. Dewey, Progressive challenger Henry Walace, and Dixie-crat Strom Thurmond. After the elections, Mortimer Adler reflected on their signifi-cance for world government. He was most impressed by Truman's victory, which was proof of a sort of what could be accomplished by straight talk to the people. Truman, of course, had not campaigned on foreign policy, but even on domestic policy his gutsy, whistle-stop campaign illustrated an important point about political education. Noth-ing does more to instruct the people in a democracy about their choices for domestic or foreign policy, Adler argued, than a candidate for office who risks his political neck by taking a stand on the issues.
Political education, said the great
exponent of liberal education, cannot really be ac-complished
in classrooms, journal articles, editorials, radio commentaries,
or books. It is accomplished in the personal involvement of an
appeal to the voters. Woodrow Wil-son understood this when he
took the League of Nations to the country. Roosevelt again and
again between 1932 and 1945 risked his neck to educate the electorate,
par-ticularly on the New Deal. "The lesson to be drawn from
these facts is simple," Adler concluded.
These sentiments would have been fully confirmed by Henry Usborne, who himself campaigned in his Birmingham constituency on world government, and he won elec-tion twice on the Labour ticket (in 1945 and 1950). Henry Wallace also had a world government plank in his Progressive party platform, and he actually fought the world federalist fight in 1948. The Progressive party was the sort of militant grassroots or-ganization committed to a broad social program, peace, and even minimal world gov-ernment that the movement aimed at. Moreover, the Progressive party had something that the world government movement always lacked-a leader of national proportions, Henry Wallace. One of the explanations-true as far as it goes-for the failure of the world government movement is that no prominent national leader, recognizing the ne-cessity of world government, came forth to lead the movement. Henry Wallace was the most prominent national figure in the United States who came even close to fitting this bill. Yet the movement shrank from him, over the untrue and bogus issue of Commu-nist domination of the Progressives.
The other instructive case about world education is the creation of Robert M. Hut-chins' Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions. The Cold War all but snuffed out the small but once influential world federalist movement. The Chicago Committee disbanded in 1951 and Common Cause ceased publication. Mortimer Adler prepared the Syntopicon of the great ideas to accompany the Encyclopedia Britannica in 1952, but "world government" was not among the ideas. "Angel" was a great idea, but not "world federal government." But by 1960 some of the old members began to gravitate to Hutchins's new enterprise, the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara, California. How this happened is interesting.
In the early 1950s, Hutchins, then an associate director of the Ford Foundation, ap-proved a plan by Grenville Clark, who with Louis B. Sohn had written World Peace through World Law, to create about a dozen centers for the study of world law around the globe. They estimated the project would cost about $25 million. That seemed about the right order of magnitude for the intellectual preparation of countries within the sev-eral civilizations to undertake the rule of world law. But the plan was stalled and fi-nally rejected when a narrow majority of the foundation board held that it was "con-trary to the policy of our government." Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, who pri-vately expressed belief in the concept of enforceable world law but who publicly was the chief advocate of the containment and even rollback of Communism, apparently sent very mixed signals to the foundation. The upshot was that Clark received only a pittance.
But in 1959, Hutchins, with Ford money, founded the Center for the Study of De-mocratic Institutions, which did not pose the risks for American foreign policy that a number of centers on world law in many countries would have. The fellows did not devote themselves to solution of the ultimate problem of world political unification but to preservation of democratic institutions in the United States. Adler, Scott Buchanan, and Rexford Guy Tugwell were familiar participants. (Tugwell drafted a model consti-tution for the United States.) Elisabeth Mann Borgese also entered the dialogue, and she republished the Preliminary Draft of a World Constitution in 1965. She also began there her more transitional work on the law of the sea.
Harris Wofford once said, "Federalists should wake up to the fact that they have stumbled into man's greatest revolution. It is the revolution to establish politically the brotherhood of man." Probably the European Union, which has been a slow growth since 1951, is the best model. Regional organization, as in Europe, can also be seen in the Arab League (1945), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (1947), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (1949), Association of Southeast Asian Na-tions (1967), South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (1985), Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (1989), Group of Twenty (1999), Shanghai Cooperation Organi-zation (2001), African Union (2002), and the Union of South American Nations (2004). International educators aim to contribute to the success of such international organiza-tion. They are building transnational cooperation in the transition to a more perfect un-ion.
A typical sign of the growing field
of international education is the appearance of the term "global"
in the mission statements of institutions of higher education,
such as my own, Worcester State University. Formerly it read:
It was revised in the 2002-03 academic
year to read:
What happened was that, after 9/11, the college realized it had to make greater efforts to break American national biases and to prepare students for living in a wider world. "World history" had already been introduced in the 1995-96 year, parallel to "Western civilization." Within two years, Western civ., still too narrow, was dropped. Such has been the pattern of recent international education.
To be a "citizen of the world" in recent times is not to be a sovereign of a world re-public, founded to protect the lives and liberties of the people under the rule of law, which can be enforced in world courts. It is an honorific-like "man of the world" or "Renaissance man" or "world server"-which is accorded to people of selfless, gener-ous spirits. Stringfellow Barr and Scott Buchanan, who devoted their lives to reviving the liberal arts at Chicago, St. John's, and core programs in many American schools and colleges, were two citizens of the world. So was Mother Teresa. There are many such people, honored by the Association of World Citizens.
The international education to produce such citizens must meet six broad needs of the future, according to Michael Zweig: a broader sense in the body politic of national interest, a new sense of international responsibility, greater intellectual cooperation, new techniques of conflict resolution, a more general experience of world cultures, and preparation for the creation of lawful institutions of world order. Zweig was critical of current devices to meet such needs, short of a centralized teaching university. Interna-tional exchanges of students and faculty, for instance, do not permit the free and vigor-ous exchange of ideas from all of the world's cultures. The foreign student in a host country is greatly outnumbered and usually is unable to effectively challenge majority values.
Secondly, centers for the study of international relations and programs for area stud-ies at existing national universities tend to be dominated by the foreign policies of their national governments. Since war is always possible, opposed creeds like communism or liberal capitalism (or now militant Islam) cannot be treated sympathetically. Thirdly, the UNESCO series of seminars, conferences, and projects such as the Associated Schools Project in Education for International Understanding and Cooperation are merely suggestive in the face of national school systems and are limited by their short duration and the failure to coordinate results and synthesize findings. International academic associations, a fourth alternative, also offer an opportunity for intellectual confrontation and some coordination of research, and their journals communicate to professionals the world over, but, as with UNESCO, the effect is dissipated because the meetings are so brief and the findings are not synthesized. Moreover, such academic meetings are not really oriented to students, so their educational value is small. Lastly, the international exchange of books and journals in the humanities, social sciences, and especially natural sciences is an impressive contribution to world understanding, but no one could doubt, from a glance at the daily news, that it has made a negligible impact so far on the culture of war.
Historically, the advocates of international education tried to enlarge the purposes of higher education in the West and even to create a dedicated world university, which culminated in President Lyndon Johnson's International Education Act of 1966 and in conferences in its spirit until 1974. But the act was never funded as the Vietnam War eclipsed so many of the projects of the Great Society. The whole notion of a world teaching university has been disappointed. Nevertheless, great private and some state universities have in the years since enlarged their perspectives without open profession of the ideal of world education. Harvard and MIT, Oxford and Cambridge, the Sor-bonne and Freiburg: these institutions attract students from around the globe and teach in the spirit of globalization, as is reflected even in mine.
The beginnings of international education may be traced to Paul Otlet, a Belgian educator, who presented to the new League of Nations in 1919 a detailed proposal for the establishment and funding of an international university in Brussels. The aim of the university, Otlet wrote, was "to unite, in a movement of higher education and universal culture, the [national] universities and international associations." Its organization was to consist of annual courses of lectures, in Brussels or another center, to which the na-tional universities would be invited to send their professors and lecturers; it would also be a research center for studies in higher education and in scientific, technical, and so-cial research in association with national laboratories and institutes. Otlet envisioned a large student body, of both young men and women, who were seeking to prepare themselves for the international civil service in the League, for international business careers, or for enlarging their general culture. Financing was to be provided by sub-scriptions from member universities, associations, and students; by grants from states, public authorities, and the League; by private endowments; and by any other means.
Otlet was supported by the Union of International Associations, also organized in 1919, but their petitions to the League never resulted in financial commitments. The reason may be seen in the remarks of Prof. G. de Reynold at the first meeting, in 1922, of the League's Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, which was formed to consider proposals like Otlet's. De Reynold explained that "the League of Nations, being the central organization for the coordination and control of international relations, is enti-tled to be informed of relations between universities, although it may not interfere with university teaching or infringe the sovereign right of states." That is, the League could make practical suggestions to governments and universities, but it could not carry out educational programs, with state financial contributions, that the member states had not expressly authorized, even for the building of public opinion opposed to nationalism and to the recurrence of another world war. Otlet's mistake was to suppose that the League really represented mankind's determined will to be rid of war. In fact, it was an organization of governments that jealously guarded their sovereign right to have re-course to war.
Nevertheless, before 1925 a number of other serious proposals for an international university were brought before the Committee on Intellectual Cooperation. Prof. D.N. Bannerjea of the University of Calcutta and Prof. O. de Halecki of the University of Warsaw made modest suggestions, but the League was too weak to confront the na-tions. After 1927, radical proposals for the creation of an international university fell on increasingly deaf ears. The Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva was founded in 1927 and the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in 1933, but these insti-tutions remained limited in scope and were unable to exert appreciable influence against the coming of the war. They were, however, precursors to the multiplication of international studies centers and to the internationalization of the universities through exchanges that followed it. So the Second World War came.
The Second World War forced a number of leading European and American educa-tors to the conclusion that, if the League had been too weak to prevent war, and inci-dentally too weak to give effective support to international education, then the solution to the problem of war had to be to replace a confederation of states like the League with a true federation of states and peoples. Moral suasion had to give way to the rule of law. Nation states existed in conditions of anarchy, like that of individuals before the creation of government; the historical moment has arrived to bring nations too into the civil state, into ordered freedom under law. This was the mindset of Hutchins and oth-ers at the University of Chicago, who formed the Committee to Frame a World Consti-tution in 1945. We have traced their efforts in The Politics of World Federation.
Hutchins found it hard enough to introduce a core program of the seven liberal arts at the university, rather than establish a whole new world teaching university. But he sent Barr and Buchanan to St. John's College, where in 1937 they instituted the new program of the great books, languages, mathematics, and lab science. Hutchins was eloquent in criticism of American higher education. In an address on the 25th anniver-sary of the U.N. in 1970, he charged that all educational systems are now instruments of national power. Yet liberal, universal education would be useful even for national sys-tems. "That Americans regard education as an economic investment is an illusion- American universities are dedicated to preparation for jobs, and they fail at that," he said. "True education aims not at manpower but at manhood. Nations would be wise to think of education as an instrument, not to power, prosperity, and prestige, but to the full humanity of their populations. Educators should prepare students for national and world communities." Ultimately, he implied, the world republic of learning will be-come the world political republic.
The Chicago committee vigorously supported the efforts of French educator and ac-tivist Alexandre Marc to establish a world university. Marc was one of the founders of the World Federalist University at Royaumont, near Paris, in late 1950. He wrote a ring-ing report on the project in the spirit of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man. Royaumont was to be a Universitas including all the universities of the world. It would be independent of nations because no national interest could have precedence over the universal interests embodied in the achievements of civilization and culture. The uni-versity would be based on the human rights to education and to free participation in the cultural life of the community (rights recently included in the U.N. Declaration of Hu-man Rights).
The university, Marc announced, should be autonomous before the law, in finance, and in teaching. It should organize scientific research on a supranational basis, and free culture from being a "servant of politics." The professoriate were to be protected by endowed chairs of strictly universalist teaching. New forms of exchange with profes-sors in national universities were provided for, and Marc looked forward to the creation of a migratory corps of professors who would bear the new knowledge to the world. Students were guaranteed essential rights and were to "rejoin" the human experiences of both labor and study. Provision was made for gradual establishment of a general system of grades and diplomas to encourage maximum exchange of students. Lastly, the university was placed under the protection of a proposed new cultural chamber in the International Court of Justice, pending establishment of a world federation, which alone could ultimately guarantee the cultural rights of man. Marc's experiment at Roy-aumont failed after a few years, but he continued to write, and eventually he founded a world federal college in Aosta, Italy, as well as the European Institute for Advanced In-ternational Studies in Nice.
As a practical matter after World War II, some international educators turned to UNESCO just as Paul Otlet and others had done to the League. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization was founded in 1945 by international educators who had met in London during the war in order to help education make greater contributions to internationalism. Its charter opened with the ringing words: "As wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that peace is to be con-structed." Its first director-general was the distinguished biologist Julian Huxley.
But the response to proposals of a world university was very much like the League's. One of the most substantial early proposals was introduced by Prof. A.B. Trowbridge for a group of American, British, and Italian veterans in Rome. Their de-tailed proposal called for a graduate program in comparative international studies, so-cial sciences, humanities, law, and languages. Participating nations would supply funds and students; UNESCO would appoint trustees and the president, who in turn would, with the advice of national academic societies, appoint the faculty. Instruction was to be international and dedicated to the U.N. Graduates were expected to return to their countries with "greater understanding, convictions, and vision of the many inter-national problems now critically before the nations."
The veterans' proposal seems to have been one of a series that led in 1946 to a man-date to Sir Alfred Zimmern to study the "possibilities of creating within the orbit of UNESCO a center for the study of international relations." But delays ensued in the most critical period of the early Cold War, UNESCO took a prudent course between Russia and America, and Zimmern did not report until 1948-to the effect that such a center would rival national institutes.
In 1951, a more limited international social science research center was also rejected, but the process did eventuate in the creation of CERN (Centre Européen des Recherches Nucleaires) in 1954. CERN was even more strictly limited to research in physics, it was not a teaching institution, nor was it open to physicists from outside Europe.
Through the '50s, as it became clear that UNESCO would not take the initiative, a group of Americans and Europeans in their private capacities founded the International Society for the Establishment of a World University, with headquarters in Stuttgart. Af-ter seven years of preparations, in 1960, the Society held their first summer session in Strasbourg. Some sixty graduate students attended a series of lectures on world hun-ger, East-West relations, and "the law of man." Next year the session was held at The Hague, where the International Society established permanent headquarters under Prof. E. de Vries, rector.
In the United States, similar efforts by the Federation of American Scientists, and by Dr. Karl Ewerts, who sought to create an international university on Ellis Island when it ceased to be used for American immigration, did not succeed, but they were part of an intellectual ferment. In 1960, Prof. William Heard Kilpatrick organized a small group of New York educators, the Committee for the Promotion of an International University in America, who produced a detailed plan. About the same time, in response to President Kennedy's proposal to create a U.S. Peace Corps, a group at the University of Michigan began exploring possibilities for creating a United Nations Service Corps as an interna-tionalist counterpart. They envisioned a U.N. university where doctoral studies would be completed by a tour of duty at the United Nations.
In 1963, Prof. Harold Taylor, a former president of Sarah Lawrence College, began a pilot project for a world college on Long Island. Taylor, at the peak of interest in inter-national education (1963-75), spoke and wrote eloquently about the "idea of a world college," the "world as teacher," and "a university for the world." When a U.N. Uni-versity was being discussed, Taylor wrote, "What is at stake in the development of the United Nations University is nothing less than the development of a planetary ethic and a radical transformation in the way the world looks at its own problems. The university can, if the circumstances are right, become the world's most trusted source of informa-tion, enlightenment, and ideas for global action." He was able to attract students from Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Latin America, Western Europe, and the United States. The faculty was non-American. Under pressure of constant confronta-tion, the young people rapidly shed the cliches of communism and anti-communism, and began to analyze in depth the multisided and complicated nature of international issues. Taylor's report, which has often been reprinted, remains an inspiration.
On the last day, some American blacks up from Mississippi and the civil rights struggle visited the school, and a discussion ensued about jail experiences, oppression of governments, and the philosophy of non-violence. The blacks then invited all to sing "We Shall Overcome." As the circle of young people from everywhere in the world, white and black, Asian and African, Western and Eastern, stood side by side with their teachers and sang the simple words, no one could doubt, Taylor reported, that to make a new world was possible. Harris Wofford, back from the Peace Corps, attempted in 1968 to create such a world university at SUNY, Old Westbury.
The high point of American efforts
in international education seems to have come af-ter President
Johnson introduced the International Education Act of 1966. His
message to Congress was a stirring call for higher international
The bill, with an initial authorization
of $131 million, was quickly passed and signed by the President
on his South East Asian tour in October of 1966. Academic officials
scrambled after the money. Some nine symposia on international
education were con-vened between the years 1966 and 1974 by such
A spate of new anthologies and books appeared-some bold and radical, like Charles Frankel's The Neglected Aspect of Foreign Affairs: American Education and Cultural Policy Abroad (1965) and Kenneth Melvin's Education in World Affairs (1970).
But Congress never appropriated the money. The heady idealism of the '60s, sparked by political leaders like Kennedy and Johnson, ended in the Vietnam War and the coming to power of Richard Nixon. By the mid-1970s, when it was evident that the International Education Act was a dead letter, American international educators seemed to be without a symbol, without support, and without a spokesperson.
In 1969, the U.N. University was established in Tokyo. Descriptions of it are always accompanied by the strange disclaimer: "The U.N. University has neither teachers nor students." It remains a granting agency for the preparation of specialized research pa-pers on topics likely not to disturb the ideological stalemate in the United Nations.
Nevertheless, the struggle for international education continued mostly without enlightened state or U.N. sponsorship and money, especially in other parts of the world. Lee Anderson provided a guide for high school and college teachers, Schooling and Citizenship in a Global Age (1979). James Baker wrote Education for a Global Society (1973). Kenneth Boulding edited a volume, "Education for Spaceship Earth," in Social Education (November 1968). Edward Boyle, a former British minister of education, ad-dressed the David Davies Institute of International Studies, Education for International Understanding (1965). Clark Kerr, president of the University of California system, ad-vocated in "Education for Global Perspectives" (American Academy for Political and Social Science Annals, 1979) that American education must graduate from isolationism to global citizenship by (1) systems approaches; (2) knowledge of other nations and cul-tures; (3) cross-cultural awareness. UNESCO produced a rather unusual critical study of the world press, Many Voices, One World: Communication and Society, Today and Tomor-row, by Sean MacBride (1983).
These titles were typical of the
transition to today's decentralized forms of interna-tional education.
Actually many international educational institutions have been
estab-lished since World War II, though none is a full world
university. They include the Collège d'Europe (1949),
the Institute of International Education (which expanded its
exchanges after 1950), the International Atomic Energy Agency
(1957), the Pugwash conferences (1955), the International Secretariat
for Volunteer Service in Washington (1962), the U.N. International
School in New York (1947), UNITAR (1965), and Costa Rica's University
for Peace (1978). Harold Taylor lists them all.