INCACBI Appeal to Academics: Boycott Collaboration with Israeli Academic Institutions at the Indo-Global Education Summit & Expo 2012, Hyderabad, September 7-9, 2012

New Delhi,
4 July 2012

Dear Colleague,

We, a group of academics, activists and artists in India, came together in June 2010 to campaign against yet another apartheid regime by extending support to the international campaign for the academic and cultural boycott of Israel.

The Israeli state daily tramples on the academic freedom and cultural life of the Palestinian people, and continued association with the instruments of such a state is unconscionable. We believe that academic life is rooted in the values of democracy, equality and justice. The pursuit of excellence in the fields we work in has meaning only if imbued with conscience. When Palestinian students and teachers are not allowed to reach their universities because of permit laws and checkpoints, universities and schools are leveled by bombs and tanks, food, textbooks, and medical supplies are prohibited from entering Gaza, and artistic events are closed down in Jerusalem, none of the foundational principles on which academic and cultural contact are based can ever be fulfilled.

Indian academia has historically played a crucial role in the liberation of our people, and to this day supports those who struggle against colonialism and foreign domination. We appeal to you, as Indian academics to join us in firm opposition to India’s strategic, scientific, military, and economic relations with Israel. We appeal to you to speak and act in solidarity with the Palestinian people’s struggle for self-determination. Please visit http://www. for further information on how to join and what you can do.

This letter is to bring to your attention to yet another instance of India’s complicity in Israel’s brutal occupation and human rights violations in Palestine. Hyderabad is soon (September 7-9 2012) to host the Indo-Global Education Summit & Expo 2012at the Taj group of hotels, to which a number of Israeli Universities have been invited. This meeting seeks to facilitate academic partnerships between Indian and foreign Universities towards “collaborative research programs, joint/dual degree programs, twinning and transfer programs, faculty and student exchange programs, study abroad in India programs, distance education programs, and vocational education programs”.

Although ostensibly hosted by a private organization, The Indus Foundation, which purports to be an “American organization of professionals working as authorized representatives and promoters of American universities in the Indian sub-continent”, the mission statement of this organization has been “firmly” endorsed Kapil Sibal, Minister of Human Resource Development, in the interests of the needs of globalization. The summit itself has been blessed with his good wishes, and MHRD and Ministry of Home Affairs clearance has been given to the event. All this indicates that the Indian state’s recent assurances of commitment to “the restoration of Palestinian land and the assertion of Palestinian sovereignty” (Shri E. Ahamed, Minister of State for External Affairs, on the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, January 28, 2011) are nothing but platitudes. Otherwise the GoI would have been appalled by the track records of Tel Aviv University, Technion, and Hiafa University, the three Israeli Universities invited to participate in the Summit.

All three institutions further the practice of institutional discrimination against Palestinian students (who are citizens of Israel) by severely restricting their freedom of speech and assembly and access to scholarships and student housing

1. Tel Aviv University (TAU):

Israel’s premier academic institution Tel Aviv University (TAU) is deeply invested in the facilitation and prosecution (at both the material and conceptual level) of what amount to war crimes.

  1. It has played the leading role in developing an explicit military doctrine of “disproportionality” calling for the targeting of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians and civilian infrastructures, and is at the forefront of the development of technological support to the Israeli military and arms industry. Indeed, many of the TAU faculty are also leading officials in these establishments – for example, a lecturer in the Law Faculty at Tel Aviv University, Colonel Sharvit-Baruch was also the former head of the International Law department at the Israeli Military Advocate General’s office. Similarly, another professor, Yitzhak Ben‐Israel, holds the rank of an air force General and is head of Israel’s Space Agency, as well as Chair of the Knesset’s Lobby for the Defense Industries.
  2. TAU’s research Centre, the Institute for National Security Studies, is heavily involved in military planning, and hosts seminar, workshop, and lecture programs jointly with the National Security College, IDF Command, and National Security Council. It is a key venue in advancing what it terms the ‘redesign of the IDF’ into a force capable of achieving ‘the proper balance between the three threat arenas: classic, non-conventional, and low‐intensity.’ In early January 2009, TAU’s quarterly Review offered a special cover story focus on TAU’s ‘major role in enhancing Israel’s security capabilities and military edge.’ It celebrates ongoing high‐level military and surveillance research being ‘conducted in rooms and laboratories protected by barred windows, multiple locks and office safes. Amongst other programs, the Review celebrates:
  3. New explosives research being conducted in the Organic Chemistry Department;
  4. Electro‐optical missile defence research in the Faculty of Engineering (funded by ELBIT);
  5. Laser and radar air defence systems being developed in the Faculty of Exact Sciences;
  6. Electronic eavesdropping and transmission tracking developments in the School of Electronic Engineering;
  7. New algorithmic email surveillance and data‐mining techniques being pioneered in the Fleischman Faculty of Engineering;
  8. Biometric and genomic sorting and surveillance techniques developed in the Chemistry Department;
  9. Aerodynamic and flight control mechanisms for unmanned aerial vehicles being advanced at the School of Mechanical Engineering;

2. Technion

The scientific research institution Technion has long been known to be complicit in Israel’s violations of international law and the rights of Palestinians, specifically by designing military weapons and developing technologies used to drive Palestinians off their land, repress demonstrations for their rights, and carry out attacks against people in Lebanon, Gaza, and elsewhere. Technion’s record of complicity in Israel’s violations of international law and Palestinian rights is too long to reproduce here, but here are some highlights:

  1. It has a partnership with Elbit Systems, which is one of Israel’s largest private weapons manufacturers. Elbit manufactured the drones that Israel used in its crimes against civilians in Lebanon 2006 and Gaza 2008-09. This partnership has played a leading role not only in the construction and surveillance of the apartheid wall in Palestine, but also along the U.S.-Mexico border through its subsidiary, Kollsman.
  2. Technion trains its engineering students to work with companies dealing “directly in the development of complex weapons in the process of researching their academic theses.” In one example with Elbit Systems, the reward has been the funding of research grants in upwards of half a million dollars to Technion’s students conducting research.
  3. One of the institute’s most notorious projects resulted in the development of a remote-control function on the Caterpillar’s ‘D9’ bulldozer “used by the Israeli army to demolish Palestinian houses and farms and the development of a method for detecting underground tunnels, specifically developed in order to assist the Israeli army in its continued siege on the Gaza Strip.”
  4. Technion has deep relations with Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, one of Israel’s largest government-sponsored weapons manufacturers famous for its “advanced hybrid armor protection system” used in Israel’s Merkava tanks. The institute has developed an “MBA program tailored specifically for Rafael managers” which further solidifies its relationship between academia and Israel’s military-industrial complex.

3. Haifa University

  1. Haifa University sponsors scholarships for army veterans and those who took part in the 2008/9 military attack on the Gaza Strip; and, as its former Rector, Professor Yossi Ben Artzi, has remarked through a 2010 press release “is proud to continue being the academic home for the security forces and to teach the IDF leadership a large number of different and diverse perspectives.” Professor Ben Artzi made this announcement following Haifa University’s winning of an Israeli army tender to continue training students at the army’s College for National Security for MA studies in the next five years.
  2. Another prominent professor at the University, Arnon Sofer, the Reuven Chaikin Chair in Geostrategy, in a speech on 15 December 2011, raised the alarm about the supposed invasion by Bedouins and other undesirable non-Jews and urged the government to act, presumably to expel them and retain the land for the exclusive use of Jews.

We hope this brief summary of the role played by these ‘academic’ institutions in the Israeli occupation and oppression of the Palestinian lands and people has underlined the need for a complete boycott of any academic relationship between Indian and Israeli Universities. There is no doubt that there may be many right-thinking individuals in these institutions as well; but continued or newly instituted educational ties with Israeli academic institutions, are exploited by the Israeli state as a means to legitimize its occupation. As Judith Butler has written, with regards to her visit to Israel years ago, “the rector of Tel Aviv University said, ‘Look how lucky we are. Judith Butler has come to Tel Aviv University, a sign that she does not accept the boycott,’ I was instrumentalized against my will. And I realized I cannot function in that public space without already being defined in the boycott debate.”

We appeal to you to publicise the information in this letter, as well as the boycott call. We seek your cooperation in exerting pressure on the institutional authorities of your University/institute to boycott any consultations\collaboration with Israeli academic institutions, both at the Summit and outside. In addition, we request you to mobilise your colleagues in our protest to the Indus Foundation ( and the HRD minister ( against the invitation of Israeli academic institutions at the Summit.

For The Indian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (INCACBI)
Upendra Baxi (Delhi University, INCACBI Patron)
Ayesha Kidwai (Jawaharlal Nehru University, Convenor)
Mohan Rao (Jawaharlal Nehru University, Convenor)
Gargi Sen (Filmmaker, Convener)
Githa Hariharan (Writer, Convenor)
Kamal Mitra Chenoy (Jawaharlal Nehru University)
Anuradha Chenoy (Jawaharlal Nehru University)
Achin Vanaik (Delhi University)
Janaki Abraham (Delhi University)

  1. G. Arunima (Jawaharlal Nehru University)
  2. Anand Chakravarthy (Delhi University)
  3. Uma Chakravarthy (Delhi University)
  4. Rupa Chanda (IIM Bangalore)
  5. C.P. Chandrasekhar (Jawaharlal Nehru University)
  6. Roma Chatterji (Delhi University)
  7. Anuradha Chenoy (Jawaharlal Nehru University)
  8. Kamal Chenoy (Jawaharlal Nehru University)
  9. Satish Deshpande (Delhi University)
  10. Rohan D’Souza (Jawaharlal Nehru University)
  11. Vasanthi Devi (Former VC, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tamilnadu)
  12. Jayati Ghosh (Jawaharlal Nehru University)
  13. Meena Gopal (SNDT Women’s University)
  14. Mushirul Hasan (Director, National Archives of India)
  15. Zoya Hasan (Jawaharlal Nehru University)
  16. T. Jayaraman (Tata Institute of Social Studies)
  17. Mary John (Centre for Women’s Development Studies)
  18. Kalpana Kannabiran (Hyderabad University)
  19. Nuzhat Kazmi (Jamia Millia Islamia)
  20. Farida Khan (Jamia Millia Islamia)
  21. Vina Mazumdar (Former director of CWDS)
  22. Nivedita Menon (Jawaharlal Nehru University)
  23. Aditya Nigam (Centre for the Study of Developing Studies, Delhi)
  24. Rajni Palriwala (Delhi University)
  25. Prabhat Patnaik (Jawaharlal Nehru University)
  26. Prabir Purkayastha (Delhi Science Forum)
  27. Nina Rao (Delhi University)
  28. Kannamma Raman (University of Mumbai)
  29. Rahul Roy (Indian Statistical Institute, New Delhi)
  30. Madhu Sahni (Jawaharlal Nehru University)
  31. Sumit Sarkar (Jawaharlal Nehru University)
  32. Tanika Sarkar (Jawaharlal Nehru University)
  33. Nandini Sundar (Delhi University)
  34. Vikram Vyas (Delhi University)

And 100 other INCACBI members

Stop the termination of Chatterji and Shapiro at CIIS

For Immediate Release
Jessica Hsu | | 415.200.7862
Eva Goodwin | | 415.846.5123          The Law Offices of Michael S. Sorgen | | 415.956.1360

Graduate Students Pursue Legal Action Against California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS)

Following months of unsuccessful negotiations with school administrators to safeguard their education

(San Francisco, October 25, 2011)– Thirty-eight students out of department of fifty have retained the Law Offices of Michael S. Sorgen to pursue legal action against the California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS) following the suspension of two core faculty of the Social and Cultural Anthropology (SCA) Department, Chair Richard Shapiro and Professor Angana Chatterji. These students believe the investigation into Chatterji and Shapiro has been in violation of institutional due process and protocols and are raising questions regarding the authority and ethics of particular administrators. The matter is currently before a Faculty Hearing Board, which is slated to convene later this week.

“Our initial analysis leads us to believe there to be serious violations of student rights,” states Sorgen, who has sent multiple letters to the Institute requesting a meeting with CIIS counsel and Administration since August 3, but this meeting has yet to materialize. The Law Offices of Michael S. Sorgen litigates matters pertaining to civil rights and education at federal and state levels, and one of their specializations is student rights.

The proceedings at CIIS have thrown Anthropology students’ lives and education into uncertainty, resulting in detrimental impacts on their physical and emotional well-being. Many have disenrolled and all have struggled to piece together their lives with the disruption and damage to academic studies and community-based advocacy work; some are scrambling for livelihoods without financial aid, while international students had to choose between paying for unwanted classes and losing their student visas. The situation has been exacerbated by what they strongly feel has been mistreatment by CIIS and the circulation of lies by Administration to justify the recent actions taken against core Anthropology faculty and a majority of students. Many students believe administrative actions have been inconsistent in dealing with student complaints. In late April 2011, a grievance was filed against a part-time faculty by 36 students, and students have received no formal report regarding their complaint to date; they suspect the investigation into the part-time faculty was used as a façade to extract information from students to build a case for what they understand as a “witch hunt” leading to the suspension of the two professors.

Unnamed students who participated in the  investigation have stated it is not their intent to ‘bring down’ the department, but have struggled to have their concerns and issues heard preceding the investigation. Other students demanding the reinstatement of faculty are concerned  that  the Administration is using student concerns as fuel to dismantle the department. The Student Handbook outlines a formal grievance procedure, and many students demanding  Chatterji and Shapiro’s reinstatement  do not understand why it has been bypassed, nor why the two faculty have been banned from teaching and advising during these proceedings. Moreover, many communications by the Academic Vice President (AVP) and Dean of Students (DoS) appear to be contradictory around the suspension and the investigation.

Many students  are disturbed that the proceedings seem in opposition to all institutional and faculty-led review mechanisms, which indicate high student satisfaction rates and a well-functioning department, including the promotion Chatterji received in 2009 (with outstanding commendations) and the renewal of Shapiro’s contract on April 1, 2011. For more than three months, students have repeatedly requested accountability and clarifications from CIIS Administration around the proceedings toward safeguarding their education and well-being. They say that their complaints, questions, and requests for meetings, starting 6/28, did not result in a collective meeting with Administration until 8/26. Students were disappointed that this meeting did not address their needs satisfactorily, and on September 8, 39 students signed a symbolic no-confidence motion against the DoS and the AVP, who also holds the titles of Interim Anthropology Department Chair, Dean of Faculty, Chief Academic Officer and Secretary to the Board of Trustees.

The Academic Vice President has recommended termination of Chatterji and Shapiro to the Hearing Board, and students now believe that their dismissal was the objective of particular administrators preceding May, when the AVP claims to have initiated the investigation.  A worker in higher administration has just placed on record a ten-page statement, which has been submitted to the Faculty Hearing Board.  The statement describes events that led to the worker’s understanding that the Dean of Students sought to instigate an investigation targeting Professors Richard Shapiro and Angana Chatterji and the Anthropology Department, beginning in March 2011, and that she requested and obtained permission from the AVP in April 2011 to do so.  Further, the statement details tactics of the ‘investigation’ that the worker witnessed and experienced, including the coercive solicitation of student complaints through promises of ‘protection’ and compensation for those willing to participate, and intimidation for those unwilling (to participate.) This statement is in contradiction to CIIS Administration’s October 14  ‘fact’ sheet which states: “It was not proactively initiated by the CIIS Administration.”

“We just learned about this employee statement indicating that Dean of Students initiated this investigation proactively in the Spring, confirming what students suspected. We are outraged and appalled to hear about the coercive solicitation of student complaints– how is this ‘research’ or ethical? The ways in which administrators continue to broadcast ‘facts’ in disregard of what has already been communicated to students is a gross betrayal of student trust in the administrative procedure and administration claims of good faith,” said Tanisha Payton, an SCA doctoral student.

Elizabeth J. Pimentel, an MA student, adds, “Chatterji and Shapiro were tried, judged and sentenced before they could ever respond to allegations made against them. Then they were told not to speak of it, and asked to be available for the remainder of the investigation, making Chatterji’s human rights work in Indian-administered Kashmir impossible. We are extremely concerned for communities and those struggling for justice in Kashmir.”

The latest actions by the Administration also include a publicly circulated ‘fact’ sheet dated 10/14 on the investigation of the Anthropology Department which students can refute point-by-point based on their interactions and documented exchanges with CIIS Administrators. Students perceive their mistreatment by CIIS as part of a trend in higher education toward the consolidation of autocratic administrative power and the dissipation of faculty and student rights. The Institute does not have a tenure system, nor does it have a faculty, student or staff union. Professor Shapiro has been at the Institute for 25 years, and Professor Chatterji has been there for 14 years. Both have been vocal advocates for collaborative governance and tenure.

The Department’s curriculum prioritizes social justice and advocacy research and is connected to community organizations and human rights activists around the world. “My work this summer was in support of refugee rights in Burma, and I had to cut my trip short because of the suspension of my advisor,” stated Jen Cordaro, another doctoral student in the Anthropology Department. “This targeting of our faculty has wide-reaching repercussions on marginalized communities around the world– these damages are immeasurable.”

On October 15, 40+ SCA students and supporters of Chatterji and Shapiro staged a rally at CIIS during a Board of Trustees meeting. The  rally had multiple demands, including: 1) the immediate reinstatement of Professors Chatterji and Shapiro to full faculty status, 2)  the immediate addressal of outstanding student grievances against the professors, but that such grievances be dealt with through the established institutional procedures, 3) the empowerment of CIIS senior faculty to constitute a body to investigate the role of the President, the AVP, and Dean of Students in the actions against the Anthropology faculty and their students and to determine appropriate disciplinary action, including termination of the named administrators.

On the day of the rally, MA student Safiya Bird-Whitten broke a 13-day fast she had undertaken in “protest of what feels like is the demonization of two professors who have helped [her] believe that [she] indeed [has] the capacity to be influential, who have challenged [her] more intellectually than [she has] ever been challenged before.”

Professors Chatterji and Shapiro have received an outpouring of support from academics, community organizations, and activist networks, including Asia Human Rights Commission, Jammu Kashmir Civil Society Coalition, and from organizations like the publishing group Verso who recently released the book called Kashmir: The Case for Freedom. Chatterji is a contributor alongside Arundhati Roy and Tariq Ali.

Angana Chatterji and Richard Shapiro work with social justice issues and disenfranchised communities. Chatterji is internationally renowned for her work as co-convener of the International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Indian-administered Kashmir (IPTK), and currently has sedition charges against her for her research into mass graves in the region. Shapiro, her life partner, was banned from Indian in November 2010 in connection with her work. Shapiro, also the Department Chair, is known for his anti-racist, anti-Islamphobic, and alliance building work.

For more information:

Reinstate Drs. Angana Chatterji and Richard Shapiro!

To the Board of Trustees of CIIS and President Joseph Subbiondo:


We, undersigned faculty and allies, were shocked to learn about the suspension and ongoing termination proceedings against Professors Angana Chatterji and Richard Shapiro of the Social and Cultural Anthropology Department at California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS).


In a time of increasing corporatization and mediocrity of the Academy, which degrade and devalue spaces for progressive thought and politics, we are deeply disturbed to hear about the targeting of Professors Chatterji and Shapiro. Their academic and advocacy work have focused on justice and restitution in conflict areas, anti-oppression work, and scholarship critical of systemic forms of oppression. This work should especially merit support from an institution which claims as one of its primary ideals “to further the effectiveness of emancipatory movements such as feminism, social and political liberation, cultural self-expression, and ecological activism”.


We are appalled to hear about the many procedural irregularities in the investigation against Professors Chatterji and Shapiro, as well as the student testimonies of mistreatment throughout these proceedings by members of the CIIS administration. We understand that the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has examined all of the evidence presented to faculty by the administration and urged their reinstatement. We also understand that a majority of their students insist that their education continue with Chatterji and Shapiro, and have secured legal counsel to demand their professor’s reinstatement.


We see this targeting of Professors Chatterji and Shapiro, and their students, as part of a trend to consolidate autocratic administrative powers in higher education, which undermines academic freedom and faculty and students rights. We understand that both Professors Chatterji and Shapiro have been a vocally political force within the Institute and have consistently advocated for collective and participatory governance, student rights, and faculty empowerment at CIIS. The Anthropology Department, designed to privilege social justice and advocacy, enables academic and ADVOCACY work in solidarity with marginalized communities.


We urge that CIIS extend its support for education offered by Angana Chatterji and Richard Shapiro.


We urgently request:

1. The IMMEDIATE reinstatement of Professors Chatterji and Shapiro to their full faculty status, in keeping with the AAUP’s August 11th letter to CIIS;


2. The IMMEDIATE formation of a faculty committee, with the guidance of the AAUP, to investigate the conduct of the relevant Institute Administrators in this matter, with the power to terminate any

Administrator for misconduct of a grave nature;


3. An expeditious procedure addressing Anthropology students’ grievances about the degradation of their education and their experiences of mistreatment by members of the Administration;


4. That any credible and outstanding grievances against Chatterji and Shapiro be dealt with through established protocols.


Please be informed that we will continue to watch this matter very closely.



Area Studies programs are facing drastic cuts!

The following is a letter sent out by Gail Hershatter, President of the Association for Asian Studies.  I’m reposting it here because so many people have asked me about what is happening with respect to the Area Studies programs around the country.  Already hit by state budget cuts, area studies programs are not being hit with drastic federal cuts which will cripple if not entirely destroy area studies programs in certain cases.  I don’t agree with the lobbying strategy that is outlined below (largely because I don’t think that Democrats or Republicans are particularly interested in restoring funding to education in any substantial way) but there are excellent resources in the letter that I wanted to pass along.

Threats to Title VI Programs
Information and How You Can Help

Dear AAS Members,

As scholars whose work centers on Asia, many of us have watched with dismay this spring as government support for Title VI programs was cut and the Fulbright-Hays grants for 2011-12 were eliminated altogether (see our news item from April, 2011). This is an issue that we will continue to track closely, speaking out on behalf of Asian Studies scholars about the importance of restoring this funding.

Miriam Kazanjian of the Coalition for International Education, who represents the AAS and similar scholarly organizations in Washington, has provided a list of articles, blogs and Facebook pages on the Title VI/Fulbright funding cuts. The most recent articles appear on the TIME Magazine and Council on Foreign Relations websites. The list is included at the end of this message. We will continue to update this list and to alert our membership at moments where our individual and collective voices should be heard.

Here are some points to keep in mind with respect to NEXT year’s budget process, with suggestions for action drawn from Miriam Kazanjian’s Coalition for International Education materials:

The Congressional FY 2012 budget process will be as difficult, if not more so, than the FY 2011 appropriations process. We are doing our best to encourage Congress to restore funding for Title VI/Fulbright to their FY 2010 levels, which in this political climate will be a steep challenge.

1) MEETINGS WITH CONGRESSIONAL OFFICES AND LETTERS OF SUPPORT. If you are a current or past Title VI/Fulbright grantee, the Coalition is encouraging targeted meetings with your Congressional delegation, in consultation with your campus federal relations officer (see more below about the key Congressional committees). If your campus has multiple Title VI centers/programs, it would be a good idea to team up with the others on your visits. Many Congressional Members are new and need to be briefed by grantees on what the programs do, how they serve the national interest, what will be lost with the FY11 cuts, and what will be lost if the programs are ZEROED in the FY 2012 budget. If you are not a current grantee, letters of support nonetheless are needed.

Letters and meetings are timely now. The House Subcommittee on Labor/HHS/ED Appropriations is scheduled to mark up its FY 2012 bill on July 26, with full committee markup in early August. They have been setting priorities. The comparable Senate subcommittee will continue to hold hearings in the next couple of weeks, but are beginning to set priorities as well.

2) ADVOCACY MATERIALS. Listed below are three additional documents posted on the AAS website.

a) Committee Lists (Excel file). The first document contains spreadsheets of House and Senate Subcommittees on Labor/HHS/ED Appropriations as well as the full Appropriations Committees. Check to see if your state has a Member(s) on these committees, and either write a letter of support, or ask for a meeting, especially if you are a grantee.

If you have no Members on the Appropriations Committees, letters to your Representative and two Senators are important. You may urge that they contact the Labor/HHS/ED subcommittee chairmen in the respective chambers requesting that Title VI/Fulbright funding be restored to FY 2010 levels.

b) Results for Title VI-Part A, International Education and Foreign Language Studies: This document provides examples of specific outcome indicators for Part A programs, particularly what the grantees have achieved with the enhancements provided by Congress since 9/11. In particular, please see a new table of NRC sample language course and enrollment increases since FY 2000, which are significant. Feel free to emphasize in your letters and meetings data outlined in the document, especially how Title VI centers have responded to Congressional directives since the post-9/11 enhancements.

c) Title VI/Fulbright-Hays Talking Points: This document provides generic talking points that you may wish to use in letters. Please note that the following language is what the Coalition is requesting the Congress to do:

“We understand the tremendous pressures on the federal budget and the difficult decisions Congress faces on spending. However, we are deeply concerned over the severe and disproportionate $50 million or 40% cut under the FY 2011 Continuing Resolution to HEA-Title VI/Fulbright-Hays programs, the U.S. Department of Education’s premier international education programs.

“We strongly urge that Congress safeguard these programs by restoring funding in the FY 2012 appropriations to the FY 2010 level of $125.881 million, which includes $108.4 million for Title VI-A&B; $15.6 million for Fulbright-Hays 102(b)(6); and $1.9 million for the Title VI-C, Institute for International Public Policy.”

In your letters, feel free to use this lead in, followed by information about the impact of your current Title VI/Fulbright grant, or one that you might have had in the past, or other ways you have benefited from these programs. Anecdotal stories demonstrating impact are effective, as well as what will be lost if these cuts continue into FY 2012. Remember that personal letters are more effective than form letters.

Also note that some in Congress and the Administration think other federal agencies or the universities themselves should sustain Title VI programs. Include in your letters what will be lost without Title VI funds. For example, state governments and foundations will not fund these activities on the steady basis required to meet ongoing national capacity needs, which is a federal role, and in this case a Department of Education role.

3) THIRD PARTY VALIDATORS. Seek third parties who have benefited from Title VI/Fulbright programs and are willing to write to your Congressional delegation urging restoration of funding, such as former students and outreach recipients. Letters should be 1-2 pages, flagging the program, expressing concern over the disproportionate cuts, stating the dollar restoration paragraph noted above, and providing one or two examples of how they have benefited from the programs.

The National Humanities Alliance has kindly posted on its website Title VI issue and action pages, including a form letter with optional add-in information, which anybody can use to send a letter to your Representative and two Senators:

4) PRESS ARTICLES AND OP-EDs. Seek press articles about the cuts and their impact. Below is a list of articles, blogs and Facebook pages that have emerged thus far and that I am aware of. Also, look for prominent Title VI beneficiaries willing and in a position to write an op-ed article in your local newspaper or in a high recognition newspaper like the Washington Post, NYTimes, LATimes, etc.

5) FEEDBACK. Finally, provide feedback directly to Miriam A. Kazanjian of CIE on the following: (a) What contacts are made with Congressional offices and outcomes; and (b) the impact of the FY11 cuts on your campus. Contact Miriam Kazanjian at or (301) 230-9214.

With best wishes for a restful and productive summer,
Gail Hershatter
President, AAS


Title VI/FH Articles and Blogs as of June 20, 2011



Title VI/FH Blogs