Fulbright Quotes

What is it? Tens, I can see the stick up your arse from here. I'm dying remember? Dying people don't have time for silly moods

The true mark of greatness is not stridency but magnanimity.

Maturity requires a final accommodation between our aspirations and our limitations.

To criticize one's country is to do it a service... Criticism, in short, is more than a right; it is an act of patriotism--a higher form of patriotism, I believe, than the familiar rituals and national adulation.

The idea that power was an end in itself, rather than a means to provide the security and opportunity necessary for the pursuit of happiness, seemed to him stupid and self-defeating." (about Senator Fulbright)

The mature nation, like the mature man, is one which has made a workable accommodation between its aspirations and its limitations.

Senator Fulbright gave a speech on the floor of the Senate, and said of the late physicist, “Let us remember not only what his special genius did for us; let us also remember what we did to him.

Even with a Democratic president behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a far larger percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for it. Eminent Democratic luminaries voted against it, including Senators Ernest Hollings, Richard Russell, Sam Ervin, Albert Gore Sr., J. William Fulbright (Bill Clinton’s mentor) and of course, Robert Byrd. Overall, 82 percent of Senate Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, compared to only 66 percent of Democrats. In the House, 80 percent of Republicans voted for it, while only 63 percent of Democrats did. Crediting Democrats for finally coming on board with Republicans civil rights policies by supporting the 1964 act would be nearly as absurd as giving the Democrats all the glory for Regan’s 1981 tax cuts - which passed with the support of 99 percent of Republicans but only 29 percent of Democrats.

Knowledge does not equate to intelligence. It is the application of knowledge that separates the genius from the fool.

In a democracy dissent is an act of faith.

No alliance can long survive if each member bases its policies on the assumption that its partners will honor their commitments only so long as they find it easy and convenient to do so.

The same question might be asked about the educational system. In 2016, an American professor and Fulbright scholar named William Doyle, just returned from a semester-long appointment at the University of Eastern Finland, wrote in the Los Angeles Times that for those five months, his family “experienced a stunningly stress-free, and stunningly good, school system.” His seven-year-old son was placed in the youngest class—not because of some developmental delay, but because children younger than seven “don’t receive formal academic training . . . Many are in day care and learn through play, songs, games and conversation.” Once in school, children get a mandated fifteen-minute outdoor recess break for every forty-five minutes of in-class instruction. The educational mantras Doyle remembers hearing the most while there: “‘Let children be children,’ ‘The work of a child is to play,’ and ‘Children learn best through play.’” And as far as outcomes go? Finland consistently ranks at or near the top of educational test score results in the Western world and has been ranked the most literate nation on Earth.[17] “The message that competition is appropriate, desirable, required, and even unavoidable is drummed into us from nursery school to graduate school; it is the subtext of every lesson,” writes educational consultant Alfie Kohn in his excellent book No Contest: The Case Against Competition: Why We Lose in Our Race to Win, which documents the negative impact of competition on genuine learning, and how

The last time the "best and brightest" got control of the country, they dragged it into a protracted, demoralizing war in Southeast Asia, from which the country has still not fully recovered. Yet Reich seems to believe that a new generation of Whiz Kids can do for the faltering American economy what Robert McNamara's generation failed to do for American diplomacy: to restore, through sheer brainpower, the world leadership briefly enjoyed by the United States after World War II and subsequently lost not, of course, through stupidity so much as through the very arrogance the "arrogance of power," as Senator William Fulbright used to call it to which the "best and brightest" are congenitally addicted. This arrogance should not be confused with the pride characteristic of aristocratic classes, which rests on the inheritance of an ancient lineage and on the obligation to defend its honor. Neither valor and chivalry nor the code of courtly, romantic love, with which these values are closely associated, has any place in the world view of the best and brightest. A meritocracy has no more use for chivalry and valor than a hereditary aristocracy has for brains. Although hereditary advantages play an important part in the attainment of professional or managerial status, the new class has to maintain the fiction that its power rests on intelligence alone. Hence it has little sense of ancestral gratitude or of an obligation to live up to responsibilities inherited from the past. It thinks of itself as a self-made elite owing its privileges exclusively to its own efforts. Even the concept of a republic of letters, which might be expected to appeal to elites with such a large stake in higher education, is almost entirely absent from their frame of reference.

From the right, Ted—it simply had to be a guy named Ted—finally made his entrance. He wore only Zoom shorts, and his abdomen was rippled like a relief map in marble. He was probably in his early twenties, model handsome, and he squinted like a prison guard. As he sashayed toward the shoot, Ted kept running both hands through his Superman blue-black hair, the movement expanding his chest and shrinking his waist and demonstrating shaved underarms. Brenda muttered, “Strutting peacock.” “That’s totally unfair,” Myron said. “Maybe he’s a Fulbright scholar.” “I’ve worked with him before. If God gave him a second brain, it would die of loneliness.” Her eyes veered toward Myron. “I don’t get something.” “What?” “Why you? You’re a sports agent. Why would Norm ask you to be my bodyguard?” “I used to work”—he stopped, waved a vague hand—“for the government.” “I never heard about that.” “It’s another secret. Shh.” “Secrets don’t stay secret much around you, Myron.” “You can trust me.” She

For instance, there was the case of Nancy Schmeing, who had recently earned her doctorate in physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Incredibly, Schmeing failed the reading comprehension section of the new [Massachusetts] teacher test, which required one to quickly read short essays and then choose the one "best" answer among those provided by the test maker. The exam supposedly assessed one's ability to boil down the essential meanings of prose. Schmeing's failing the reading section created a small furor about the test's credibility. After graduating from MIT, Schmeing worked as a technical consultant, translating engineering, science, and business documents for clients around the world. Thus, the very nature of her work necessitated the ability to find essential meanings in written texts, to comprehend a writer's purpose, and so forth. Moreover, Schmeing was a Fulbright scholar, had graduated magnum cum laude from college ... Schmeing's failure simply defied common sense, fueling concerns over the exam's predictive validity.

Corollary to acknowledging the political purposes of foreign aid is a clear recognition of the fact that a meaningful and effective aid program, far from avoiding intervention in the affairs of the recipient, in fact constitutes intervention of a most profound character. Its purposes is nothing less than the reshaping of a society, of its internal life and, in less obvious ways, of its relations with the outside world. Indeed the determinant of our aid - of whether or not we extend it and whether or not a country will wish to have it - must be the kind of internal changes it can be expected to bring about and the effect which these changes will have on the interests of both the donor and the recipient. The question, therefore, is not one of intervention or nonintervention per se but of the ends and means of intervention.

My question is whether America can overcome the fatal arrogance of power.

As long as you SIT, you Stay In Trouble. Once you STAND, you Shift Toward A New Direction, take a STEP, and Start To Embrace Purpose, then WALK to Welcome Abundance, Love and Knowledge.

L’estinzione dello statista Gary Hart* | 805 parole Per quelli di noi che hanno avuto il privilegio di servire nel Congresso degli Stati Uniti alcuni anni fa, ci sono notevoli differenze tra i migliori dei nostri colleghi di allora e molti degli attuali membri delle due Camere. Le differenze hanno a che fare con la levatura e le doti di statista. Come si spiega questa differenza? Ha in gran parte a che fare con la rivoluzione nei media. Le tre principali tribune trent’anni fa o giù di lì erano i programmi delle interviste della domenica mattina mandate in onda sui network e, in misura minore, i programmi quotidiani del mattino. Cronisti politici di lungo corso e intervistatori erano ben versati nelle questioni del giorno e avevano accumulato anni di esperienza sulle vicende nazionali e internazionali. Ci si aspettava che i personaggi politici, in particolare tra i candidati ad incarichi nazionali, sapessero di che cosa stessero parlando, e se così non era, le loro pecche erano evidenti. Le interviste e le discussioni erano serie, ma raramente conflittuali e certamente non di parte. Più di recente, le cose sono cambiate. Adesso abbiamo trasmissioni non-stop via cavo, network partigiani, intervistatori che si distinguono solo per il sensazionalismo e le polemiche, conduttori pieni di sé abili nell’arte del comizio, batterie di sconosciuti «strateghi» politici con poca o nessuna esperienza al di là di una precedente campagna (e un parrucchiere) domande conflittuali che sottintendono la malafede dell’intervistato, e un generale disprezzo per i personaggi politici basata sulla superiorità dell’intervistatore. In breve, i media - i mezzi con cui gli eletti comunicano con i cittadini - sono ora un quarto ramo del governo e si ritengono uguali se non superiori rispetto ai rappresentanti eletti e si auto-attribuiscono il ruolo di tribuni della plebe. E in cima a questo, la compressione dei media - la necessità di comunicare con slogan di otto secondi e con i 140 caratteri di un tweet. Il risultato è che si privilegiano politici loquaci, brillanti, affascinanti e semplici rispetto a quelli del passato più inclini a essere riflessivi, determinati, sostanziali e diplomatici. Questo processo sacrifica gli statisti, uomini e donne istruiti, e con esperienza nell’arte del governo. L’ulteriore risultato è la divisione della nazione in fazioni avverse servite da media di parte che riciclano pregiudizi diffusi e dogmi e con poco riguardo per un’analisi ponderata dei complessi temi nazionali e internazionali che richiedono senso della storia, impegno per l’interesse nazionale a lungo termine e il prevalere del senso dello Stato sullo spirito di parte. Si sbaglierebbe, tuttavia, a credere che la massiva trasformazione dei media sia la sola responsabile per la diminuita statura dei leader. E’ colpa anche della conversione dei legislatori in cacciatori di fondi a pieno tempo e la costante opposizione di eserciti di lobbisti. Anche i senatori, che restano in carica per sei anni, sprecano una parte di ogni giorno di quei sei anni a questuare contributi. È umiliante per loro e per la nazione che servono. A rischio di farne una questione personale, mettete a confronto (se avete una certa età) l’attuale generazione di politici che aspirano a un incarico di rilievo nazionale con, per esempio, Abe Ribicoff, Stuart Symington, Mike Mansfield, Gaylord Nelson, Charles Mathias, Jacob Javits Clifford Case, Ed Muskie, William Fulbright, Hubert Humphrey, e molti, molti altri. Andati. Tutti andati. Nell’America di oggi ci sono di certo figure di uguale statura. Ma pochi di loro si sottoporrebbero al frullatore mediatico, all’umiliante ricerca di fondi e alla lotta nel fango dell’arena politica che viene definito percorso legislativo. E’ troppo aspettarsi a breve termine il ritorno a un processo politico più serio. C’è troppo denaro dei media e potere in gioco, nel sistema attuale. E non ci sarà mai carenza di perso

Support for this view came from the most unexpected quarters. In a book published in 1966, Senator James W. Fulbright argued that America had become involved in the fighting in Vietnam because we had come to regard “communism as a kind of absolute evil, as a totally pernicious doctrine which deprives the people subjected to it of freedom, dignity, happiness, and the hope of ever acquiring them.… This view of communism as an evil philosophy is a distorting prism through which we see projections of our own minds rather than what is actually there.” Little more than ten years before the mass exodus of the boat people who were desperately seeking to escape their Communist liberators, Fulbright suggested that “some countries are probably better off under communist rule than they were under preceding regimes; … some people may even want to live under communism.”10

Abruptly, Gloria Fulbright stood up from the table and announced, “That’s it, we’re going.” Alan looked up at her sharply. “Going? But I was going to have another slice of pie!” She removed his coffee cup from his hand and said, “You’re done. You can’t play nice. Get your coat.

The effect of the anti-communist ideology was to spare us the task of taking cognizance of the specific facts of specific situations. Our ‘faith’ liberated us, like the believers of old, from the requirements of empirical thinking…like medieval theologians, we had a philosophy that explained everything to us in advance, and everything that did not fit could be readily identified as a fraud or a lie or an illusion…The perniciousness of [anti-communist orthodoxy] arises not from any patent falsehood but from its distortion and simplification of reality, from its universalization and its elevation to the status of a revealed truth.

Senator William J. Fulbright’s book, The Arrogance of Power. He writes: The question that I find intriguing . . . is whether a nation so extraordinarily endowed as the United States can overcome that arrogance of power, which has afflicted, weakened, and in some cases destroyed great nations in the past . . . Power tends to confuse itself with virtue, and a great nation is peculiarly susceptible to the idea that its power is a sign of God’s favor, conferring upon it a special responsibility for other nations—to make them richer and happier and wiser, to remake them, that is, in its own shining image.

Generally, Morgenthau ignored the hate mail, though he occasionally responded to the more temperate letters. But one public attack that he chose to answer came from the influential, nationally syndicated columnist Joseph Alsop. Among the members of the press, he was the most vociferous of hawks. Even lifelong friends like Isaiah Berlin thought his views on Vietnam “a trifle mad . . . even odious.” In March 1965 Alsop wrote a column directed at Morgenthau that began: “One proof of the wisdom of President Johnson’s Vietnamese policy is its marked success to date.” But that success had generated criticism from credulous politicians like Fulbright and “pompous” professors like Morgenthau, whom Alsop labeled an “appeaser” in the mold of “the be-nice-to-Hitler group in England before 1939.” The mention of Hitler had to be especially wounding to Morgenthau, who said “the gates of the political underworld seem to have opened.” Before Alsop’s column appeared, Morgenthau reported, even those who disagreed with him did so respectfully, but now “I receive every day letters with xenophobic, red-baiting, and anti-Semitic attacks.” Morgenthau responded to Alsop with a long letter to the editor of the Washington Post. The debate, such as it was, turned on the intentions of the Communist Chinese. To Alsop, who prided himself on his knowledge and appreciation of Chinese civilization, the Chinese were historically expansionist, always bent on conquest and therefore analogous to the Nazis of the Third Reich. To which Morgenthau rejoined that “Mao Zedong is not Hitler, that the position of China in Asia is not like that of Nazi Germany in Europe,” and that his opposition to the war in Vietnam could not be equated with the appeasers of the 1930s. No doubt wearily, he took up the task once again of explaining that spheres of influence were a reality of international relations, ignored only at one’s peril, and that if China had managed to extend its power in Asia it was “primarily through its political and cultural superiority and not through conquest.” (Years later, Kissinger would offer a similar assessment of the Chinese.)

Alsop rightly saw Morgenthau as one of the most influential leaders of the opposition to the war in Vietnam and, therefore, someone who had to be discredited with improbable charges of foolishness and appeasement. But the truth about Morgenthau’s position in the antiwar movement was complicated. He wasn’t really a protest leader. He stood almost alone among the dissenters. His power-oriented Realpolitik perspective was no more congenial to the student demonstrators than it was to the occupants of the White House. As a culturally sophisticated European of deep conservative instincts, Morgenthau saw the unruly students as little more than an embarrassment. “The New Left is essentially anarchistic,” he told a journalist, “a still-born movement that can have no influence on American politics.” He rejected the young leftists’ Marxist explanations that the war was economically determined. “From an economic point of view, the Vietnam war is an absurdity,” while so-called moral objections left him cold. For Morgenthau, opposition to the war could rest on one of three foundations: an economic one, an absolute moral one because “this kind of indiscriminate destruction cannot be condoned on any ground,” and his own pragmatic position that “this particular war” was not one the United States should be fighting. He distanced himself from so important a protest leader as Noam Chomsky because Chomsky was basing his opposition on a combination of the first two foundations—a “vulgar economic determinism” and a “moral absolutism.” He was even ready to rebuke Fulbright for being “dangerously naïve concerning the threat posed by the Soviet Union and Communist China.

international teachers have been a part of U.S. classrooms for decades, as part of university faculty or teacher exchange programs like the Fulbright Teacher Exchange Program.

American History from Rutgers University and was awarded a Fulbright Fellowship to Brazil. He lives in Columbia County, NY, with his wife and two children, who have perfected the art of reimagining every remote control as an iPhone and every Etch-a-Sketch as an iPad. An avid distance runner, Noah has completed four marathons. He actively

From growing up in poverty to developing drugs that fight diabetes, seizures, and cancer, Dr. Frank L. Douglas has lived a life based on values, hard work, and self-control. Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream is a reflection on the events and people that made him into the man he is. In 1963, the year of the murder of Medgar Evers, Civil Rights marches, and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, twenty-year-old Douglas arrived in the United States. A Fulbright scholar from British Guiana, Douglas studied engineering at Lehigh University, received his Ph.D. and M.D. from Cornell University, and did his Residency in Internal Medicine at Johns Hopkins.

The frontiers of freedom are wider than the frontiers of Europe. If a unified Europe is to make a lasting contribution to the security and prosperity of the free world of which it is an integral part. The heart of Western civilization embraces the entire community of Atlantic democracies, and our future depends less on what we do in confrontation with the Communist world than on the kind of relations we develop and the kind of society we build within our own world. Most especially, our future depends on whether we allow the West to succumb once again to divisive and destructive nationalism or whether we make it so strong and unified that no one will dare attack us and so prosperous and progressive that it will serve as a model and a magnet for the entire world - for the struggling nations of Asia and Africa, for the unhappy people of Eastern Europe, and ultimately perhaps, for the Russians themselves.

Plath was a summa cum laude graduate of one of the best English literature programs in the United States, and a Fulbright Scholar, yet he wrote to Anne Stevenson in 1986, “as for her mastery of literature I was mainly astounded—and I mean astounded—by what she had not read.