Fulbright in Korea's Future

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History
Fulbright in Korea’s Future

This book chronicles the evolution of Fulbright Korea, from its humble
Fulbright in
beginnings in 1950, through its contributions to Korea in the aftermath of
the Korean War and through rapid industrialization, to its development into
one of the most active Fulbright Commissions worldwide today. In these
Korea’s Future
pages you will find more than a mere history of Fulbright; this book is a
direct reflection, in many ways, of the history of modern Korea. It offers a
decade-by-decade account of changes in the political and social climate of
Korea, documenting how Fulbright Korea has progressed and expanded
in response to these changes, always striving toward the fulfillment of the A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History
mission of the Fulbright Program.
From the Preface
The Korean-American Educational Commission (KAEC) – J. William Fulbright
The agreement to form a binational Fulbright Commission
J. William Fulbright was born on April 9, 1905, in Sumner,
was signed in Seoul on April 28, 1950, and the United
Missouri. He grew up in Arkansas and played football at
States Educational Commission in Korea (USEC/K) was
established in 1960 and renamed as the KAEC in 1972.
... we Fulbrighters proclaim the following three points: the University of Arkansas. Upon graduation, he won a
Rhodes Scholarship in 1924 and studied in England from
1. Human beings are born with the inalienable rights to pursue happiness, free 1925 to 1928.
The Fulbright Korea Alumni Association (FKAA) was from fear, poverty, ignorance, and tyranny. Prior to his departure for England, he had traveled very
formed in 1987. By that time, there were about 700 little outside of Arkansas. As a Life magazine report put it,
2. Conflicts among nations and countries, part of which are related to the Cold the best of Europe was opened up to the roaming hill boy
Korean alumni of the Fulbright program, and local alumni
War legacy, must be resolved through mutual understanding and respect. within him, and he came away from this grand tour and his
chapters had been set up in each of the provinces. In
May 1987, chairmen of the eight provincial chapters met 3. Countries must exert efforts to communicate and understand each other reading of modern history and political science at Oxford
in Seoul to establish the FKAA. through educational and cultural exchanges. with a wide-eyed internationalist outlook.
On returning from his Oxford years, he worked briefly
in Washington as a Justice Department lawyer, but then
The Korea Fulbright Foundation – The Korea Fulbright We Fulbrighters believe that realizing these ideals will lead to the peaceful
Frederick F. Carriere | Horace H. Underwood

Jai Ok Shim | James F. Larson
returned to Arkansas. He loved teaching and the life of
Alumni Association set up a committee in 1989 to look and sustainable coexistence of the peoples and countries in the world.
the university. When the board of trustees of the University
into the formation of a foundation, and in January 1991 We reaffirm our cherished hope, as expressed in the 2000 Seoul Statement, of Arkansas made him its youngest president at the tender
the Korea Fulbright Foundation was established. to extend the Fulbright program to the entire Korean Peninsula.... age of 34, he considered himself pretty well settled.
Fulbright was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives
From the Seoul Statement 2010 in 1942 and to the Senate in 1944. His political career of
more than thirty years in the U.S. Congress was marked by
his unequaled contribution to international affairs and his
tenure as the longest-serving chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee.
The Senator is particularly well remembered for his
opposition to the Vietnam War. In the 1960s, he led
US$ 35.00 25,000 won
Senate hearings into the conduct of that war. Today, of
course, Senator Fulbright is also widely known as the
founder of the intercultural and educational exchange
program that bears his name. The Fulbright program
is recognized around the world as the largest and most
prestigious such program.
Korean-American Educational Commission On February 9, 1995, Senator J. William Fulbright died
http://www.fulbright.or.kr 한미교육위원단 in Washington, DC, at the age of 89.
Dust jacket artwork by Youngsun Jin
Fulbright in
Korea’s Future
Jai Ok Shim, James F. Larson,

Frederick F. Carriere & Horace H. Underwood
Written by Jai Ok Shim, James F. Larson, Frederick F. Carriere & Horace H. Underwood
Copyright © 2010 by The Korean-American Educational Commission
All Rights Reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form
without the permission of the Korean-American Educational Commission.
Korean-American Educational Commission

Fulbright Building
168-15 Yomni-dong, Mapo-gu,
Seoul 121-874, Korea
Tel: 02-3275-4000
Fax: 02-3275-4028
E-mail: admin@fulbright.or.kr
Website: www.fulbright.or.kr
Published by Seoul Selection

B1 Korean Publishers Association Bldg., 105-2 Sagan-dong,
Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-190, Korea
Tel: 82-2-734-9567
Fax: 82-2-734-9562
E-mail: publisher@seoulselection.com
Website: www.seoulselection.com
ISBN: 978-89-91913-73-8 03330
Printed in the Republic of Korea

To all Fulbrighters,
past, present and future.
Table of Contents
Forewords vii
Acknowledgements and Editorial Notes xviii
A Biographical Note on Senator J. William Fulbright xix
Preface xxi
Chapter 1
Changing Cannons to Cultural Currency 1

The Origins of Fulbright Korea
Chapter 2
The 1960s 29
Revolution, Development, and Formation of the Fulbright Commission
Chapter 3
The 1970s 71
Fulbright During Korea’s Rapid Industrialization
Chapter 4
The 1980s 97
Korea’s Domestic and International Political Transformation
Chapter 5
The 1990s 119

Mobile Communications, the Web, and Surging Interest in English
Chapter 6
The Fulbright Building 147

A Resource for the 21st Century
Chapter 7
The Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program, 173

EWC, and Other Grants
Chapter 8
History of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association 183
Chapter 9
Taking Stock 199

Fulbright Korea at 60 and Its Future
Epilogue
Observing the 60th Anniversary of Fulbright Korea 219
Endnotes 227
Appendix I: “The Importance of Cultural Diplomacy” 248

Appendix II: The Fulbright Song 252
Appendix III: Fulbright Grant Awards by Academic Field from 1950 to 2010
Appendix IV: KAEC Budget and Awards by Grant Program from 1978 to 2010
vi
Foreword
I extend my heartfelt congratulations on the 60th anniversary of the Fulbright

Program in Korea.
Over the past 60 years, the Republic of Korea has pulled itself up from post-
war ruin to achieve both remarkable economic growth and democratization. All
these accomplishments have been possible thanks to the high educational zeal
of the Korean people and their strong will to learn even under the most difficult
circumstances. This is why many Koreans place Abraham Lincoln on the top of
the list of the most revered great historic figures from other countries.
The Fulbright Program has been a gracious friend of Koreans who has helped
their will to learn come to fruition. As it has always been there with Koreans
during the entire years of modernization, it has become an integral part of modern
Korean history. I would like to pay my profound respect to the noble inspiration
of Senator James William Fulbright who established this wonderful international
exchange program.
There are nearly 2,000 talented Koreans who have benefited from the Fulbright
Program, and they are now playing an important part as core leaders in Korean
society. I have had chances to work with some of the Fulbright alumni who have
outstanding expertise and a great sense of responsibility.
There is a well-known proverb, “A friend in need is a friend indeed.” Americans
have always been our true friends. They stretched out warm helping hands to us
when we were in direst need. The Fulbright Program, which was initiated in the
throes of the Korean War, has been one such helping hand.
The Fulbright Program has made great contributions to enhancing friendship,
cooperation, and mutual understanding between America and Korea. Some 1,800
Americans, who have worked on research and education in Korea through the
Program, have been a strong bridge for Korea-U.S. friendship and cooperation.
Today, the South Korean Government is funding approximately 40 percent of
the annual budget of the Fulbright Program in Korea. In other words, Korea and
America are joining their hands to create a brighter future together.
In the years to come, the cooperative relationship between Seoul and
Washington will go beyond our national boundaries to develop to the global scale.
vii
I believe that the rich history and experience of the Fulbright Program will be
serving as a solid basis of our future relationship.
In a feat without precedent, Korea has become the only country in the world
to transform itself from a recipient to a donor country. Korea represents the only
such case since the establishment in 1961 of the OECD. The Korean Government
is now expanding not only economic aid but also educational assistance for
foreign countries.
For example, the Korean Government is planning to carry out the Global Korea
Scholarship Program as a project to promote education globally. The project will
include a variety of programs such as providing government scholarships for
international students and assisting exchange students.
Exchanges between young students, the protagonists of the future, are the most
effective investment for world peace. The more young men and women from other
countries share Korea’s success stories, I hope, the broader the road to common
prosperity will be.
Once again, I congratulate the Fulbright Program on its 60th anniversary. I have
no doubt in my mind that it will continue to thrive in the coming years.
Thank you very much.
Lee Myung-bak
President of the Republic of Korea
viii
ix
축하의 글
한 국풀브라이트 60주년을 진심으로 축하드립니다.

지난 60년 대한민국은 전쟁의 폐허를 딛고 일어서 비약적인 경제 성장과 민주화를 모
두 이뤘습니다. 한국민의 높은 교육열, 처지가 어려워도 반드시 배우려는 강한 의지가 이러
한 발전을 뒷받침했습니다. 한국민들이 존경하는 외국 위인들 가운데 에이브러햄 링컨이 최
상위권에 드는 까닭도, 바로 여기에 있습니다.
풀브라이트 프로그램은 한국민이 그와 같은 의지를 실현하게 도와준 고마운 친구입니다.

한국의 성장 발전과 늘 함께 해 온 풀브라이트 프로그램은 사실상 한국 현대사의 불가결한
일부가 되었습니다. 풀브라이트 프로그램을 가능케 한, 고(故) 제임스 윌리엄 풀브라이트
(James William Fulbright) 상원의원의 고귀한 뜻에 경의를 표합니다.
한국풀브라이트 프로그램이 배출한 2,000명 가까운 인재들은, 한국 사회의 핵심 리더로

활동하고 있습니다. 저와 함께 일한 풀브라이트 동문들은 모두 전문성과 책임감이 탁월했습
니다.
‘어려울 때 돕는 친구가 진짜 친구’라는 말이 있습니다. 미국은 늘 우리의 진짜 친구였습니

다. 그 진짜 친구는 우리가 가장 어려울 때 따뜻한 손길을 내밀었습니다. 한국이 전쟁의 참
화에 고통 받고 있을 때 시작한, 풀브라이트 프로그램이 그 대표적인 사례입니다.
풀브라이트 프로그램은 한·미 우호협력과 상호 이해증진에 크게 공헌했습니다. 풀브라

이트 프로그램을 통해 한국에서 연구와 교육 활동을 펼친 1,800여 명의 미국 장학생 동문들
은 한·미 우호협력의 든든한 가교입니다.
오늘날에는 한국풀브라이트 전체 예산의 40% 정도를 한국 정부가 맡고 있습니다. 한국과

미국이 손을 잡고 함께 미래를 만들고 있는 것입니다. 앞으로 한·미 협력 관계는 양국 간
차원에서 더 나아가, 글로벌 수준으로 발전할 것입니다. 이러한 미래 한·미 관계에서도 한
국풀브라이트의 역사와 경험이 든든한 토대가 될 것입니다.
x
이제 한국은 세계에서 유일하게, 원조 받던 나라에서 원조하는 나라가 되었습니다. 이러
한 사례는 1961년 OECD 출범 이후 유일무이합니다. 한국 정부는 경제 원조뿐 아니라, 교
육·학술 분야의 대외 지원과 교류를 확대하고 있습니다.
예컨대 한국 정부는 국제적인 장학 프로젝트로 ‘글로벌 코리아 스칼라십(Global Korea

Scholarship)’을 추진하고 있습니다. 이 프로젝트에는 정부 장학생 초청, 교환 학생과 자비
유학생 지원 등 다양한 프로그램들이 포함될 것입니다.
미래를 책임질 청년 학생들의 교류는 세계 평화를 위한 가장 효과적인 투자입니다. 한국

의 성공 경험을 나누는 세계의 젊은이들이 많아질수록, 공동 번영의 길이 넓어질 것입니다.
한국풀브라이트 60주년을 다시 한 번 축하하며, 앞으로 더욱 의미 있게 발전하리라 믿어

의심치 않습니다. 감사합니다.
Lee Myung-bak
President of the Republic of Korea
xi
O ver the past 60 years, the Fulbright Program
has served to promote understanding between
the peoples of the United States of America and
the Republic of Korea by providing opportunities
of mutual exchange to more than 3,600 American
and Korean scholars, researchers, and specialists. The
cumulative effect of these exchanges is demonstrated
by the achievements, large and small, of the program’s
recipients as well as all those who have benefited from
interacting with former and current Fulbrighters.
Serving as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Korea in the
1970s gave me a special appreciation for the importance of education and cross-
cultural exchange. After the Peace Corps Program in Korea ended in 1981, it was
Fulbright that stepped in to provide English teaching support in the remote Korean
schools where the Peace Corps operated. Korea now has the largest Fulbright
English Teaching program in the world.
Fulbright Korea annually awards over two hundred grants to both Americans
and Koreans for graduate study, research, and other academic and teaching pursuits.
Many of these grantees will go on to leadership positions within their respective
communities, including those of CEO, university president, and government minister.
Year after year, Fulbright Korea continues to demonstrate its important role
in supporting Korea and facilitating exchanges that help both our nations move
forward to meet the challenges of the future.
I congratulate the Fulbright Program on its 60th anniversary in Korea.
With best regards,
Kathleen Stephens
U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Korea
xii
A s Chairman of the Board for the Fulbright
Program in the Republic of Korea, it is my
great privilege and honor to congratulate Fulbright
on its 60th anniversary in Korea. There are few
countries in the world that exhibit more enthusiasm
for higher education and international educational
exchange than Korea, and I have always considered it
an honor to work with the program here.
As a former Fulbrighter who received a grant to
study in Finland from 1979 to 1980, I have deep
respect and appreciation for the visionary exchange
program of the late Senator J. William Fulbright, who described the program’s
goals in the following words: “The Fulbright Program aims to bring a little more
knowledge, a little more reason, and a little more compassion into world affairs
and thereby increase the chance that nations will learn at last to live in peace and
friendship.” These words are a clear testament to the contributions the Fulbright
Program has made in Korea and throughout the world.
The U.S. Embassy in Seoul is proud of the impact the Fulbright Program in
Korea has had on the transformation of the Korean Peninsula over the past 60
years. We look forward to Fulbright continuing to enrich the lives of all current
exchange participants, alumni, and those who have benefited from the program.
Sincerely,
Patrick J. Linehan
Minister-Counselor for Public Affairs
U.S. Embassy Seoul
xiii
Acknowledgements & Editorial Notes
T he Korean-American Educational Commission would like to gratefully

acknowledge the assistance of several organizations and many individuals
in producing this historical account. These include all of the individual alumni,
both Korean and American, who took the time to send us their reminiscences and
comments on the Fulbright Program, only a few of which have been used in this
publication. The Korea Fulbright Alumni Association helped solicit these from
Korean alumni and, along with the Korea Fulbright Foundation, supported the
project from start to finish.
We also want to thank Vera Ekechukwu, Fulbright Papers Research Assistant,
Special Collections at the University of Arkansas Libraries. With her assistance, we
received material from the Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs archives to fill
in the gaps in our own files, especially for the early years of the Fulbright Program
in Korea.
Editorially speaking, this book attempts to use the official Korean government
system for Romanization of Korean words throughout, except in the case of proper
names where the individual prefers otherwise or where longstanding convention
dictates another usage. Korean names are spelled with the family name first,
followed by the given name(s). No hyphens are used, except in the case of public
figures who prefer that usage.
Information on how to access the e-book edition of this volume, as well as future
access to the scanned source materials, will be made available on Fulbright’s main
web site, www.fulbright.or.kr, as well as on its alumni site, http://alumni.fulbright.
or.kr.
xiv
A Biographical Note
on Senator J. William Fulbright
J. William Fulbright was born on April 9, 1905, in Sumner, Missouri.

The headline of a 1966 Life magazine article on Senator Fulbright noted that
he was in the center of arguments about U.S. foreign policy and that he “stirred up
stands.” It described him as an “aloof, thorny, unpredictable intellectual shaped by
Oxford and the Ozarks.” 1
Senator Fulbright grew up in Arkansas. He played football at the University of
Arkansas and, upon graduation, won a Rhodes Scholarship in 1924 and studied in
England from 1925 to 1928. Prior to his departure for England, he had traveled
very little outside of Arkansas. In fact, Fulbright himself described his pre-Oxford
days as follows: “Remember, I’d never been anywhere to speak of. I’d never been to
New York or San Francisco or Washington or any of those places. And here I’m
picked up out of a little village at an early age...”
As the Life report put it, the best of Europe was opened up to the roaming hill
boy within him, and he came away from this grand tour and his reading of modern
history and political science at Oxford with a wide-eyed internationalist outlook.2
On returning from his Oxford years, he worked briefly in Washington as a
Justice Department lawyer, but then returned to Arkansas. He loved teaching and
the life of the university. When the board of trustees of the University of Arkansas
made him its youngest president at the tender age of 34, he considered himself
pretty well settled.
The Senator is particularly well known for his opposition to the Vietnam War.
In the 1960s, he led Senate hearings into the conduct of that war. In 1963, Walter
Lippman wrote of Fulbright, “The role he plays in Washington is an indispensable
role. There is no one else who is so powerful and also so wise, and if there were any
question of removing him from public life, it would be a national calamity.”3
Fulbright had deep doubts about the Vietnam War, which also affected his view
of possible government service. In late 1960, when there was talk that Fulbright
might be picked for Secretary of State in Kennedy’s Cabinet, the possibility
thoroughly distressed him. “It’s not my dish of tea,” he said at the time. “I’d hate
the protocol, and I’d be damned uncomfortable getting up and giving
xv
speeches with which I didn’t agree. The poor fella in that job never has time to
think for himself.” The Life magazine report noted that Fulbright “…was an
anomaly, especially in gregarious Southern politics, a man of intellect, almost a
seminarian, pursuing an aloof career as an often dissident public counselor….” 4
Fulbright was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1942 and to the
Senate in 1944. His political career of more than thirty years in the U.S. Congress
was marked by his unequaled contribution to international affairs and his tenure as
the longest-serving chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.5
Senator Fulbright was married to Elizabeth Williams Fulbright for more than
fifty years, from 1932 until her death in 1985. They had two daughters, Roberta
Fulbright Foote and Elizabeth Fulbright Winnacker. Senator Fulbright married
Harriet Mayor in 1990.
On February 9, 1995, Senator J. William Fulbright died in Washington, DC, at
the age of 89.6
xvi
Preface
The Fulbright Commission in Korea takes great pride in celebrating its sixtieth
anniversary in 2010. In connection with this anniversary, the commission’s executive
director, Shim Jai Ok, proposed writing a history of the Fulbright Program in Korea.
Having served the commission in different capacities for over thirty-three years, she had
personally witnessed many of the vast changes in Fulbright Korea’s programs. To her, it
seemed only fitting that we finally compile a history of this program that has touched the
lives of so many.
In 2006, Shim suggested such a project to the KAEC staff and members of the Korea
Fulbright Alumni Association. The idea was met with agreement that it would be both
significant and appropriate, considering the importance of the occasion. But where does one
begin to research the history of a program such as Fulbright in Korea, and who writes it?
In our case, we turned for support to the staff members of KAEC, who have contributed
significantly to the process of researching the commission’s long history. We also received
significant support, including financial assistance, from the Korea Fulbright Alumni
Association and the Korea Fulbright Foundation. The organization and writing of the
text fell largely on current and former administrators from the Fulbright Commission.1
Shim’s strong commitment to the book was the major factor in its successful completion.
Another was the collaborative effort and dedication of two former executive directors
of the Korean-American Educational Commission—Frederick F. Carriere and Horace
H. Underwood—as well as James F. Larson, a former grantee who has served as the
commission’s deputy director since 2005.
For raw data on which to base the history and cross-check their recollections, the
authors turned first to the minutes of Fulbright Commission meetings, annual reports,
and other documents that were on file in storage rooms in the Fulbright Building in
Mapo. These documents proved very useful for reconstructing events from the 1970s
onward. However, the commission had no records on file from the 1950s and most of
the 1960s. After the initial drafting of chapters had begun, the authors, in a major stroke
of good fortune, discovered that the J. William Fulbright Archive at the University of
Arkansas Libraries housed archives from the State Department’s Bureau of Cultural
Affairs. Consequently, we were able to quickly order more than 500 photocopied pages of
documents about Fulbright Korea’s early years that filled in most of the gaps.
xvii
This book is the first ever history of the Fulbright Program in Korea and one of the
first publications of its kind by any Fulbright Commission. Although not the only sort
of history that may be written about this program, it fills an important niche. It is our
hope that this book will serve as an important historical record that may be updated and
maintained well into the future to reflect the endeavors of Fulbright Korea. Not only this
book but also the scanned documents and records upon which much of the narrative is
based should be a valuable resource for future historians.
It is written from the perspective of a group of administrators who altogether have
worked with the program for over sixty years, although those years are concentrated in
the past three decades. It chronicles the evolution of Fulbright Korea from its humble
beginnings in 1950 through its contributions to Korea in the aftermath of the Korean
War and through rapid industrialization, and on to its development into one of the most
active Fulbright Commissions worldwide today. In these pages, you will find more than
a mere history of Fulbright; this book is a direct reflection, in many ways, of the history
of modern Korea. It offers a decade-by-decade account of changes in the political and
social climate of Korea, documenting how Fulbright Korea has progressed and expanded
in response to these changes, always striving toward the fulfillment of the mission of the
Fulbright Program.
The purpose of this book goes beyond providing a look at the past. We also offer a
glimpse into the future and the tremendous things that can be accomplished through
the Fulbright spirit. Although much has been accomplished over Fulbright Korea’s sixty-
year history, one important task remains yet unfinished. It is our hope that the Fulbright
Program will be expanded to include educational exchanges with North Korea so that
all Koreans may know the benefits of Fulbright and peace can be a gift shared across
the entire Korean Peninsula. We truly believe that international education and cultural
exchange will be vital factors in the reunification of Korea. Just as Senator Fulbright
believed that international education could transcend politics and bring to light our
shared humanity, so we believe it will open the hearts and minds of all Americans and
Koreans, giving us the chance to build peace and harmony together. We know such a
vision cannot be realized without overcoming many obstacles; however, in accordance
with Fulbright’s vision for international understanding, we hope we can pursue a peaceful
end to this conflict, which has gone on far too long. Although it is difficult to envision
when this will come to pass, let us not stand by and allow it to take another sixty years.
xviii
Fulbright in
Korea’s Future
xix
xx
Chapter 1
Changing Cannons to
Cultural Currency
Making the Korea Connection

The day Senator J. William Fulbright and his wife Harriet Mayor Fulbright had been
looking forward to all week–Saturday, September 22, 1990—dawned crisp and clear under
a bright blue sky. It was one of those absolutely pristine fall days in Korea traditionally
described as cheongo mabi (“the sky is high and the horses are fat”). The conditions were
ideal for the promised daylong excursion to Gangwha Island. In those days, Gangwha
still seemed like a very distant and remote place despite its geographic proximity to Seoul.
With farming villages, an outdoor periodic market, and an ancient Buddhist temple
nestled in an idyllic mountain setting, it was a virtual microcosm of a quintessentially
rural Korea. Even if not quite in reality, then at least in imagination, it evoked images of
an earlier time in Korea when Western forms of modernity were atypical. In this sense,
Gangwha Island afforded a much welcomed contrast with Seoul.
This excursion took place during a weeklong stay in South Korea by Senator Fulbright,
his first and only visit to the Korean Peninsula. The occasion for the visit was an invitation
extended to him by the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association to be the guest of honor
for the official commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the establishment in Korea of
the international exchange program that bears his name. Due to his advanced age and
declining health, right up until the last minute it was thought to be unlikely that Senator
Fulbright would actually be able to come to Korea. In the end, he was able to come, and
1
his presence made the 40th anniversary commemoration a landmark event and the most
memorable moment in the history of the Korea Fulbright Program up until that time.
Among all the achievements of a distinguished career in public life extending over more
than half a century, the international exchange program Senator Fulbright established in
1946 came to be recognized as the centerpiece of his legacy virtually from its inception.
Over the years, he increasingly came to embody the ethos of the exchange program in
his own life. This was evident from the energy Senator Fulbright devoted to learning
everything he could about Korea during his brief visit. Even though he was already
over eighty-five years old, throughout his stay Senator Fulbright seemed more like an
attentive—even eager—student than an octogenarian. He demonstrated an enthusiastic
interest in everything going on around him as well as a seemingly insatiable curiosity that
generated a constant stream of pertinent questions. He seemed especially enlivened by the
excursion to Ganghwa Island, perhaps because it opened for him—albeit only briefly—
a window onto a distinctive way of life based on traditions so deeply rooted in the past as
to seem in some ways to be timeless.
The daylong excursion also was an opportunity for Senator Fulbright and his wife
Harriet to compare notes with their guide for the day1 and to generally assess their visit
up to that point. There already was a great deal to mull over since the major high points of
the visit had occurred earlier in the week. Senator Fulbright began to share his thoughts
on these events as soon as the excursion got underway, and it soon became obvious that
there would be ample time for reflection, since the traffic conditions on the way out of
Seoul were, as usual, a veritable nightmare.
One thing that really caught Senator Fulbright’s attention and was especially
fascinating to him, he said, was how government and academia seemed to be unusually
well interconnected through the Fulbright Program in Korea. This was an astute
observation, of course, as Fulbright scholars in Korea have typically been represented
prominently both in government and in academia. In this sense, the parallel with
traditional Korea’s yangban (“scholar official”) class, which explicitly linked scholarly
achievement with public service, is striking. Quite often, even those cabinet ministers
and other high-ranking government officials who had not received a Fulbright award
themselves were still connected personally to the program by having once served on
the Fulbright Commission—essentially in the capacity of board members—during a
previous academic career. This combination of academic and government service of course
resonated meaningfully with Senator Fulbright, as it paralleled his personal history. It also
affirmed his conviction that developing leadership potential should be a primary objective
of the Fulbright Program.
2
Changing Cannons to Cultural Currency
Senator Fulbright’s The senator and his wife had arrived in Seoul earlier in the week, on Tuesday,
weeklong visit
began with a
September 18. After a day of rest and recuperation, the visit got underway officially
meeting with on the morning of Thursday, September 20, with a courtesy call on President Roh Tae
President
Roh Tae Woo at
Woo in his office at the Cheong Wa Dae (The Blue House), the official presidential
the Blue House. residence. President Roh spoke at length and with conviction about the many important
contributions made to the national development of Korea by Fulbright scholars, and he
thanked Senator Fulbright for establishing the program that made it possible for them
to study in the U.S. In his disarmingly gracious way, Senator Fulbright—with perhaps
just a bit of hyperbole—replied, “I would consider that my life has been worthwhile if the
program has made a contribution to the development of your great country.” 2
Reflecting on this visit, Senator Fulbright said he became increasingly intrigued by
President Roh during the informal discussion that followed the initial polite exchanges.
One reason for this interest was that Senator Fulbright was aware of the public
commitment to implement democratic reforms President Roh had made just three years
earlier. It was a commitment he had kept, marking a sharp break with past military
3
governments. In fact, he had launched his political career illegitimately by lending critical
support to a military coup led by his predecessor, although he later came to office through
a democratic election. This seemed to be one of many revelatory moments for Senator
Fulbright during his visit to Korea, as he had long argued in his foreign policy discourses
for the need to allow the space for just this kind of internal reform of undemocratic
regimes to take place.
In fact, the Korea experienced by Senator Fulbright and his wife in 1990 was exemplary
in numerous other ways as well. By then, it already was an advanced and rapidly developing
industrial economy that was beginning to emerge from the shadows of the Cold War.3
The 1980s had been a decade of spectacular development for South Korea’s export-led
economy, setting the stage for the country’s further progress in later years. The spectacularly
successful Seoul Olympics in 1988 had helped to lower many ideological barriers; China,
Vietnam, the Eastern European countries of the Soviet Bloc, and even the Soviet Union
itself had all participated in the Games. If one considers that just four decades earlier the
Korean Peninsula had been torn apart and largely devastated by war, the sheer rapidity
with which this economic and political transformation had occurred in South Korea was
unprecedented anywhere else in the world. As the subsequent chapters of this book will
show, the Fulbright Program played an important role in South Korea’s spectacular rise
from the ashes of the Korean War to become the great success story it is today.
At this point, with the wrong kind of assist from Seoul’s notoriously snarled traffic,
the Fulbrights and their guide were just passing Nanjido, an island located in a branch of
the Han River, which at the time was the municipal garbage dump for the City of Seoul.
It was said to be the largest such facility in the world, allegedly thirty-four times larger
than the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt–a frequently noted although rather tasteless
comparison.4 Noticing only the sides of this huge mound of garbage, which were planted
deceptively with grass, Senator Fulbright was suddenly moved to comment effusively
about the peerless beauty of the Korean countryside “with the low range of mountains
you can see in the foreground set off against the backdrop of high mountains in the
distance.” This awkward moment was allowed to pass unnoted by the guide. In retrospect,
however, the spontaneous comment has turned out to be prophetic, like so much else
Senator Fulbright said during his lifetime. Today, following its closure as a garbage dump
in 1993, Nanjido is well on its way to a final transmogrification into a world-class ecology
park by 2020.
Continuing with a review of the events of the past week, Senator Fulbright recalled
how impressed he had been by the 40th anniversary commemoration. This gala dinner
was held in the Grand Ballroom of the Intercontinental Hotel on the evening of
Thursday, September 20. With Prime Minister Kang Young-Hoon presiding, there were
4
around seven hundred guests in attendance, including many high-level government

officials, members of the foreign diplomatic corps, prominent individuals from all walks of
life, and hundreds of Korean alumni of the Fulbright Program. It constituted recognition
on an unprecedented scale of the important role the Fulbright Program has played in
higher education in South Korea. The event also broke ground as the first American-style
fundraising dinner ever held in Seoul, even if it did not immediately establish a new trend
in fundraising for the nonprofit or NGO sector in Korea.
The official commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the Fulbright Program in
Korea came to a perfect ending the following day—Friday, September 21—with a gala
reception for all the Korean alumni of the program that was hosted by Ambassador
Donald P. Gregg and his wife Margaret (“Meg”) Curry Gregg in the garden of the
U.S. ambassador’s official residence. With nearly four hundred alumni of the Fulbright
Program in attendance, the reception was an unambiguous expression of their deep
respect and affection for Senator Fulbright as well as a confirmation of the enormous
impact the program he established has had on the lives of so many educators, government
officials, and professionals from other sectors in contemporary South Korea.
Harriet Mayor Fulbright is better qualified than most Americans to assess the impact
of the program from a historical perspective. For unlike her husband, she was not making
her first visit to Korea. She had lived in the country over thirty years earlier for about
two years, from 1958 to 1960, which coincided with one of the most critical junctures in
contemporary Korean history. At that time, Harriet Fulbright, who was then teaching
English at Ewha Womans University, had personally witnessed the April 19 Revolution
that launched South Korea on the long road from autocratic to democratic government.5
On the same day as the U.S. ambassador’s reception, Dr. Yoon Hoo-Jung, the president
of Ewha Womans University, hosted a luncheon in honor of Senator and Mrs. Fulbright,
an event that evoked many vivid memories of her earlier stay in Korea. This elegant
luncheon was held at Aryeong Dang, a Korean-style banquet facility on the Ewha
campus, with the university’s Fulbright alumnae, other faculty members, and several
students in attendance. Recalling her previous stay in Korea, Harriet Fulbright marveled
at how dramatically the country had been transformed. She jokingly relayed a story about
how the first thing her husband said upon their arrival in Seoul was, “Well, show me
around...and I had to tell him I couldn’t possibly show him anything because Seoul now
looks like New York City.” In a way, it was precisely for this reason that they were on their
way to Ganghwa Island.
Apart from the physical transformation of the country, however, the most vivid
memories Harriet Fulbright retained from her previous stay were all about students.
She expressed her deep conviction that students were the key to South Korea’s dramatic
5
Senator Fulbright
and his wife Harriet
Fulbright at the
Korean-American
Educational
Commission during
their 1990 visit.
transformation from a poor authoritarian to a rich democratic society in little more than
a quarter of a century. Moreover, as she readily acknowledged, the students she taught at
Ewha also had changed her:
I was in Korea for two years and teaching, and it was interesting because I walked
into class on that first day and all the students looked alike to me. But on the last
day they didn’t look alike at all. They had extraordinary, different personalities and
purposes in life, and one of them even reminded me of my younger sister. So what
one finds out is how alike we are as human beings, how we have the same desires,
how we long to be seen for who we are, not defined by our country, our race, or our
religion.6
The stock of reflections on the past week were exhausted just as the Fulbrights
crossed the bridge and arrived on Ganghwa Island. The timing was perfect in another
sense as well because the first scene they came upon was a bustling farmer’s market.
Coincidentally, they had chosen exactly the right day in the traditional marketing cycle
to observe a periodic market in progress. As iron is drawn to a magnet, so the scene
immediately captured Senator Fulbright’s attention. Ginkgo nuts on skewers, bundles
of flattened dried squid, and roasted silk worms—delicacies never found in American
supermarkets, for sure–as well as agricultural tools and implements, pots and pans, woven
6
mats, and even more exotic items all drew the Senator’s animated attention.
As he moved through the market, however, the bantering interaction between the
buyers and sellers soon came to interest him even more than the exotic merchandise. Their
intense bargaining at first seemed like cutthroat competition, but in the end resolved
into something more resembling a game. The essentially cooperative dimension of the
transactions finally became fully apparent when sellers routinely gave buyers an extra
measure while wrapping their goods. Even though it is a practice virtually mandated by
custom, the formalized magnanimity it expresses exemplifies how open-ended, reciprocal
exchanges can be deployed socially to promote cooperation and build mutually beneficial
relationships.
As he explained in The Price of Empire, which was published just a few months
before his visit to Korea, Senator Fulbright found the view that human beings “in the
original state of nature... had to be cooperative to survive” fully persuasive.7 He also
expressed his conviction that this fundamental human proclivity toward cooperation
was the foundation for the ethos underlying the educational exchange program he had
established. Further, he believed this human propensity toward cooperation could and
should be enhanced through practice, in effect, to promote the further humanization of
mankind. It seems what accounted for Senator Fulbright’s fascination with the farmer’s
market, then, was the concrete way it validated his deepest convictions about the human
potential for cooperation. Although the same ethos is at the root of all trust-based
transactions, including those conducted in modern supermarkets and department stores,
the haggling and other forms of negotiating behavior seen in a traditional farmer’s market
reveal its workings in a more immediate and vivid way.
Senator Fulbright also wrote about the other dimension of human nature, however,
which can be described succinctly as a tragic tendency to engage in organized slaughter
of one’s own kind. This dimension came to the fore as well during the tour since the
next stop was Gwangseongbo Citadel. A series of defensive walls, gun emplacements,
and command posts, the citadel was the site of the sinmiyangyo, known in English as the
Korean Expedition of 1871, which was the first American military action undertaken in
Korea. Never widely known and now long forgotten by Americans, this “First American
Korean War” serves for Koreans as a classic example of abortive “gunboat diplomacy,”
since the isolationist traditional Korean government of the day—through its sheer
determination—managed against enormous odds to thwart the imperialist assertiveness
of the invading Americans, albeit at the cost of 243 Korean (and three American) lives. In
the end, though, it was a Pyrrhic victory since Korea was compelled to end its isolationist
policy only five years later—under even less favorable circumstances—due to a successful
exercise in gunboat diplomacy by Japan. In retrospect, it became U.S. foreign policy from
7
then on—in part by intent, but also by default—to empower Japan to act as America’s
surrogate in Korea for at least the next three-quarters of a century.
Faced with this tangible reminder of acts of human aggression with such profound
and long-lasting consequences, the recognition that lessons might be drawn from this
tragic history seems to be the only potential source of hope for some kind of redemption.
Rejecting as unpersuasive the argument that human beings engage in such organized
slaughter because they are “instinctively, biologically, inherently aggressive” by nature,8
Senator Fulbright argues passionately in The Price of Empire that we can overcome the
human tendency toward aggression only by changing our way of thinking. While it is
naïve to suppose it is something that’s easy to do, he wrote, it is irresponsible to assert
that it is not possible. In the end, he concluded, “It is possible—not very probable, but
possible—that people can find in themselves, through intercultural education, the ways
and means of living together in peace.”9
The final stop on the tour was Jeondeungsa, one of Korea’s most beautiful Buddhist
temples, with a traditional history going back to AD 381. After visiting the main
hall, Senator Fulbright took a seat under a large tree in the temple’s precincts. Even
though it was a ginkgo tree rather than a Bodhi tree, it seemed like a good time to
seek enlightenment from Senator Fulbright about why there was no apparent “Korea
connection” in his life prior to this visit. As the longest-serving chairman in the history
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he had been virtually everywhere else in the
world where U.S. interests are at stake. He even had visited remote islands in the Pacific
in the early days of civil aviation, when reliance on puddle jumpers was unavoidable—due
to technical limitations rather than an airline’s commercial strategy. How was it possible
that Senator Fulbright had never once visited Korea during all those years?
The response Senator Fulbright gave to this question was thoughtful, but also
disturbing in its implications. Acknowledging that he had been mulling over this question
himself virtually from the time he arrived in Korea, he said with a tone of regret that the
only explanation he could give had to do with the negative associations with Korea that
had accumulated in his mind over the years. He attributed the origin of these associations
to the country’s traumatic history in the aftermath of World War II, and particularly
the way the Korean War had served as the major flashpoint in the opening phases of
the Cold War and ultimately had become one of its primary symbols for the next four
decades. The disturbing implication of this response is that Senator Fulbright’s view of
Korea was generally shared by many other Americans, including some of those considered
to be among the best-informed on international affairs. The opponents of the Cold War
as a paradigm for U.S. foreign policy, as Senator Fulbright increasingly became during the
8
1960s, were generally determined to counter the “hubris of toughness” that they believed
served as a rationale for violence and oppression in American policies both at home and
abroad.10 In this context, there was, at a minimum, no compelling reason to focus their
attention on Korea.
In acknowledging this explanation of why he did not previously have a “Korea
connection,” Senator Fulbright made it clear that his previous perception of Korea
seemed very remote from the reality he now was experiencing. In effect, he was admitting
something of a dilemma. From the very beginning of his career in the U.S. Senate,
Senator Fulbright was a committed opponent of the Cold War primarily because of
his visceral disapproval of behavior that was based on abstractions or grand theories. To
view Korea solely, or even primarily, through the limited prism of the Cold War is, of
course, to allow oneself to be victimized by an abstraction. Regardless of whether such a
characterization could have been applied to Senator Fulbright previously, it clearly did
not apply after he had visited Korea personally. The reality broke down the stereotypes,
and the abstractions no longer offered an adequate prism. For many others, however, the
potential for misunderstanding will remain until the last vestiges of the Cold War have
been eliminated on the Korean peninsula.
The drive back to Seoul was uneventful, as everyone seemed lost in their own thoughts.
It was the right ending for a day full of interesting experiences and some thoughtful
reflections.
After resting on Sunday, Senator and Harriet Fulbright began their final day of activity
with a breakfast on Monday, September 24, hosted by Prime Minister Kang in a beautiful
traditional Korean-style building located on the grounds of his official residence. After
breakfast, they visited the National Assembly and met with the Speaker and a large
group of Assemblymen. That evening, Senator Fulbright was invited by Chung In Yong,
chairman of the Halla Group, for dinner at Samch’onggak, a very exclusive facility for
traditional Korean parties. After returning to the hotel later, he teased his wife by saying
he had gone to a “girlie party” and had a very good time.
As he was boarding the plane for Tokyo the following day, Senator Fulbright remarked
simply, but with great feeling, “I know only a little about Korea, but through this visit, I
found that Koreans are so kind that I feel like I am among old friends.... The traffic jams
were the only drawback.” As many could testify from meetings with him in subsequent
years, Senator Fulbright continued to have fond memories of his visit to Korea for the
rest of his life.
9
the baCK story oF the inVitation11

Fred carriere
It is famously said about real estate that it is location, location, and location. I’ve
often thought that the same could be said about our lives. Certainly, being in the
right place at the right time makes a big difference. In my case, my years with the
Korea Fulbright Program almost certainly would have been much different if I
had not had the good fortune to be the executive director at a very “sweet time” in
the program’s development. The decade of the 1980s, in particular, was a time of
unprecedented opportunities to expand and diversify our activities in the areas of
student advisory services, testing services, and alumni relations.
My efforts to clinch a “Korea connection” for Senator Fulbright, however, were
linked most directly with the plan to establish an association for the Korean
alumni of the Fulbright Program. We launched our plan in 1986 by traveling to
locations throughout the country to meet with alumni over either lunch or dinner.
Gradually, a certain momentum got under way, and the more positive responses
we got from the alumni, the more strongly I felt my self-imposed obligation to
bring Senator Fulbright to Korea. In my mind, one of the primary ties binding
the members of the association together would be the sense of discipleship with
Senator Fulbright. None of us had met the great man at that point, including me,
and I felt we needed to remedy the situation.
The Fulbright Alumni Association of Korea was inaugurated in May 1987 in
conjunction with a commemoration of the worldwide 40th anniversary of the
Fulbright Program. An invitation was extended to Senator Fulbright for the
first time in connection with this commemoration, but it was declined, with
an allegedly definitive advisory from the U.S. State Department that Senator
Fulbright would no longer be making long trips overseas due to his advanced age
and declining health. Indeed, though it was hard for me to accept, several people I
knew who were close to him expressed the same opinion.
Later the same year, in November 1987, I had the opportunity to meet Senator
Fulbright for the first time while attending the Fulbright Association’s 10th
Annual Conference in Washington. Although I tried to convey my intention to
bring him to Korea someday during our brief meeting, due to my nervous delivery
I think what I said came across as merely a polite greeting delivered in a somewhat
bizarre fashion. Still, the meeting merely hardened my resolve to bring him to
10
Changing Cannons to Cultural CurrenCy
Korea, due to the overwhelming impression Senator Fulbright’s unpretentious

bearing and plain words made on me. As I recall, I even made a layman’s
assessment of his health and concluded that he was in good enough shape for
travel.
Over the next two years, I worked every angle that I could think of, with little
notable progress until late 1989, when Cassandra (“Cassie”) Pyle of the Council
for International Exchange of Scholars (CIES) visited Korea to deliver a keynote
address at a major academic conference. Prior to that time, we had not been
friends, although we had a formal relationship in our respective capacities. Well,
we became fast friends during her visit. When she told me in a matter-of-fact way
that she was close to Senator Fulbright, and that he often came to her home for
dinner, I really pressed her to help me convince him that he would have to visit
Korea eventually. I suggested that the commemoration of the 40th anniversary of
the Fulbright Program in Korea, which was being planned for the next year, would
be an ideal time. Cassie told me quite frankly that she was not optimistic about
the chances for success, but she agreed to do whatever she could to help.
The big break finally came in early January 1990 with the unexpected news that
Senator Fulbright, who had been a widower for some time, would be marrying
Harriet Mayor on March 10. At that time, Mayor was the executive director of
the Fulbright Association in Washington, D.C. I knew her in her professional
capacity, but more importantly I also knew she had spent two years in Korea
decades before teaching English at Ewha Womans University. Surely, it could only
be a good omen for the success of my plans to invite Senator Fulbright to Korea.
I think I heard the news on CNN late at night. As it was still a respectable
hour in Washington, I immediately reached for the phone and called Cassie Pyle.
As soon as she heard my voice, before I had a chance to say anything more than
her name, Cassie told me that she was thinking along the same lines. In other
words, in the manner of experienced co-conspirators, we didn’t even need to say
what we were thinking. Cassie had even devised a strategic plan already, which
she quickly outlined. It was very simple: she would host a reception for Bill and
Harriet Fulbright to congratulate them on their marriage, but she would inform
us of a starting time that would be a half hour earlier than the other guests. Due
to this simple stratagem, I could meet alone with them without being too obvious,
and thereby have the opportunity to extend in person the invitation of the Korea
Fulbright alumni. As an additional gesture, the alumni asked me to carry a
11
KAEC executive
director Frederick
Carriere presents
a ham to Mrs.
Fulbright.
traditional Korean ham12 with me to the U.S. and convey it to Mayor on behalf of
the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association as “friends of the groom.”
Arriving at Cassie’s home for the reception a half hour early as planned, I
was relieved to find that Senator Fulbright and his wife were there already, just
as Cassie had planned. I delivered the ham and received Mayor’s expressions of
gratitude. Trying to break the ice, Senator Fulbright asked some questions about
how Koreans perceive the United States, and Mayor mentioned her previous
residence in Korea. As time was slipping away, however, I began to get very
anxious that the other guests would arrive before I had carried out my mission.
As if on cue, at that very moment Senator Fulbright said from out of the blue,
“Korea sounds like a very fascinating country. I’d really like to visit there someday.”
Hearing these words, I immediately reached into my pocket and handed over
the letter of invitation. Even before Mayor had finished reading the letter to him,
Senator Fulbright said he was delighted to accept the invitation.
It was mission accomplished, but only with the help of two very special women:
Harriet Mayor Fulbright and Cassandra Pyle.13 Both have been great friends and
supporters of the Korea Fulbright Program over the years.
12
Establishment of the Fulbright Program

Just as everyone was against war in August 1945, everyone also hoped a way could be
found to guarantee a lasting peace in the future. As a young freshman member of the U.S.
Senate from the state of Arkansas, J. William Fulbright was no exception. He was also
appalled by the waste of resources and loss of human life caused by WWII, and especially
by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Whether among the general
public or in the U.S. Congress, however, there was not so much as even a semblance of
a consensus about the best way to avoid such devastation in the future. It was at this
pivotal moment that Senator Fulbright made the unique contribution of proposing
the establishment of an international educational exchange program as the best way to
promote this outcome.
Looking back many years later, Senator Fulbright explained his thinking about this
program in the following, breathtakingly bold terms:
The simple, basic purpose of the exchange program we initiated over forty years ago is
to erode the culturally rooted mistrust that sets nations against one another. Its essential
aim is to encourage people in all countries, and especially their political leaders, to stop
denying others the right to their own view of reality and to develop a new manner of
thinking about how to avoid war rather than how to wage it. The exchange program is
not a panacea but an avenue of hope—possibly our best hope and conceivably our only
hope—for the survival and further progress of humanity.14
Today, with the benefit of hindsight, we can say that the outcome has lived up to the
audacity of the insight that led to the establishment of the Fulbright Program. At the
time, however, there were many obstacles to be overcome before the program could get
under way.
In the first place, the U.S. Congress in those days generally did not provide financial
support even for domestic educational or cultural activities, and the prospect of getting
support for such activities to be conducted internationally was simply nonexistent.
Additionally, there were many influential members of the U.S. Congress who were wary
about the potential for innocent young Americans to be corrupted by foreign “isms” and,
if only for that reason, were bound to look askance at a program intended to promote
international educational exchanges. Therefore, instead of submitting a standalone bill
that was doomed to fail, Senator Fulbright hit on the idea of combining his bill for
funding educational exchanges with a bill already before the U.S. Senate that provided
for the orderly disposal of the enormous stockpiles of surplus U.S. war materiel left
overseas when WWII ended. In short, the improbable melding of these two bills reflected
the pragmatic calculation that a “soft sell” was required to get the bill establishing an
13
educational exchange program through the U.S. Congress. It was a stroke of genius.
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to introduce a bill, for reference to the
Committee on Military Affairs, authorizing the use of credits established through the
sale of surplus properties abroad for the promotion of international good will through the
exchange of students in fields of education, culture and science.” With those deliberately
prosaic words, spoken on September 27, 1945, Senator Fulbright introduced legislation
in the U.S. Senate to create the educational and intercultural exchange program that now
bears his name.15 The actual name of the legislation was nothing if not pedestrian: “A
Bill to Amend the Surplus Property Act of 1944.” The program was originally devised
as a means by which returns from the sale of surplus materiel abroad after WWII might
accrue to the best interests of the United States.16 The amended bill killed two birds with
one stone. While directly addressing the problem of how to dispose of surplus tanks,
cannons, trucks, jeeps, and other war materiel around the world, it laid the groundwork
for a massive two-way exchange of students between the United States and other
countries around the world.
A Christian Science Monitor article describing Fulbright’s legislation was titled
“Changing Cannons into Cultural Currency.”17 Senator Fulbright’s bill would quite
literally do that. It explained: “The United States has surplus war material scattered all
over the world. In most cases it is too costly to bring home, the native countries can’t
afford to pay much for it, and the alternative is to let it rot.”18 Under Fulbright’s plan, the
disposal of surplus property abroad was placed under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of
State, with the funds to be used for this large new educational exchange program.
On August 1, 1946, President Truman signed Public Law 79-584, an amendment to
the Surplus Property Act of 1944. Today, it is commonly referred to as the Fulbright Act.
The new Act authorized a pattern of overseas scholarships significantly different from any
program up to that time. These differences have continued to characterize the Fulbright
Program.
First, by establishing a system of binational agreements between this country and
others, it put the exchange of students, teachers, and senior scholars on a truly worldwide
basis for the first time. By 1950, the new program involved 20 countries around the
globe, including Korea. Furthermore, larger amounts of funds were available than for any
previous exchange program.
The Fulbright Act also stipulated that awards be two-way, providing grants for
foreigners to study in the United States as well as for Americans to study abroad. The
assumption was that each side could learn and profit from the other. In addition, program
development would be bilateral, with both the United States and the participating
14
On August 1,
1946, President
Harry S. Truman
signed the
Fulbright Act
into law.
country jointly involved in the planning process.19

A final difference from other programs existing at the time was establishment of the
Board of Foreign Scholarships. It is unique among presidentially appointed boards in
that it has a program development role as well as an advisory role. From the beginning, it
had responsibility for setting basic policy for the Fulbright Program. The board decided,
for example, that the program should be binationally organized and administered
overseas. It determined that grants should be made to individuals, not to institutions, and
it established the policy that funds should not be used to pay for buildings, laboratory
equipment, microfilm, and the like. In later years, this requirement would directly
affect Fulbright Korea when it decided to purchase its own building. From the start,
binationality was one of the Fulbright Program’s main strengths. By 1972, there were
cost-sharing arrangements in existence.20 As of Fiscal Year 2008, there was direct financial
or in-kind support for Fulbright student and scholar programs in 105 countries around
the world.21
The countries of East Asia, including Korea, were clearly at the top of Senator
Fulbright’s mind when he introduced his bill in the Senate. In his remarks, he noted the
15
precedent of the indemnity paid to the United States by China as a result of the Boxer
Rebellion in China in July 1900. Since the amount of the indemnity proved more than
adequate to indemnify claims by nationals of the United States, in 1908 approximately
$10 million was returned to the Chinese government. The government of China placed
this money in a trust fund for the education of Chinese youth in China and in the
United States. Senator Fulbright noted the resulting student exchanges and friendly
relations between China and the United States and commented, “The good will and
understanding created by the exchange of students has been our greatest bulwark against
unfriendly criticism of our policies in the Far East.” The Senator also said, “I do not
think one can deny that the exchange of students has been one of the most successful
of our international policies. This foresight of our Government, nearly 50 years ago, has
paid great dividends in our relations with the people of Asia.”22 In a speech later that
year, Senator Fulbright observed, “No visitor or traveler can gain as much appreciation
of the way and thought of living of foreigners as students can who actually live in the
foreign country while they learn. We all now know that no country is far away in the
age of airplanes. The necessity for increasing our understanding of others and their
understanding of us has an urgency that it has never had in the past.”23
In the years since passage of the Fulbright Act, the United States program for the
exchange of students, teachers, and senior scholars has become a widely accepted
and important part of the academic world. Today, the Fulbright Program operates in
more than 155 countries around the world. There are fifty binational commissions and
educational foundations to govern the programs, including one jointly administered by
Belgium and Luxembourg.24 As of the 2008–09 academic year, grants were awarded to U.S.
students, teachers, scholars, and professionals to study, teach, lecture, and conduct research
in more than 150 countries worldwide, and to their foreign counterparts to engage in
similar activities in the United States.25 Over the lifetime of the Fulbright Program,
exchanges have involved people from approximately 190 countries, or nearly all of the
independent countries in the world. Fulbright is by far the largest and most prestigious
scholarly exchange program in the world.
Consolidation under the Fulbright-Hays Act

During the late 1940s and 1950s, the original Fulbright Act was supplemented by
further legislation. In January 1948, after fierce debate, the U.S. Congress passed the
Smith-Mundt Act. It provided for both an information service to “disseminate abroad
information about the United States” and an educational exchange service to cooperate
16
with other nations in the interchange of persons, knowledge, and skills; the rendering
of technical and other services; and the interchange of developments in the fields of
education and the arts and sciences. It enabled the State Department to arrange scholarly
exchanges with countries not covered by the Fulbright Act and to add U.S. dollar awards
to Fulbright awards made in foreign currencies. 26 This was a crucial change, because
without access to U.S. dollars it was not possible to support Korean Fulbright scholars in
the United States.
In 1953 and 1954, Congress, responding to the growing popularity of the program and
the rapid diminishing of funds from the sale of war materiel, authorized the exchange
program’s use of U.S.-owned foreign currencies from any source, including the sale of
surplus U.S. agricultural commodities. This action more than doubled the number of
countries eligible to participate and greatly increased the funds available.27
On September 2, 1958, President Eisenhower signed into law the National Defense
Education Act (NDEA). In passing that law, Congress recognized that the defense and
security of the nation were inseparably bound with education. Title VI of the NDEA
was entitled “Language Development” and was composed of two parts, one dealing with
centers, research, and studies and the other with language institutes. For the first ten years
of this program, Title VI programs received steadily increasing support, and by the late
1960s the number of centers had grown to 106.28
In 1961, the many pieces of legislation affecting educational exchange were finally
consolidated into the Fulbright-Hays Act. This Act broadened the scope of the program,
gave it new flexibility, and assured it of dollars as well as foreign currencies. Since
1961, the Fulbright-Hays Act has been the basis for the Department of State’s entire
international educational and cultural exchange program.29 In 1966, the International
Education Act (Public Law 89-698) further strengthened the Fulbright Program by
providing institutional grants for the establishment, strengthening, and operation of
centers for research and training in international studies and the international aspects of
other fields of study.30
Launching the Fulbright Program in Korea

The Fulbright Program was quite literally born out of the destruction of war and
represented the hope that intercultural and educational exchanges might reduce the
future incidence of armed conflict in the world. The need for hope in the prospect of
a peaceful future was nowhere more apparent than in Korea, where war broke out on
the peninsula less than five years after the establishment of the Fulbright Program and
17
delayed the full-blown implementation of educational exchanges under its auspices by

slightly over a decade.
Korea was one of the earlier countries to sign a binational agreement for educational
exchanges under the Fulbright Program. The very first agreement was signed with China
in 1947. It was followed by a hasty agreement with the British colonial government of
Burma just before Burmese independence in January 1948. By the end of the 1940s,
Australia, Belgium and Luxembourg, Egypt, France, Greece, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands,
New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines, Turkey, and the United Kingdom all had
agreements and functioning Fulbright commissions. It is noteworthy that only seven
of these countries were in Europe, and that the developing nations were there from the
start.31 By the end of Fiscal Year 1950–51, Fulbright Programs were also in operation in
Austria, India, Pakistan, and Thailand.32
On April 28, 1950, an official agreement was signed in Seoul by representatives of the
Republic of Korea and the U.S. “for financing certain educational exchange programs.” It
was signed pursuant to the U.S. Surplus Property Act of 1944, as amended by Public Law
No. 584, 79th Congress–now widely known as the Fulbright Act.
In keeping with the Fulbright Program worldwide, the agreement explicitly
mentioned two-way educational exchange between Korea and the U.S., authorized
the U.S. Educational Commission to make recommendations to the Board of Foreign
Scholarships, and made participants in the program exempt from taxation and any
burdensome entry or residence requirements in either country.33 At the time of signing,
the initial source of the U.S. Educational Commission’s funds was to be a portion of the
$24 million owed to the U.S. government by the Korean government for loan repayments.
This agreement made Korea one of the first twenty nations in the world to sign a
Fulbright agreement with the United States. It was also one of the earliest developing
nations to sign an agreement. With the outbreak of the Korean War, and the start of the
long Cold War just a little over two months later, the Fulbright agreements with Korea
and China were suspended abruptly. Tragically, in an outcome no one could have foreseen
at the time, the armistice on the Korean Peninsula hardened into a de facto division of
Korea into two very different nation-states. Those who signed the binational agreement
for a Fulbright exchange program between Korea and the United States could not
possibly have envisioned a prolonged period in which exchanges would take place only
with the southern half of the Korean Peninsula.
As this book will show, Korea’s continued division explains why the Fulbright Program
here is at once a shining success story and also a stark reminder of the failure to achieve
the ideals of the Fulbright Program. No other developing country in the world has
18
accomplished so much economically, socially, and politically in such a short span of

time as South Korea. Yet the continued division of the country and the tense military
confrontation at the Korean Demilitarized Zone are also starkly at odds with the core
philosophy and goals of the Fulbright Program. The Korean DMZ continues to be a
powerful symbol of the need to turn swords into plowshares, as Senator Fulbright hoped
his program would help to do. Moreover, the challenge posed by Korea’s continued
division suggests that Fulbright Korea still has major challenges to meet and a major role
to play in Northeast Asia and globally during the remainder of this century.
Exchanges Prior to the Establishment of a Binational Commission

Internal State Department documents shed some light on the earliest educational and
intercultural exchanges between Korea and the United States following World War II.
Such government-sponsored exchanges with Korea started the year before the Fulbright
agreement was signed. One undated document on the history of the exchange program
explains:
During 1949, the Department of the Army transferred to the Department

of State $70,440 to finance a program for bringing to the United States a
number of Korean leaders in government and industry to observe American
techniques and practices in various fields, including agriculture, forestry, textiles,
and communications. Grants were made to 18 leaders under this program. The
Department also provided travel grants to 33 Korean students during the same
period from funds transferred by the Department of the Army.
In 1950, 95 exchanges were planned with Korea under Department auspices.
While grants were awarded under this program to 37 Korean students, 17
teachers, 10 professors, 14 leaders, and 17 American specialists and lecturers,
the outbreak of hostilities prevented more than half of those exchanges from
taking place. For example, only five Korean students arrived in the United States
before the outbreak of hostilities, and only two American specialists were able to
complete their assignments in Korea. Nevertheless, a group of 13 Korean teachers
were able to complete a three-month course in English teaching methods in the
United States, and 14 Korean leaders and research scholars were able to study and
observe American techniques in the fields of medicine, education, social sciences,
labor, and journalism.34
19
The U.S. embassy’s view of the purpose of the Fulbright Program in Korea was expressed
in a Foreign Service Despatch sent from Seoul to Washington in 1957. It reads:
The purpose of the educational exchange program in Korea is: (1) to increase
understanding of the people and government of the United States so that
confidence in our aims and policies will be increased; (2) to better equip
participants to contribute to the democratic development of Korea, and (3) to
establish a group of key persons in key fields who maintain long-term relationship
(sic) with American colleagues in the United States and are accessible to USIS
and embassy staff for their mutual benefit.
Koreans, although proud of their long cultural heritage, are well aware of their
backwardness and of their need to learn from the West in order to make Korea
a modern nation. They look to the United States for this knowledge. In all fields
of learning in the social sciences, the humanities, and in engineering, medicine,
and agriculture, American books are highly regarded and great prestige attaches
to study in the United States, and a growing number of leaders in all fields have
studied and observed in America.
Few Koreans are well trained in any field, and gradually, in government, in
education, and in the professions, better trained younger persons are assuming
greater leadership. These younger leaders have for the most part qualified for
greater responsibility by showing competence at lower working levels. Koreans
who have studied and observed in the United States have generally assumed
greater responsibility on return, and many of them have demonstrated outstanding
leadership.
They are interpreting the American point of view on many problems, and are
bringing new knowledge and extending democratic practices in areas where they work.
Because of Korea’s long isolation and insularity, there remain much
misinformation and lack of perspective about the outside world, including the
United States. Knowledge of American life gleaned from personal relationship
with Americans and first-hand observation of the United States continues to be
one of the most effective means of combating prejudice and misinformation.35
A 1958 post dispatch to Washington, carrying Gregory Henderson’s signature and

reporting on the past year’s educational exchanges with Korea, included a great deal of
interesting background information:
20
The giving of material aid or even technical advice alone is clearly not sufficient
to allow the United States the achievement of all its long-term aims of seeing
a united, independent, and strong democratic government with close ties to
the United States and the Western cause firmly and permanently established
in the Korean Peninsula. Personal experience with democratic life and with the
requirements and uses of modern society must permeate Korea’s leaders and
communicate itself to widening circles in her government, her professions, her
universities and schools, her cultural leaders if what has been begun is to see
consolidation.
The existence of a major Communist exchange effort, while of no current
effect in the Republic of Korea, underlines the importance of continuing our own
exchanges by presenting the possibility of considerable future influence should
Korea become united. 36
In addition to these political considerations though related to them, Korea’s
small and depleted reservoir of human skills necessary for the operation of a
modern state and her relative isolation from most other advanced nations made an
exchange program with the United States a particular necessity.
Until 1945, the Japanese performed the principal technical functions needed
in operating the economy and the government and the Koreans usually had the
opportunity to develop only more minor skills. Moreover, during the Korean War
the Communists systematically looted the Republic of all the human skills it
could find. The exchange program, working together with the OEC (Office of the
Economic Coordinator) training program, is designed to contribute to the skills
and techniques needed for the growth and viability of Korea.
Hence, the Department’s exchange program is an essential supplement to
American economic and military aid in Korea in enabling the development
of democratic government in Korea, in increasing the understanding of and
confidence in the United States, in increasing Korea’s skills and techniques, and
in aiding the embassy in its work by establishing through the Korean professional
and cultural worlds a circle of informed friends. 37
One of the most interesting sections of the 1958 annual report on educational exchanges
by the U.S. embassy was the appraisal of the program’s accomplishments: “While the
need for an exchange program in Korea is unusually great, circumstances here have been,
on the whole, particularly favorable for its development, and in few if any other countries
has its success been more palpable. Returned grantees have filled position after position in
important offices of the Korean government, in the educational system, in the press, and
21
in the professions of law and medicine. While the same might be said for several other
countries, the relative effect of these newly-trained men and women on the somewhat
inchoate world of Korean society has been far greater than it could possibly have been
in the more settled and trained societies of, for example, Japan or Germany. Observers
would be virtually unanimous in saying that the tone of the above areas of Korean society
has registered real changes, and for the better; in some cases altered perceptibly, in others
advanced rapidly.”38
A 1961 report notes, “The Department’s educational and cultural exchange programs
with Korea have been financed for the most part from dollar funds under the Smith-
Mundt Act. In June 1960, an amendment reactivated the 1950 Fulbright Agreement,
which had not been previously implemented. From 1949 through 1961 grants, were given
to 494 students, teachers, professors, specialists, and leaders to come to the United States
and for 36 American students, teachers, professors, and specialists to go to Korea.”39
Other State Department documents from the same time period give slightly varying
figures, but it seems clear that more than 400 Koreans went to the United States, while
between 36 and 47 Americans visited Korea during this period, largely under Smith-
Mundt Act funding. Fulbright funding appears to have started in June 1960 with funds
coming from Public Law 480, widely known as the “Food for Peace” law.
The same report notes, “The educational exchange program with Korea has been
conducted with dollar funds under Public Law 402 since hostilities prevented
implementation of the Fulbright agreement signed in April 1950. In summary, our review
of various archival documents indicates that nearly 500 Koreans and Americans received
U.S. government funding between 1949 and 1960.”40
While the fundamental idea of the Fulbright Act had been to channel funds from
the sale of surplus military equipment into scholarships, literally changing swords into
plowshares, the first legislation provided no dollars for bringing foreigners to the U.S.
When the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 began to take effect, the Fulbright Program became
a two-way flow.41
A U.S. embassy document contained in the BEA archives and probably authored in
1959 or early 1960 sheds the following light on the earliest U.S. government-sponsored
exchanges with the Republic of Korea: “Shortly before the invasion by North Korea
in June 1950, a binational executive agreement was concluded between the United
States and the Government of the Republic of Korea, providing for a five year program
of educational exchanges under the Fulbright Act. However, the invasion and long
continuing hostilities prevented the carrying out of this exchange program. During the
hostilities, it was possible to carry out a limited exchange of Korean educators to aid in
the rehabilitation of education in their country.”42
22
Altogether, the Department of State brought over 176 Korean students, teachers,
research scholars, leaders, and others after 1949 and assigned 25 American specialists
and educators to Korea under PL 402, known as the Smith-Mundt Act. The State
Department also administered a program of emergency aid to Korean students and
scholars stranded in the United States. As self-support became impossible for the
majority of these persons, grants were awarded to enable them to reach their educational
objectives in the United States. Upon the completion of their studies they were required
to return immediately to help in the rehabilitation of Korea.
The undated document also states, “The Department of State and the Republic of
Korea have concurred on the urgent need for the immediate activation of the exchange
program under the Fulbright Act as a means of increasing the numbers of exchange
grants to Korean educators and opinion molders and an expanded teacher training
program-vital to our immediate objective of strengthening the ability of the Republic of
Korea to resist Communism.”43
Establishment of the Binational Commission (USEC/K)

The agreement of April 28, 1950, had authorized establishment of a U.S. Educational
Commission in Korea to facilitate educational exchange programs between the two
countries. The commission was made up of eight members, four of whom were to be
citizens of the United States of America, while the other four were to be citizens of
Korea. The principal officer in charge of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Korea (the U.S.
ambassador) was designated as the honorary chairman of the commission. As honorary
chairman, the ambassador was given the right to appoint the chairman of the commission,
to cast a deciding vote in the event of tie votes by the commission, and to appoint and
remove citizens of the U.S. who served on the commission. The agreement required that
at least two of these U.S. citizens be officers of the U.S. Foreign Service establishment
in Korea. The government of the Republic of Korea was given the power to appoint and
remove Korean members of the commission.
The commission that had been authorized a decade earlier was finally formed in 1960
as the United States Educational Commission in Korea (USEC/K). On June 30, 1960,
an amendment reactivated the Fulbright agreement with funds from surplus agricultural
commodities sales to be used for educational exchange in the amount of the equivalent of
$150,000 for 1961-62 and $200,000 for 1962-63.44
Although educational exchanges took place in the 1950s, a special status was accorded
at that time to those grantees who arrived in Korea after the formation of the United
23
States Educational Commission in Korea (USEC/K). This much is made clear in the
first USEC/K annual report for Program Year 1960-61. In a section of the report dealing
with the Inter-Country Lecture Program, it is mentioned that Belle Boone Beard had
been sent to China to give lectures. It describes her as follows: “Dr. Beard, professor of
sociology and chairman, dep’t of sociology, Sweet Briar College, Sweet Briar, Va., has
been lecturing in the fields of sociology and gerontology at Seoul Women’s College and
Seoul National University as the first Fulbright Grantee in Korea.”45
In practical terms, the full-fledged start of Fulbright Korea, under the management
of a binational commission, was delayed for just over a decade after the binational
agreement was signed owing to the outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 and its
aftermath. Ironically, given Senator Fulbright’s intention of offering an alternative to the
destruction of WWII and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Korea became the
only nation in the world where war itself delayed the creation of a binational commission
for Fulbright exchanges. Also, war on the peninsula and the tense confrontation that
continued along the DMZ during the long Cold War led many to view the relationship
of the U.S. to Korea through the lens of military and strategic considerations rather than
education and cultural exchange.
The Fulbright Program in Korea, which began amid the utter destruction of the Korean
War, grew in parallel with the nation’s “economic miracle,” as its rapid growth is often
characterized. Indeed, the Fulbright Program played an important part in South Korea’s
rise from the ashes of war to become one of the most advanced industrialized economies
in the world. Today, the role of Fulbright in South Korea’s national development is
becoming better known because of the spectacular success of the nation’s electronics
industries and its advanced digital networks, at the very time that these infrastructures are
bringing nations of the world closer together via the internet and new media. Extensive
studies by the World Bank and other international organizations have identified
education as one of the important pillars of the knowledge economy or information
society emerging in Korea. Perhaps nothing underscores the profound impact of the
Fulbright Program in Korea better than the Korean government’s recent decision to
create its own educational exchange program modeled after the Fulbright Program.46 The
developing nation that the U.S. sought to help through its aid programs and Fulbright
exchanges in the 1960s and 1970s is now an advanced, technology-driven economy and a
donor of aid and expertise that is ever more widely looked to by the developing nations of
Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
The start of the Fulbright Program in Korea can be summarized in terms of the
following main features. First, the binational agreement was signed on April 28, 1950,
24
placing Korea among the first twenty nations of the world to have Fulbright Programs.
Second, the Korean War broke out less than a month later, delaying formation of USEC/
K but not actual exchanges under the broad umbrella of the Fulbright legislation. Third,
more than 140 Koreans and over 30 Americans participated in academic exchanges,
mostly under Smith-Mundt funding, before, during, and after the Korean War and before
the formation of USEC/K in 1960. Fourth, these early exchanges operated, at least in
principle, under the guidance of the Board of Foreign Scholarships—currently known as
the J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board–which had been created by the initial
legislation in 1946.
The Fulbright Act was the initial and guiding piece of legislation propelling America’s
international educational exchanges following WWII. It was followed by several other
laws, including the Smith-Mundt Act, with the result that the Korean grantees were
referred to, in the early years, as “Smith-Mundt grantees” or by other category names.
However, passage of the Fulbright-Hays legislation in 1961 brought all of the major
exchange programs under the Fulbright umbrella.
These historical realities surrounding the origins of the Fulbright Program in Korea have
several implications. First, they meant that the task of building the Fulbright Program,
as with the overall task of rebuilding the nation’s economy, would begin almost from
scratch in the rubble of the Korean War. In fact, educational and intercultural exchanges
between the United States and Korea began around the time the binational agreement
was signed and continued through the Korean War and its aftermath, although formation
of the binational USEC/K was delayed until 1960. Second, after the war ended with an
armistice and armed confrontation continued to be a tangible threat along the DMZ,
Korea would become the only country in the world following the end of the Cold War in
which Fulbright exchanges would reach only half the country. Third, the continued large-
scale presence of U.S. armed forces in South Korea has been a prominent public factor in
the U.S.–Korea relationship over the years, one that in some ways has overshadowed the
educational exchange relationship in which Fulbright has played a leading role.
Recurrent Themes in the History of Fulbright Korea

Several main themes will recur throughout this book. The first is an emphasis throughout
this history on governance and leadership of the Fulbright Program. This includes the
shifting roles of both the U.S. and Korean governments in the development of the
Fulbright Program in Korea, as well as the participation of academic and private sector
representatives. Although the Fulbright Program originated with the U.S. government,
25
Fulbright commissions operate with binational funding and governance and, in effect,
operate somewhat independently of the government under the Board of Foreign
Scholarships. This arrangement is a profound source of strength for the Fulbright
Program. Quite naturally, the U.S. government exerted a great deal of influence in the
early years of the program. However, as time went on the government of Korea came to
play a more active role. In 1981, the Fulbright agreement was amended to “balance the
role of the commission between the two countries.”
A second thematic emphasis is that of continuity in change. The continuity can be
found in continuous promotion, over the years, of Senator Fulbright’s basic idea of
sending people across oceans to learn about other cultures. The Senator’s remarks in
introducing and supporting his legislation over the years make it abundantly clear that he
interpreted the term “student” very broadly to include people from all walks of life.
Changes in the Fulbright Program over the past half-century usually involved
questions of how to most effectively carry out the program’s mission in a changing
environment. While the Fulbright Program in Korea began with students and scholars,
it has branched out over the years to include a large component for English Teaching
Assistants, a program in the U.S. for Korean secondary school teachers of English, and
programs for both Korean and American international education administrators. Over
the same span of time, South Korea went from the status of a desperately poor, war-torn
developing country to that of an advanced, technology-driven economy and a leading
member of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and
other international organizations. Inevitably, there would be debates and adjustments in
program focus in response to such a dramatic change in the nation’s circumstances. In
its early years, the mission of Fulbright was seen as that of developing Korea’s system of
higher education. During the 1970s, it shifted to a focus on the study of man in “a rapidly
industrializing society.” As Korea developed, there were debates about the proper role
of the natural sciences and mathematics versus the social sciences, humanities, and arts
in Fulbright exchanges. In addition, there was debate about whether and to what extent
the Fulbright Program should support American studies in Korea and the development
of English language teaching. Over the years, there were also frequent discussions of the
proper emphasis on outlying regions versus Seoul in awarding Fulbright grants to Korean
students and scholars.
A third theme is the growth of two-way flows within the Fulbright Korea program and
the associated challenge of recruitment and final selection of both Korean and American
Fulbright grantees. In the early years of the program, it was mostly American faculty
who came to Korea to teach and Korean students who went to the U.S. to learn. In
those years, relatively few Americans applied for Fulbright grants in Korea, while many
26
Koreans applied to study in the more educationally developed United States. However,
as time went on and Korea’s own educational system developed, this pattern changed to
a more balanced two-way flow, in keeping with the binational character of the Fulbright
Program.
A fourth theme treated throughout this history has to do with funding, which is
essential for any successful educational exchange program. The Fulbright Program began
on the basis of U.S. government funding, but over the years the Korean government’s
contribution to the program has equaled, and in some cases exceeded, that of the
American government. In addition, nongovernmental sources of funding, such as ETS
in the case of high-stakes academic testing, played a key role in the growth of Fulbright
programs in Korea.
Finally, this book addresses the question of infrastructure to support the Fulbright
program. Here we look at two developments that have profoundly affected the program’s
activities over the years. The first is physical infrastructure, including office space for
the secretariat and housing for American Fulbright grantees in Korea. Over the years,
this issue cropped up repeatedly at board meetings of the Fulbright Commission in
discussions of increased rent or chonsei (“key money”) for office space, a house for the
executive director, or grantee housing. A breakthrough occurred on this nagging issue that
was a real landmark in the history of Fulbright Korea with the purchase of the Fulbright
Building in 1999 and its dedication in January 2000. It not only contained ten apartments
for staff and grantees, but also seven computer-based testing centers, a beautiful first
floor facility for the U.S. Education Center (counseling center), and adequate office
space. Equally important, ownership of the building allowed installation of a state-of-
the-art network infrastructure that allowed Fulbright to enter the internet era not only
in its State Department-affiliated U.S. Education Center but in all aspects of program
administration.
The above themes reoccur throughout the history of Fulbright Korea to date. In the
pages that follow, they are discussed in relation to the Korean-American Educational
Commission’s three major areas of activities. As executive director Horace H. Underwood
succinctly told visitors, by way of explaining what Fulbright Korea did: “We give money,
we give tests, we give advice.” Indeed, the three main program activities have been
Fulbright and certain other scholarly grant programs, educational testing (with a primary
emphasis on TOEFL), and student counseling. The second area of activity, educational
testing, grew dramatically starting in 1984 with the signing of an agreement with ETS
that put KAEC in charge of all TOEFL administrations in Korea.
27
28
Chapter 2
The 1960s
Revolution, Development, &
Formation of the Fulbright Commission
The binational Fulbright Commission, formally named the United States Educational
Commission in Korea (USEC/K), began operation in the midst of the revolutionary
changes in Korean politics that ushered in the decade. These began with the student
revolution of April 19, 1960, that overthrew the government of Rhee Syngman. In
September of that same year, the commission began operation. In the following spring,
the junta of General Park Chung Hee seized power in a military coup on May 17, 1961.
Following these tumultuous events, the new military government in South Korea and all
major institutions turned their attention to the immense task of national development.
The military coup conditioned all activities in South Korea’s education sector, including
the activation of the Fulbright Commission (USEC/K). Although some Fulbright
grantees were named to high-level positions in the new government, many were also
arrested, and quite a few were jailed. The circumstances were captured vividly in a mid-
1961 Foreign Service Despatch from the U.S. embassy in Seoul. It included the following
assessment:
A year which began with a student revolution (April 19, 1960) and ended with
a military junta seizing power (May 17, 1961) cannot be said to be an easy
year in which to judge the success or non-success of an exchange program. The
previous ten years of Liberal Party rule under former President Syngman Rhee
saw appreciable numbers of party functionaries being sent to the US under
29
the exchange program, especially in the leader category. The regime’s violent
overthrow last year led to the imprisonment of numbers of these grantees and
the unemployment of others. Similarly, the many arbitrary arrests following this
year’s military revolution did not spare those grantees who had long been in
opposition until the previous year; again, sweeping changes swept many educators,
legal specialists, grantees, and leaders from office, and some into jail. No program
emphasizing leadership could be immune from such revolutionary tides. It is to
the praise of past choices that so many grantees are still in positions for which
their training has fitted them. Especially when the post–sometimes against
Departmental judgment–has insisted on the future worth of a candidate rather
than his present prominence has the exchange program been ultimately able to
escape with minimal damage.1
The post report went on to say:
The conditions of the last fifteen months themselves qualify a leadership program;
they at the least confirm that only with local decision and considerable post
experience in arriving at it can success be hoped for. Tolerance for local decision
has been given. Where judgments were initially good, value will return—even
from behind iron bars, if not especially from there. The exchange program will
continue to be a useful part of the effort to build understanding between Korea
and the United States. With more time for contact and follow-up, it can be even
more successful in its endeavors.2
One section of the post report described the program on civic leadership, and it
specified some of those who were arrested, as follows:
This particular section of the exchange program has been most badly damaged
by the new military regime, which has systematically been removing civic leaders
to replace them by military personnel. Grantees in this field who had not already
departed before the military revolution usually have not been allowed to receive
passports, except in a few cases. The arrest of many former grantees also took
place, based on their positions at the time of the revolution. Such men as CHO
Cha-ch’on, former Minister of Justice (FY57 Leader) and for ten days prior to the
revolution Home Minister KIM Young-son, former Minister of Finance (FY55
Leader) and HYON Sok-Ho, former (twice) Minister of National Defense and
30
The 1960s
once Home Minister (FY57 Leader), have been arrested among others, the last,
however, soon being released.3
The post report stressed the importance of follow-up with Korean grantees, noting
that “great differences between the cultures of Korea and the United States increase the
importance of follow-up. Constant encouragement and moral or diplomatic support
for grantees is necessary in the face of confusion and change in Korean life and the
frustrations faced by them in bringing their U.S.-received training to bear on an
exceptionally conservative society.”4
Although fighting in the Korean War ended with an armistice in mid-1953, the
damage from the war and the effects of the long Japanese colonial period that preceded
it would take decades to overcome. As of 1960, South Korea was still a desperately poor
developing country in economic terms and was struggling to build up its education
system, beginning with emphasis on the primary and secondary levels and progressing in
later decades to expansion of educational opportunities at the tertiary level.
The funding that made possible implementation of the Fulbright exchange program
in Korea came from Public Law 480, the Agricultural Trade Development Assistance
Act, which President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law on July 10, 1954. In 1961,
President John F. Kennedy underscored the importance of Public Law 480 to the U.S.
and the rest of the world by renaming it “Food for Peace” and placing it in the newly
created U.S. Agency for International Development. “Food is strength, and food is peace,
and food is freedom, and food is a helping hand to people around the world whose good
will and friendship we want,” Kennedy said at the time.5
In Korea, as in other countries around the world, the initiative for the Fulbright
Program came from the U.S. government. It was generally welcomed because it offered
a constructive solution for two postwar problems: how to dispose of surplus military
equipment around the world, and how to make use of America’s agricultural surpluses.
On June 30, 1960, the U.S. ambassador to Korea and Korea’s minister of foreign affairs
exchanged notes in Seoul agreeing to amend the bilateral treaty on educational exchange.
This amendment gave the program access to $900,000 made available as a result of the
agreement between the two governments regarding funds and repayments related to the
American Surplus Agricultural Products Act.
The diplomatic notes exchanged on June 30, 1960, added the following paragraph to
the preamble of the original bilateral agreement: “Considering that funds provided for
under the present agreement have not been made available for such educational programs
and that the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the
31
Republic of Korea desire to establish certain educational activities with funds in the
currency of Korea that become available from additional sources for expenditure by the
United States for such purposes...” 6
Thus, although educational exchanges with the United States had taken place on a
limited scale following the 1950 binational agreement to start a Fulbright Program, the
implementation of the program on a significant scale took place a decade later. Not only
the scale of the program but also its binational character took a big step forward in 1960.
The Creation of USEC/K and Its First Years of Operation

On September 1, 1960, the United States Educational Commission in Korea (USEC/K)
was officially established with space provided in the cultural affairs office (CU) of the U.S.
embassy. Ko Kwang Man was appointed as the first executive director of the commission.
Although the commission was binational, its name reflected that it was an initiative of
the U.S. government. Throughout the 1960s, Fulbright in Korea was almost exclusively
funded by the United States government as part of its development assistance. Both the
source of funding and the high priority placed on national development accentuated the
relative influence of the U.S. versus the Korean government in Fulbright’s early years.
The start of Fulbright Commission activities in 1960 also marked the start of broader
public awareness of Fulbright in South Korea. Since this was the first year of operation in
Korea, the executive director engaged in a large amount of publicity to inform the public
as to just what Fulbright was, what its activities were, and what its purpose was. This
entailed several interviews on the Voice of the U.N. Command radio station, articles in
several of the leading newspapers, and a speech before Rotary Club International.7
A post report in 1961 stated, “The arrival of Smith-Mundt grantees from America as
well as the newly established Fulbright professors are also covered by the proper section
of USIS, whether motion picture, still pictures, or newspaper section press release, usually
being prepared by the cultural officer and his staff.”8
The makeup of the very first United States Educational Commission in Korea
shows some remarkable similarity to the current constitution of the Korean-American
Educational Commission board. On the Korean side, there were representatives of both
the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, along with Yu Chin-o,
president of Korea University. The American side included the public affairs officer (PAO)
and the cultural affairs officer (CAO), with the latter serving as treasurer. The other two
American members of the board were the Asia Foundation Representative, Jack James,
and Horace G. Underwood, a professor of education at Yonsei University.9
32
The 1960s
The presence of Underwood on the first USEC/K board is notable because it shows
that an effort was made by people at the U.S. embassy to reach out to non-governmental
Americans who were longtime residents in Korea but still clearly American. A person
like Underwood could function as a bridge or liaison between the two cultures, helping
the commission more effectively achieve its goal of being binational. As people who knew
him well will testify, his presence also helped to ensure that the commission would be
independent of either government. Finally, it was noteworthy that Underwood hailed
from Yonsei University and from the family that founded that institution. Yonsei was
then, and still is today, the most internationalized of Korean universities, reflecting the
longstanding influence of Protestant missionaries, including the Underwoods, on Korean
higher education.
The start of Fulbright Commission activity and the hiring of staff were no easy matters.
The first annual report of the commission notes, “Even though an Administrative
Procedures Manual was provided, the Secretariat lacked sufficient competent instruction
and personnel necessary to establish the proper accounting records. The Administrative
Officer was originally hired as an Assistant to the Director in an English advisory
capacity and as such was approached for the position on a part-time basis, which she
agreed to. It was known from the beginning that she was not trained in accounting and
would require the assistance of the treasurer or other designated persons in the setting up
of commission records. Attempts were made to arrange meetings between the embassy’s
disbursing officer and the commission’s administrative officer, but these never materialized
due to the extremely busy schedule of both. Consequently, nine months have passed since
the hiring of the Administrative Officer and all required records have not as yet been set
up.”10
The post report on exchange programs for the year from July 1961 to June 1962 is even
more explicit about the early difficulties. It states, “The administration of the USEC/K
secretariat last year left considerable (sic) to be desired. American grantees were critical
of the administrative and logistical support received from the Secretariat or, rather, of
the lack of such support. Administrative and fiscal procedures were not standardized,
effective, or efficient, and in some cases were non-existent. Liaison between the Executive
Secretary (sic)11 and the grantees tended to break down. Bitterness in several cases arose
to the point of influencing grantees to threaten the termination of grants and was a
partial factor in the departure of one wife from Korea.”12
The report went on to note:
Fiscal records were not maintained in proper order during this period. When
33
the matter of an audit of the commission’s books first came under consideration
last spring, the Executive Secretary (sic) requested that the audit be postponed
until such time as an outside accountant be employed to put them in order. This
was done during the late summer and fall, and the audit has been completed and
results forwarded to the Department of State under separate cover.
Very limited records of correspondence were maintained. Even on such matters
as official communications with ROK government ministries, no file copies
existed; arrangements were made by the Executive Secretary in regard to the
placement of grantees in certain universities without the advice and consent
of the commission or without any record being kept of the arrangements and
transactions.
Efforts made by the new CAO and the new ACAO-Exchanges to work with
the Executive Secretary in building a program of value and real meaning for
Korea were unsuccessful. The Executive Secretary either could not or would not
understand the exigencies of the situation. The Executive Secretary recognized and
stated the need of appointing an American assistant to supervise administrative
matters of the secretariat and to administer English testing. He volunteered that
it would be necessary to pay the American assistant more than the Executive
Secretary, whose salary, though small by American standards, is higher than
that of a Korean cabinet minister. With this understanding, Mr. Paul Rowen
was employed as administrative assistant. The day after the American was hired,
Dr. Belle Boone

Beard, Professor
of Sociology
at Sweet Briar
College in Sweet
Briar, Virginia, was
the first American
Fulbright grantee
in Korea following
formation of the
United States
Educational
Commission in
Korea.
34
The 1960s
however, the Executive Secretary resigned his position. Since that time he has
engaged in personal attacks upon Mr. Rowen as well as upon others concerned
with the administration of USEC/K.13
Upon the departure of the executive secretary, Rowen acted in that capacity. However,
this was not considered a permanent arrangement. The post report included the following
brief assessment of the difficulties faced by Fulbright in its first two years: “However, in
view of the usual amounts of ‘teething troubles’ in new Fulbright programs, it can be said
that Korea probably was better off than normal.”14
On April 14 of the following year (1961), Belle Boone Beard, Professor of Sociology
at Sweet Briar College, arrived in Korea as the first American Fulbright scholar. On May
26, the first academic screening was held for Korean students. Out of 168 applicants,
seventy-eight were judged ineligible, twenty-seven were recommended to the board, and
a total of eleven candidates and alternates were selected.
“You Must Be Full Bright!”

Park Keun Woo
Former President of Dong Ui University
English Education
I am a 1964 Fulbright scholarship grantee. That was half a century ago, when
Korean students could hardly dream of overseas study at their own expense. In
those days, a TV and telephone were the paraphernalia of only wealthy families
in Korea. The Fulbright scholarship was given public exposure in the local
newspapers like the Pusan Daily Express. Guided by the advertisement, I applied
for the scholarship and took an English test at the Pusan office of the United
States Information Service. Having passed the screening test, I sat for the main
test in Seoul. It was an interview to test oral communication ability before a
board of six or seven examiners headed by Dr. Straus. Dr. Hahm Byung Choon,
Professor of Yonsei University, was one of the examiners. Four of the successful
candidates from Pusan were Lee Yong Rak, Pusan National University; Hahn
Keun Bae, Dong-A University; Lee Jeong Ok, Pusan Teacher’s College; and Park
35
Keun Woo, Pusan High School. One axiomatic expression prevailing among us
was, “You must be full bright to become Fulbrighters.”
The passport procedures were complicated and redundant. It took travels from
Pusan to Seoul to have a health checkup and interview at the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. The rules made it mandatory to carry one’s X-ray film through entrance to
the United States. Looking back on the complicated process we went through, I
wonder if I could ever go through it again.
Prior to placement into the university, we received a two-week orientation
offered by the University of Minnesota. This program included cultural immersion
in the form of a home stay. Arriving in the United States, I was struck by a strange
landscape marked by dense forests surrounding the city, many lakes, and an endless
flow of cars. The state of Minnesota was amply studded with lakes, as car license
plates displayed the phrase “Ten Thousand Lakes.” The orientation program gave
an overview of American history and culture along with a smattering of major
disciplines. Among American youngsters, a new dance called “the jerk” was
popular, and Joan Baez’s songs were quite hip at that time. Upon my return from
the day’s program, undisturbed time alone made me feel homesick. The scene of
departure from my family at Kimpo Airport replayed itself before my eyes. It was
the first homesickness I had ever experienced.
We received a monthly stipend in the amount of $210 from IIE. To rent a
room cost $39 per month. With this monthly stipend, there was no financial
problem living in the United States, but I could not make a single phone call to
my family for one year. To call home, the first step was to place an order for a call
with the post office and then wait, which might take a day in an extreme case. It
cost $13 to make an overseas call, taking a deep bite out of the monthly stipend.
No one dared to call home; letter writing was the only means for communication
with one’s family.
Such an inconvenience is something inconceivable for today’s students abroad,
who are so used to all the expediencies brought by technological development.
Nowadays, they rarely write letters home. An international phone call is just
like talking over the phone with a neighbor. The one-year master’s program was
rather short, but my exposure to higher education in the United States laid the
groundwork for my growth in a professional capacity. On repatriation, I moved up
the ladder to become a professor at a university where I would spend 47 years until
I retired.
36
The 1960s
The Fulbright-Hays Act, 1961

On September 21, 1961, President John F. Kennedy signed the Mutual Educational and
Cultural Exchange Act, better known as the Fulbright-Hays Act. This consolidated the
legislation on the books and simplified the provision of international exchanges. Among
other things, it put the Board of Foreign Scholarships in charge of selecting students,
scholars, and teachers participating in educational exchanges under the act; endorsed the
use of binational (and multinational) foundations; and encouraged “foreign governments,
international organizations and private individuals, firms, associations, agencies, and other
groups” to participate in the administration of the act “to the maximum extent feasible”
and to contribute to its purposes financially.15
First Korean Student Fulbright Grantee

Choi Jin Young
Emeritus Professor, Chung Ang University
First Korean student Fulbright Grantee.
It gives me great pleasure and a thrill to recall my days in the United States as
a Fulbrighter. They go back to early 1960, when I was working as a reporter
for the Korean Republic, presently the Korea Herald. I was a graduate student
majoring in English literature at Seoul National University. Gripped with an urge
to study abroad, I applied for a Fulbright scholarship. The screening process was
much more complicated than I expected. There were many hurdles, including
Choi Jin Young was the only female and

the youngest student in the first batch of
Korean Fulbright grantees. Choi received
her first grant in 1961 to do graduate work
at the University of North Carolina. In 1991,
she received a second grant as a senior
researcher at Yale University.
37
US Ambassador to South
Korea Stephen Bosworth
presents Professor Choi
Jin Young with a Fulbright
Award on April 28, 2000.
the Korean history exam offered by the Ministry of Education, oral speaking
tests at the American embassy and Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, and
interviews with Yoon Il-son, President of Seoul National University; Hellen Kim,
president of Ewha Womans University; and the executive director of the Fulbright
Commission. I was ultimately selected as one of the first batch of grantees for
the Fulbright scholarship, and at the time I was the only female and the youngest
student.
The personal security clearance was equally complicated, since it took place
shortly after the country had gone through political upheavals, including the April
19 Student Uprising and the Military Revolution. It was in September 1961 that
I departed for the United States. The airplane, bound for San Francisco, made two
stops, in Tokyo and Guam. Upon arrival in San Francisco, I took a nonstop flight
to Boston, where an old friend, Lee In-ho (who would later serve as the Korean
ambassador to Russia) was waiting. My final destination was the University of
North Carolina (UNC), Chapel Hill. Arriving at the campus, I found myself
enchanted by the harmonious blend of green lawns, dense forests, and time-worn
colonial-style buildings. Founded in 1780, UNC was the oldest state university in
the United States, and I liked the quiet and dignified atmosphere.
After admission to the dormitory, we were given a thorough orientation. That,
together with the helping hands of students, facilitated the process of registration.
The professor in charge of foreign students was Dr. A.C. Howell, who had taught
me at Seoul National University. It was through Dr. Howell that I took a fancy to
38
The 1960s
the University of North Carolina. I had no difficulty understanding lectures. The

campus lawn was set for performances by world-renowned musicians. The food in
the student dining room was reasonably priced. A full-course meal cost only 45
cents, and the tuition fee per semester was $480. Compared with the cost of study
today, this sounds like a fairy tale and far from reality.
Among the many experiences I had on the campus, the most memorable was
receiving mail one day from an unknown person. Upon opening it, I found it
to be a novel published in North Korea. Attuned to anti-communist mantras, I
found my heart beating hard throughout the night. We were inoculated against
communism, and my flesh crawled at the thought of how I, among many others,
had been singled out as a target for North Korea’s propaganda. Going abroad for
study was considered a matter of great pride since the top honored students and
the names of the scholarship recipients appeared on the front page of the Dong-A
Daily Express. I delayed my decision about what to do with the book. Reporting
to the police or FBI might be one way. But doing this might cause ripples, and I
thought it wise to keep it under cover. I wrapped the book with many papers and
threw it into a wastebasket. From that time on, there was no fuss. In hindsight, I
regret that I did not even care to note the title of the book and its author.
The Fulbright-Hays Act encompassed the Fulbright Program but authorized a much
broader range of activities related to international education and cultural exchange than
the existing law. In the same month, President Kennedy signed the law that established
the U.S. Peace Corps.
The influence of the Cold War was evident in the Fulbright-Hays Act, as Section
2452a dealt with exchange programs with countries “in transition from totalitarianism
to democracy.” That section specified but was not limited to Poland, Hungary,
Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania.16 The act also continued authorization for the
twelve-member, presidentially appointed J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board.
The Fulbright-Hays Act established a Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs within
the U.S. Information Agency. The act also strengthened the Title VI provisions of the
NDEA act. It authorized a wide range of cultural, technical, and educational exchange
activities, but one section—102 (b) (6)—focused exclusively on the strengthening of
education in the fields of foreign languages and area studies throughout the American
educational system. There was general agreement within the government at the time,
39
including Senator Fulbright, that the purpose of Section 102 (b) (6) was to add an
overseas dimension to the Title VI programs.17
Barbara Mintz
1962: Senior Lecturer Pusan National University
1963: Senior Lecturer English Department, Pusan National University
1967: Senior Lecturer English Department, Sungkyunkwan University
W hen my husband Grafton

and I arrived in Pusan in 1962,
we really didn’t know what
to expect other than students
to teach at Pusan National
University. I was assigned to the
Business Department, Grafton
to the English Department. As
one of very few women on the
faculty, I later learned that the
overwhelmingly male faculty
didn’t quite know what to do—
to include me in the university
and departmental parties, for
instance? Besides being female, I
was a bit young (in my twenties)
to be a university professor!
I had onl y young men as
students, another interesting
departure f rom my classes at Barbara Mintz was awarded a senior lecturing grant
Ohio State. The students were 1962, 1963, and 1967. Her husband Grafton Mintz was
also a Fulbright grantee; they both taught English at
eager and helpful. They always Pusan National University in Busan and at Sungkyunkwan
wanted to talk (practice their University in Seoul. Pictured here in 1963.
English) before and after class,
carrying my books as we went, and once, as I was writing on the chalkboard with
my back to the class, I was a bit startled to realize that one of my helpful students
40
The 1960s
was vigorously brushing the back of my skirt, which had gotten covered with
chalk dust! I also learned that practicing the minimal pair see/she (to work on
pronouncing the word city) was not quite the thing to do in class.
There was also concern with foreign languages in Korea in the early 1960s, but with
a primary focus on English. In 1963, the U.S. Educational Commission in Korea
established the TEFL program to provide English language training and testing.
Marshall R. Pihl (1933-1995) 18
Marshall Pihl was the first Fulbright student grantee in Korea. He began his
Korean language study at the U.S. Army Language School and later used his G.I.
Bill funding to support the graduate study that prepared him to become one of
the leading American scholars of Korean literature. He was known especially for
his expertise in the “performed literature” he described in his dissertation, later
published as The Korean Singer of Tales.
Pihl received his Fulbright student grant after graduating from Harvard College
in 1960, where he majored in Far Eastern languages. He received an M.A. in
Korean language and literature from Seoul National University in 1965, becoming
the first Westerner to earn a graduate degree from a Korean university. He then
entered the doctoral program at Harvard University, where he received a Ph.D. in
1974.
During another Fulbright year in Korea in 1970-71, Pihl was named the winner
of the first annual Modern Korean Literature Translation Award, sponsored
by The Korea Times. His first collection of translations, Listening to Korea, was
published by Praeger in 1973. Later, he produced The Good People: Korean Stories
by Oh Young-su, published by Heinemann in 1985, and co-edited (with Bruce and
Ju-Chan Fulton) Land of Exile: Contemporary Korean Fiction, published by M.
E. Sharpe/UNESCO in 1993. He also published many articles and translations
in periodicals such as Korea Journal and Korean Studies and in collections such
as Peter Lee’s Anthology of Korean Literature (1981) and Flowers of Fire (1986).
But he was most proud of the beautifully produced work that originated as his
dissertation, The Korean Singer of Tales, published by Harvard University’s Council
41
on East Asian Studies in 1994.

As a pioneer in a then tiny field, Pihl was unable to secure a regular academic
position. Instead, for much of his professional career he taught Korean literature
part-time while earning his living as an administrator. Although he was an
exceptionally capable administrator, serving as associate director and then director
of the Harvard University Summer School from 1977 to 1987, Pihl was thrilled
when he was finally able to devote himself full-time to teaching and research after
joining the Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures at the University
of Hawaii in 1989. His contributions in Hawaii were much appreciated and widely
acclaimed. He received tenure in 1992, and a promotion to full professor in 1995,
the year of his tragically premature death.
On June 18, 1963, a new binational agreement based on the Fulbright-Hays Act
of 1961 was signed by both governments. That same month, William L. Strauss was
appointed as the second executive director of the U.S. Educational Commission in Korea.
Leadership and Secretariat Staffing

In his report of March 17, 1967, then executive director Donald Frantz, Jr. made detailed
suggestions for a more comprehensive definition of the executive director’s role. These
included the following points:
• He shall work with the widest latitude for independent professional judgment,
action and decision within the policies laid down by the commission to organize,
to direct and to coordinate the programs approved by the commission.
• He shall establish and maintain general supervision over commission activities
and staff members.
• He shall on matters of mutual concern and interest consult with and maintain
liaison with:
- the members of the Ministry of Education (MOE), Economic Planning
Board (EPB), government of Korea;
- the officials of the American embassy and various agencies of the U.S.
Government, in particular USOM, Peace Corps, where applicable, the Eighth
U.S. Army, and USIS;
42
The 1960s
- designated representatives of private organizations, all of which groups operate

in educational areas concerned with the commission’s activities.19
In addition, Frantz outlined the duties and responsibilities of an East-West Center

(EWC) representative. He noted that he had conclusive evidence that the programs
of EWC and Fulbright had different goals and policies. However, he chose to write
statements regarding the duties of two USEC/K executives as “reflective of the separate
but conceivably cooperating functions of an Executive Director and a Deputy Director.”20
Thus, the position of deputy director and the need for such a position within the
Fulbright Commission originally grew directly from the demands placed on Fulbright by
East-West Center programs.
At the commission meeting of April 11, 1967, the chairman announced that Frantz
wished to terminate his contract at the end of the year and return to the U.S. 21 The
following month, at the commission’s May 19-20 workshop and meeting in Cheju Island,
the board discussed applicants for the executive director’s position and considered their
papers in detail. The board voted to offer the position to Edward Wright.22
Some of the early staffing of the Fulbright secretariat set patterns for the future but
also revealed the circumstances at the time. For example, a new driver was hired for the
1958 Jeep Station Wagon. His major functions were threefold: 1) as a driver for staff
responsibilities, 2) as a driver for American grantees in helping them make university
appointments, and 3) as a clerk in the office. Another staff member continued as a driver
for the executive director.23
At the commission meeting of July 3, 1968, Wright presented a proposed office
organization for Program Year 1968. The purpose of the staff reorganization was to meet
functional demands on the commission. The proposal described the duties of the executive
director and nine other full-time staff, including two drivers. A deputy director would have
particular responsibility for supervision of office operations, for follow-up activities, and for
counseling. In programming, the deputy director would have particular responsibility for
American Studies. The proposal also included a program officer, a budget and fiscal officer,
and program assistants and secretaries. Wright explained that the deputy director’s regular
duties would free the executive director from routine administrative duties, enabling him
to visit provincial areas more often and to spend more time on program activities. The
reorganization proposal was approved by the commission. 24
At its meeting of October 30, 1969, USEC/K approved a draft of the revised Bylaws
for the U.S. Educational Commission in Korea, which was subsequently air-pouched
to the Department of State.25 The revision of the bylaws reflected the organizational
changes that had been approved earlier.
43
Program Priorities in the Early Years:

An Emphasis on Development
In keeping with Korea’s status as a developing nation, the program priorities of Fulbright
Korea in its early years were focused on development, and the flow of both students and
teachers was one-way: American scholars went to Korea to teach, and Korean students
went to the United States to learn. The flow was also one-way in quantitative terms, with
many more Koreans heading for the United States than U.S. scholars or students coming
to Korea.
Among U.S. aid programs for the education sector in Korea, the largest was the U.S.
Operations Mission (USOM). It gave an estimated $11,906,600 in educational assistance
to Korea during the period from 1954 to 1968. The program mainly focused on providing
technical assistance for the development of educational institutions, especially the colleges
of Seoul National University, and of governmental agencies concerned with higher
education. The Asia Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the East-West Center were
also significant sources of funding for Korea’s education sector during the 1960s.26
The following description from a 1968 post report to Washington from the U.S.
embassy in Seoul helps to illustrate the strong development, as well as the military and
security emphasis, of U.S. exchanges with Korea in the 1960s:
Statistically, programs backstopped by the cultural affairs office (CU) and the
Board of Foreign Scholarships (BFS) are secondary elements in the human
resource development effort in Korea. Since the 1953 armistice, more than 12,000
Koreans have gone to the U.S. for military training; more than 3,000 for AID
participant training; and about 400 under the State Department’s leader-specialist
programs (the latter for an average of 45-60 days as contrasted with much longer
periods for military and vocational training). In addition, approximately 600 went
under Fulbright and East-West Center programs. The overwhelming emphasis in
U.S. government-financed programs, therefore, remains upon Korea’s security and
economic needs. Although Korea’s military and economic requirements remain
paramount, there is evidence that Koreans feel strongly that they have reached
a stage where more attention should be paid to their educational and cultural
development.27
American Studies
From its start, the Fulbright Program in Korea sought to send Korean students to
the United States for study in the field of American Studies. However, as one critical
44
The 1960s
treatment put it, “the Korean academic atmosphere deterred students from studying in the
field, and eventually American Studies became a tree without a solid root. In spite of the
commission’s emphasis on American studies, only one Korean institution, Sogang College,
had an Education Ministry-approved academic minor in American studies by 1968.” 28
In February 1965, the first seminar in American Studies was held at Bulkuksa in
cooperation with the United States Information Service (USIS) and Sogang University.
The United States Information Service was the name officially used overseas by the
United States Information Agency (USIA), and this seminar was in response to the
funding priorities of the Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961. Korean participants in this seminar
organized the American Studies Association of Korea (ASAK). One scholarly account
suggested that USEC/K welcomed the meeting’s “unanticipated side-effect,” expecting
that the new association would join USEC/K in sponsoring future academic activities.29
In fact, a number of American Fulbright scholars came to Korea during the latter half
of the 1960s in an effort to help American studies take root as an academic discipline,
and there were annual American studies conferences over this same time period. Also, a
number of universities considered upgrading or initiating American studies courses in the
late 1960s. However, since all of the American studies programs in Korean universities
were established to tap the opportunities provided by the United States, the programs
dwindled when U.S. aid decreased. USEC/K put its highest program priority on National
Development; American Studies was just a high priority. 30
Prominent Americans Visit Korea

In 1967, the U.S. embassy brought the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Earl
Warren, to Korea as part of its program on the development of legal institutions. In a
speech to the Korean Supreme Court, Warren said, “I believe there is a common bond
between men of law in all nations, because the law we use is not strictly our own.” He
went on to describe the U.S. Constitution and its core principles of individual rights,
power residing in the people, and the diffusion of powers and noted that these principles
were not of American origin: all law, he said, is continually borrowed and moving around.
Warren went on to add, “None of these principles was discovered by our Founding
Fathers. They had learned from the experience of people of all ages. But put together as
they were and adapted to our conditions and mores, they have served us well.”31
English Teaching
The propensity of Korean students to study abroad, especially in the United States and
other English-speaking countries, meant that English would quickly become a national
45
preoccupation in South Korea. Koreans considered learning English to be one of the keys
to success in life. Children from wealthy families learned English at a private English
education institute, ELI, at Chungmuro in Seoul. The yearly tuition of 20,600 won was
more than double one year’s university tuition at that time. However, in spite of the
English learning frenzy in the nation, the language proficiency of Korean students was far
below the international standard. According to a TOEFL survey of nearly 9,000 scores
from all over the world between 1964 and 1966, Korean students ranked third from the
bottom among the Asian nations represented.32
The Fulbright Program in Korea felt the heat of the enthusiasm among Koreans for
learning English and tried to help the Ministry of Education “to improve the techniques
in the teaching of English as a foreign language.” Fred Lukoff had started a program to
teach the teaching of English at Yonsei University, with the help of the Asia Foundation,
several years before Fulbright ran a similar program.
The USOM contributed money and English education specialists to train English
teachers in the public schools of Seoul and government officials to do graduate work or
special training. The program developed into the English Language Training Center, the
directorship of which was handed over to Korea in 1963. Specialists in teaching English
from the University of Michigan gave advice and suggestions on “all phases and levels
of English teaching throughout Korea” under the USOM-Peabody Teachers Contract,
which was terminated in 1962. The Fulbright Program was expected to fill a “vacuum” left
by the phasing out of the USOM programs.33
American grantees in the teaching of English as a second language taught classes at
colleges and universities to which they were assigned. In addition to their class load, they
held numerous seminars and workshops throughout the year for English teachers at
secondary schools, tutors of English, and American Peace Corps volunteers.34
In 1966, the U.S. Peace Corps, as part of its commitment to aid developing countries
around the world, sent its first group of volunteers to the Republic of Korea, which at that
time was still a poor, undeveloped country barely recovering from the devastation of the
Korean War. On the Korean side, given this Confucian nation’s overwhelming emphasis
on and desire for opportunities in education, it was natural to hope that the Peace Corps
volunteers would be assigned as teachers. But what the Americans could teach, what
they knew better than their Korean counterparts, was certainly not science or math, but
English.
So it was that the arrival of the Peace Corps in Korea underscored Korea’s commitment
to development, and in particular to the rebuilding and development of its education
sector. It also showed how Koreans realized early on that English proficiency would be
46
The 1960s
1961 grantees
Dr. Chester A. Bain,
Dr. Richard Garver,
Dr. Charles L. Hoag,
and Dr. Marion L.
Edman participate in
a Fulbright lecturers’
Seminar.
one key to successful development. Not incidentally, the Peace Corps program was for an
entire generation the major source of the Americans who would go on to be professionals
in Korean studies or establish lifelong involvement with Korea.
With the arrival of the first group of volunteers, designated K-1, South Korea became
the fiftieth country in the world to host Peace Corps volunteers. Prime Minister Chung
Il-Kwon, who had expressed interest in the Peace Corps as far back as 1961 when he
served as the Korean ambassador to the United States, officially welcomed the K-1 group
to Korea. Though there were about 50,000 U.S. troops stationed in Korea at the time, the
Peace Corps announced that volunteers would have little contact with them. Two-thirds
of the K-1 volunteers taught English. A Peace Corps official noted that although English
was a required subject in secondary schools and the first two years of college, millions of
hours were being devoted to its study with meager or limited results. The critical issue was
to improve the quality of the teaching and learning of English. Indeed, over the years that
Peace Corps volunteers served in Korea, more than two-thirds of them would be English
teachers. By Fiscal Year 1968, Peace Corps volunteers were in the equivalent of 33% of
public high schools and 25% of public middle schools in Korea. The expectation of the
Peace Corps country director and of the embassy was that the program would be phased
out within five to six years.35
47
Although it was not apparent at the time, the Peace Corps program in Korea would
later exert an influence on the Fulbright Program. Shim Jai Ok, who served as financial
officer and later program officer with the Peace Corps in Korea from January 1969 to
December 1977, would later join the Fulbright Commission staff. As we will describe in
Chapter 6, her experience with the training, placement, and administration of the Peace
Corps English teachers in secondary schools and universities would prove invaluable
in the design and implementation of the Fulbright English Teaching Assistant (ETA)
program in 1992.
English Testing and Counseling

The Fulbright Commission in Korea became involved with English testing from its
inception. The first available annual report states, “Early in the establishment of the
commission, the handling of English testing was turned over to the Secretariat. This
includes not only the testing of those students applying for Fulbright grants, but also
the testing of all persons wishing to go to the U.S.A. for study. This testing was formerly
conducted by USIS.”36
A post report during the second year of the Fulbright Commission’s operation had the
following to say about English testing: “English testing is normally done by the Fulbright
secretariat. This had not always been done in the past due to the lack of a qualified
person to administer the tests. It is being done now except for provincial candidates
whose examinations are administered by the branch public affairs officers. Oral tests are
administered by the Executive Assistant USEC/K and two qualified Americans in the
field of English teaching.”37
The Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), designed and distributed by
the Educational Testing Service (ETS) in Princeton, did not make a smooth entry into
the Korean education market. A post report for the July 1963 to June 1964 year had the
following to say about English testing:
English testing procedures are the same as previously reported. However, both the
embassy and USEC/K believe that the TOEFL examination will seriously affect
their programs. As TOEFL examination procedures have been explained, they
are virtually unworkable in Korea. It is USEC/K’s and the embassy’s experience
that the Educational Testing Service (ETS) of Princeton, New Jersey, who will
administer TOEFL, has no knowledge of Far Eastern realities. On three separate
occasions in 1963-64, ETS, in administering the College Entrance Board
examinations, ordered Korean students to report to either Tokyo or Kobe for
48
The 1960s
examinations. A payment of $10 US currency is required to take TOEFL. An

average skilled worker—carpenter, electrician, or plumber—has been reported as
making the equivalent of approximately $1.50 daily. This $10 must be paid in US
currency, not in local currency. The Ministry of Finance, on the recommendation
of the Ministry of Education, refuses to allow conversion for the purpose of taking
such examinations. The Ministry of Education states that the USG should bear the
cost of these examinations and the ROKG will not permit the release of currency
for it. At the present time neither USEC/K nor the embassy see any solution.38
Ultimately, as later chapters of this book will show, English testing, and in particular
TOEFL administration, would become a major non-grant program activity of the
Fulbright Commission, with substantial benefits for its grant programs and overall
activities.
During Fulbright’s first decade in Korea, its English testing activities increased.
In 1967, in view of the appropriations cut, the Institute for International Education
requested that eleven Koreans be retested in English in order to present the candidates in
the best possible light. USEC/K used its own test of English, but also reported TOEFL
scores. In 1967, the eleven candidates, in the fields of law and science, had TOEFL scores
that clustered mostly in the mid- to high 400 range, with the highest score being a 498.
The executive director’s report for March of that year noted that “English classes for
grantees with scores of below 500 on the TOEFL will resume in March 1967.”39
By 1967, the TOEFL had clearly become an important element in the screening
of Korean students for study abroad. In that year, the exchanges officer at USIS
recommended that the TOEFL be required for all students going to the U.S. beginning
in January 1968 and that Fulbright take over responsibility for both the test and for
counseling the students. This recommendation was bluntly rejected by Fulbright’s
executive director on three grounds: the current binational agreement made no reference
to non-sponsored students, the Fulbright Commission’s annual program proposals for
1967 and 1968 did not include this, and, finally, the Fulbright Commission had no staff,
available office space, or library room for such services.40
In the early and mid-1960s, the State Department had a contract with the American
Korean Foundation (AKF) for counseling and testing.41 The original grant from the
State Department to AKF for student counseling stated, “The purpose of this grant is to
assist the Foundation to expand its services in Korea to provide more effective counseling,
guidance, screening and English language testing.” The grant was for the period from
April 1, 1963, through June 30, 1964, and was in the amount of $25,000. An amendment
to the grant provided for a second year of operation.42
49
In Fiscal Year 1966, costs for this service came to 69,023 won. AKF declined to
honor the contract in Fiscal Year 1967, for reasons the executive director was never able
to determine. In Fiscal Year 1966, EWC nominees had taken the TOEFL; in Fiscal
Year 1967, they did not. USEC/K was left with the responsibility for these services.
The USEC/K bill to EWC for screening and testing was 49,583 won, but that did not
include, or begin to measure, the man-hours put into drafting the test, pretesting it,
administering it, and scoring it.43
The request from the Department of State to relocate educational counseling within
the USEC/K framework was worded as follows: “The Department is primarily concerned
that the following functions be maintained to some degree: giving basic advice to qualified
students about a proper choice of a U.S. institution; English testing; and the weeding-out
to the extent possible—with the knowledge and cooperation of the visa officer—of the
obviously unqualified for any reason. There are no funds to help provide extensive services
to universities... nor do we think it appropriate to actively assist the students to obtain
scholarships by writing their letters for them, assembling supporting documents, etc.44
The executive director’s report to the commission on March 17, 1967, included an
appendix that described his discussions with the Cultural Affairs Office (CU45) about a
counseling center, and the CU contract with the American Korean Foundation (AKF).
Among the main points discussed were that the function of the Fulbright Commission
was in higher education with sponsored students; that the inclusion of undergraduate,
non-sponsored students introduced a new principle of operation; and that housing all
educational problems under one roof would raise questions of “empire building.”
However, it seemed logical for all educational matters to belong to the commission.
What it needed, it was determined, was an overseas center for research, consulting,
counseling, testing, interviewing, in-country programs, and other such efforts. The
commission could provide this service.
My Encounter with a Dignitary

Song Sang Hyun
International Criminal Court
The first time I ever heard the name of the “Fulbright Program,” it was mentioned
by a professor at the university where I was studying. He had gone to the United
50
The 1960s
States for a one-year sojourn in the early 1950s, shortly after the Korean War had
ended. Only a few top students were given opportunities to study abroad, and
there were few people to talk with about overseas study at the time. Overseas study
made me think of my ability in foreign languages, particularly English. When I
was a high school student, those eager to study English formed a study club where
they intensified their studies of English. Having no chance to become a member of
the club, I almost gave up on the thought of overseas study. However, encouraged
by a professor, I went to the Fulbright Office. This took a lot of courage on my part
since I did not think much of overseas study. An administrator of the office was
kind enough to explain, in detail, the procedure for the scholarship application,
with the help of reference books.
I was inspired by a better knowledge of the scholarship program. There were
many forms to be filled out, and it required reference letters from professors. Out
of all the requirements, the TOEFL seemed to be the most impossible hurdle,
casting cold water on my rising hopes. I said to myself, “I don’t have to go to
America.” Even my parents were not so eager to see me away from home since I
was their only son and they had no daughters.
One day, I happened to meet a Fulbright scholar on the campus. Summoning
up my courage, I stammered a few English words. In response to this courageous
behavior, he enthusiastically supported my preparation of papers and reference
letters. The TOEFL was the most burdensome part of the application. I prepared
myself for the English test. I thought that the language test should be conducted
in the context of my knowledge of the culture and history of the country in
question, and that there was no need to intensify the study of language alone. The
most difficult part of the language test was listening comprehension.
Fortunately, I was a successful candidate, perhaps because the field of law invited
so few candidates that it was much less competitive. The notification of this good
news was not so much a pleasure as it was a new source of worry. I had never been
away from my home and was concerned about what this adventure meant for
my future. Other concerns were the school and the field of study I had to choose.
When it comes to choosing a school, one is concerned with the prestige or name
value of the school. There was one successful candidate who was admitted into
Yale Law School. However, he dropped out of the scholarship independently
simply because the name of the university did not satisfy his academic lust. The
prestige of the school did not factor into my choice of school. I was searching for
51
a school where I could study both English-American law and continental law
comparatively. My search ended with the master’s course of Tulane University in
New Orleans, a romantic city where streetcars named “Desire” streamed endlessly
under Spanish moss. I was told that the state of Louisiana had been French
territory before the United States purchased it. The expectation that French
might be spoken in tandem with English excited my interest. On arriving in New
Orleans, this expectation was dashed by a painful dose of reality: all the streets
named in French were translated into English, and French had no place to stand
amid the dominance of English.
The passage of 45 years obscures my memories of what happened in those days.
Among my fuzzy memories, the Fulbright Program stands out like a merciful
persona whose encounter with me was destined by providence. Apparently, the
Fulbright Program remains monumental, comparable to a Copernican revolution,
to me, someone who used to feel a great sense of satisfaction with accomplishing
a small feat. It has been a source of inspiration in confronting many challenges.
Even today, it stands me in good stead as I cope with the challenges of serving as
president of the International Criminal Justice Court.
The AKF operation was to continue until June 30, 1967. It had a budget of $22,000,
with CU saying that $5,000 would now be available for the same program due to the
appropriations cut.
The recommendation coming out of the discussions with CU was to move the AKF
program into USEC/K operation and realign the administrative organization to include
the East West Center (EWC) and Health, Education and Welfare (HEW ) when
that program arrived in Korea. The cost was $20,000, to be shared by the Fulbright
Commission, USIS, EWC, and any other agencies that wanted the services of the center.
It was also recommended that new office space be located and that more vehicles
and more office equipment, including typewriter, files, air conditioners, and so forth, be
purchased.46
At the commission meeting of April 11, 1967, there was discussion of an educational
counseling service, based on the executive director’s report on his trip to the U.S. the
previous month. The chairman noted that although the Department of State had asked if
the Educational Counseling Service operated by the American-Korean Foundation under
a Department of State contract could be accommodated within the USEC/K framework,
the Department had also indicated that it felt that not all the functions undertaken by
52
The 1960s
AKF would be appropriate under USEC/K auspices, i.e., writing letters to universities for
applicants, helping them look for fellowships, etc.47
There was in-depth discussion of the importance of educational counseling, along
with the space, staffing, and administrative requirements it would entail. The Ministry of
Education representative on the board said that Korean students were then conferring
with friends and teachers in Korea and in the United States and making decisions on
the basis of limited knowledge. Sometimes, students would change their university and
course of study after arriving in the United States. There was a need for consultation in
Korea prior to a student’s departure for the United States. It was an important function;
the question was who would take this job.
During the discussion, the commission’s chairman noted that the absolute imperative
was not the counseling, but the English testing, which was required for university
admission and to obtain a student visa. The MOE board representative added that
students going abroad now needed to take two English tests—the AFK test and that of
the Ministry of Education. He suggested that this might be done jointly.48 The board
appointed a subcommittee to obtain further details from AFK regarding the success and
failures of its counseling service to date, problems, and so forth.
At its May 19-20 meeting on Cheju Island, the commission took up the matter of testing
and counseling services for non-sponsored students. On the former matter, it agreed that
English testing of non-sponsored students would not be a concern of the commission.
With respect to student counseling, the commission agreed in principle to the location of a
counseling center for non-sponsored students within the USEC/K framework, contingent
upon obtaining additional office space and personnel and required funds. The commission
did not anticipate that it would be able to obtain additional office space in the immediate
future, and thus there would be an inevitable hiatus between the ending of the AKF
contract counseling service and the ability of the commission to assume counseling duties.49
East-West Center Services

Fulbright Korea began providing services to the East-West Center in Program Year 1960-
61 by announcing grants and sending one high school teacher to the center for training.50
In March 1967, the executive director reported to the commission on the very first billing
of EWC for English Language Training. But this point raised a serious issue: EWC had
an opinion about TOEFL and ELT that was different from the USEC/K position. EWC
did not emphasize a candidate’s competency in English as a selection criterion as much
as USEC/K did at that time. USEC/K had established an English Language Consultant
Center (ELCC), and one major phase of its operation was concentration on the grantees
53
The East-West Center is a national educational

institution established in Hawaii by the U.S.
Congress in 1960 to “promote better relations
and understanding between the United States
and the nations of Asia and the Pacific through
cooperative study, training and research.”
Pictured here is Dr. Suk-Jin Chang, program
consultant for the Korean-American Educational
Commission, with Korean students at a workshop
at the East-West Center in Hawaii.
54
The 1960s
and nominees in a full year of pre-orientation in English.51

The executive director also reported to the commission that there was a “lack of
definition and responsibility connected with the EWC Program.” Further, he noted
that correspondence from EWC had clearly indicated that EWC could never turn over
decision-making and selection of grantees to USEC/K. USEC/K was, he said, a “dumping
ground for EWC problems without USEC/K having any of the necessary rights to
establish policy and program.” This situation also made it clear that another person was
needed in the secretariat on the executive level.52
Emphasis on Seoul versus Outlying Regions

The leading universities and colleges in Korea have historically been concentrated in and
around Seoul. All available evidence suggests that from the start of Fulbright in Korea,
there was grumbling about the program’s excessive focus on Seoul and the isolation of
provincial areas, especially the province of Jeolla.53
Access to the Fulbright Programs, a chief path to success in Korea, was open mainly
to the students and teachers of the colleges in Seoul and Gyeongsang Province. The
Fulbright Commission encountered complaints about the monopoly of certain areas and
was worried about negative effects on U.S.-Korea relations: “In discussions with various
individuals, we have encountered the feeling that the present makeup of the commission
has resulted in an excessive concentration of support to Seoul National University or
members of its faculty. Although we are unable to confirm that this is a correct perception
of the present situation, we are convinced that even the existence of this view among many
Korean leaders (in and outside Seoul) is inimical to the best interests of the program.”
The commission took steps to try to rectify the problem by putting “special emphasis”
on supporting academic activities of scholars and students in provincial areas in the 1968
program. Specifically, the commission provided Fulbright lecture series in Jeonju (Chonbuk
National University) and Kwangju (Chonnam National University) by scheduling several
Fulbright-Hays lectures throughout the year from Japan and Seoul. Needless to say, the
commission’s efforts fell short of remedying the deep-rooted discrimination.54
American Graduate Students versus Lecturers

At the commission meeting of March 17, 1967, there was an interesting discussion on
allocating available funds to an additional American lecturer versus giving them to an
American graduate student. Two new and three renewal grants had been issued for the
American lecturer program, so funds were available for one American lecturer. However,
it was noted that if an additional American lecturer were not selected, these funds could
55
be used for two more American graduate student grants.

David Steinberg noted that while this was a difficult choice, his general feeling was to
opt for the graduate students in order to encourage young people to devote their careers
to Korean studies. After considerable discussion, the commission voted to select two
additional graduate students rather than an American lecturer.55
Joint Meeting of USEC/K and USEC/Japan in Seoul

The June 6-8, 1969 meeting of the commission was a joint meeting with the United
States Educational Commission in Japan held at Academy House in Seoul. The topics
discussed during the meeting included various aspects of programs and funding for them.
At the outset, executive director Edward Wright stressed that national development was
an overall program theme in Korea.
During the discussion of funding, one of the American board members observed that
the reluctance of the Korean or Japanese governments to fund commission projects might
have to do with the name of the commissions. This led into a discussion of the possibility
of changing the name from United States Educational Commission to something that
would more adequately convey the binational nature of the commissions. There was also
discussion about program priorities, which included the sharing of information about
TEFL programs in both countries and inquiries by the Japanese representatives about the
contribution of U.S. Peace Corps volunteers to English teaching in Korea. At the time of
this meeting, there were about 350 Peace Corps volunteers teaching English in Korea.
The joint meeting included extensive discussion of the sharing of Fulbright scholars and
other scholarly exchanges between Japan and Korea. The meeting discussed the possibility
of a joint resolution to send to Washington, expressing mutual feelings about the need for
adequate program funding. However, instead of drafting such a resolution, the meeting
concluded with a discussion of alternative sources of program funds.56
One-Way Exchange:
American Education as a Route to Success
During the early years of the Fulbright Program in Korea, education in the United States
came to be viewed as an avenue to success. Although the strict class distinctions of the
Yi Dynasty were affected by the 36 years of Japanese rule, scholars have observed that
social mobility in a real sense did not arrive until U.S. influence prevailed in Korea. 57
The Americans introduced land reform in Korea, following the examples of Japan and
Taiwan. As political scientist Lee Hahn Been later observed, the reform did much to
56
The 1960s
nullify traditional class patterns and gave birth to a new ruling class formed on the basis
of education. This did not lead to the collapse of the yangban class. Rather, as David
Steinberg put it, the former landlords retained their social, if not economic, standing, and
many of them invested in the modern equivalent of the imperial examination system of
the Yi Dynasty—modern Westernized education for their children and urban real estate.58
From its inception, the main focus of the Fulbright Program in Korea was to provide
“opportunities for individual Korean students and scholars to study at American
universities and for American scholars and students to study in Korea and/or lecture at
Korean universities or other higher educational institutions.” Senator Fulbright had once
suggested that the purpose of the program was “less to educate outsiders than to educate
Americans about the outside world,” and one way to accomplish this purpose was to
have foreign students come to the U.S. for study. And during the 1960s, Koreans helped
to educate Americans as they clamored for opportunities to study abroad. Their most
popular destination was the United States. For those who could qualify, then, Fulbright
grants provided one means to satisfy this demand.
A U.S. embassy analysis of patterns in Korean study abroad from July 1961 through
June 1962, pieced together from Ministry of Education, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
and Ministry of Justice sources, showed the following numbers departing for leading
destinations:
• USA 3255
• Germany 200
• France 148
• China 77
• UK 30
• Canada 29
• Italy 2359
Beyond the sheer numbers, the following excerpts from the 1964 program plan seem
to indicate that the focus of the Fulbright Program early on was directed more toward
educating Koreans about America than educating Americans about Korea:
The commission is continuing with the following guidelines for its third program:
• To help Korean universities train their students in the basic practices and
requirements of a democratic nation.
• To introduce and further the use of modern techniques in scholarship, research
and instruction.
57
• To further the study and understanding of Korean culture and civilization among
American scholars.
The top five projects of 1964 were as follows:
• American Studies
• English Teaching
• Science and Technology Education
• Economics of National Development
• Comparative Government
As noted by Lee Sang-Dawn,60 the Fulbright Program in Korea followed the law of
supply and demand—more Koreans wanted to experience America than Americans
wanted to experience Korea. And the real purpose of the program—though not expressed
in formal documents—was, as scholar of American foreign policy Frank Ninkovich wrote,
to favorably influence Koreans’ “attitudes and opinions” toward the United States.
The United States wanted to help Koreans acquire what Americans believed the
Koreans should know. Since what the Koreans wanted and needed from the United
States and what the United States wanted Koreans to learn dovetailed, there was no
noticeable grumbling about the program in Korea.61
USEC/K conducted a survey in 1968 that confirmed quite clearly how important
American education was to getting ahead in Korea. The commission sent questionnaires
to grant returnees. When asked how important they considered their American education
for professional advancement in Korea, eighty-three of the 104 respondents answered
either “very important” or “somewhat important.” Only two said it was “not important” in
succeeding in their professions.62
American Indifference and Ignorance

Of course, most Americans in the 1960s actually knew nothing about Korea except for
the fact that the U.S. had fought a war there. Moreover, most Americans had no feeling
for or interest in Korea. The Fulbright Program had a hard time finding students and
scholars interested in Korea and willing to go there. During some years, money in the
program was given to students who wanted to go to Japan or Taiwan.
The Fulbright grantees who did go to Korea went with little awareness of cultural
differences and with a lot of misperceptions. Some of them expected to have their
own cars as they did in the U.S. A 1963-64 grantee with diabetes wandered off into
58
The 1960s
1963-1964
American grantees
and their families.
the boondocks with only enough insulin for two days, apparently thinking there was a
Walgreen’s growing in every hamlet. Again and again, the Fulbright Commission in Seoul
had to repeat, “Korea is not California.”63
The Korean sense of time frequently frustrated Americans, who were accustomed to
living by Western time and clear schedules. Joseph S. Chung, an American Fulbright
lecturer at Seoul National University from August 1966 to July 1968, was shocked to find
that students generally “resisted punctuality, regular attendance, homework assignments,
and tests.” Another Fulbrighter, Barbara Mintz (September 1967 to June 1968), reported
that Korean professors “typically” came to class late and left early and that students were
sometimes “shocked” if American lecturers called upon them to keep class hours exactly.64
In the 1960s, Korea was still undergoing a transition from its traditional agrarian culture
to a manufacturing economy. Exactness in timekeeping was far less needed in the former
than in the latter. In fact, although wristwatches were one of the consumer items that became
fashionable in Korea during the 1960s, cultural patterns themselves changed more slowly.
Difficulty Recruiting American Grantees

Given the circumstances in Korea and the lack of awareness about Korea in the U.S., it
should be no surprise that the commission experienced difficulty recruiting American
grantees. At the commission meeting of March 17, 1967, executive director Donald
Frantz, Jr. explained that the 1966 program had a surplus of $13,034 in the American
59
grantees category. Therefore, although only three inter-country lecturers were budgeted
for initially, there were funds to include a much larger number. The commission discussed
procedures for reprogramming these surplus funds and agreed that Korean universities
and scholarly organizations should be informed in advance of the possibility of getting
American scholars from Japan and other Asian countries to participate in special lecture
programs and seminars. The board voted to authorize Frantz to explore the use of
available funds for additional inter-country lectureships.65
Discussion of Possible Name Change and Host-Country Cost-Sharing

At a commission meeting and workshop at Haeundae on May 10-12, 1968, there was
discussion of the possibility of changing the name of USEC/K. Dr. W. Kenneth Bunce,
the commission chairman, stated that he knew of no other name for USEC except in
Malaysia, and this was likely because they paid a substantial amount of money to finance
the program. This brought up the point that the State Department had requested all
commissions to look into the possibility of the host country sharing the costs. Bunce
said he did not know of anything in the legislation that required the commission to
carry a particular name, that he did not have strong feelings one way or the other, and
that in most countries Fulbright was considered a binational program. A discussion then
followed on cost-sharing. Bunce asked the Korean members of the commission how they
felt about the possibility of changing the name of the commission, and an agreement was
reached to postpone any decision–the conclusion was that the matter should be discussed
further at a later date.66 As it turned out, that date would not be far off, due to the
recommendations of long-range planning teams.
On May 11, the very next day of the commission meeting and workshop, Dr. Carl F.
Bartz, Jr., the cultural affairs officer, shared with members of the commission a report on
the purpose of the long-range binational advisory team being sent to Korea that year. The
Bureau of Educational Exchange Affairs had decided that the Fulbright Program and
other elements of international educational programs had been in existence long enough
and that it was time to consider them a permanent part of the landscape and to think of
long-term binational planning. A four-man Korean counterpart team had already been
selected by the Korean Ministry of Education.67
The U.S. ad hoc long-range planning team consisted of George M. Beckmann of
the Claremont Graduate School, Bowen C. Dees of the University of Arizona, Walter
H.C. Laves of Indiana University, and Edward W. Wagner of Harvard University. They
published their report to the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural
Affairs in September 1968. It contained several major recommendations, summarized as
60
The 1960s
follows.
First, it recommended enlarging the number of commission members to ten: five from
the Korean side and five from the American side. Two (and only two) of the American
representatives should be employees of the U.S. foreign service or other U.S. government
employees resident in Korea. One of the three remaining U.S. positions should be filled
by an American resident in Korea who was not explicitly involved with U.S. or Korean
academic life (a banker or representative of an American airline or manufacturer, for
example), and the other two by individuals with experience in or substantial knowledge of
colleges and universities in both countries.
Of the Korean representatives, two (and only two) should be from the Korean
government, and one should be an individual who was knowledgeable concerning
the United States as well as Korea, but who was drawn from circles outside of higher
education (a publisher, banker, or other businessman, for example). The planning team
also recommended that at least one Korean citizen from outside the Seoul area be
appointed to the commission.68
Second, the long-range planning team said, “Our concept of the future status and role
of the binational commission extends somewhat the traditional role of such bodies.”
It expressed the hope that the commission might take a position of leadership in the
area of the exchange of ideas and materials, while continuing to serve the function of
administering its exchange of persons program.69
Third, noting that the commission had already given consideration to changing its name,
the long-range planning team suggested the change take place quickly, stating that “it is
our judgment that this step should be taken in the relatively near future. The binational
nature of the commission has been recognized from the outset; the inter-governmental
agreement under which it operates leaves no doubt that this is a program intended to
involve activities of mutual interest. In our view, a name more clearly indicative of the
binational nature of the commission should be adopted and made part of the inter-
governmental agreement through the usual mechanism for amending that agreement.”70
Fourth, the long-range planning group suggested that the binational agreement should
be amended to specifically include mention of financial contributions from the South
Korean government. They noted that Korean institutions were already making in-kind
contributions to the program and expressed the hope that “by the time the program for
1974 is formulated, the ROKG contribution would have risen to at least 50 percent of
that of the United States government.” 71
Fifth, the long-range planning study suggested that “it would be highly desirable to
clarify and unambiguously state the nature of the obligations of the commission and its
61
secretariat to the U.S. governmental representatives in Korea. The problem, as we see it,
is not so much that there is currently a major difficulty of any kind, but that the lack of
specificity in the degree of review authority exercised by the U.S. embassy over the work of
the commission may in the future become more significant, especially if the commission
moves toward a position of greater reliance on Korean funds and participation.”72
About a year earlier, in September 1967, the Department of State sent an Airgram
to all diplomatic posts, containing a set of guidelines prepared by the Board of Foreign
Scholarships and setting out the BFS views concerning the ways in which the affairs of
the binational commissions might best be conducted. The Korea long-range planning
team quoted and endorsed one of the comments from that document as follows:
While a close working relationship and a spirit of mutual confidence are essential
between the commission and official representatives of the United States and the
host country, the Board of Foreign Scholarships considers it desirable that some
degree of detachment exist on the part of the commission if true binationalism
is to be fostered. This applies equally to the daily working relationship of the
commission secretariat.73
Viewed from today’s perspective and the subsequent evolution of the Fulbright
Program in Korea, the recommendations of the long range planning team seem
remarkably appropriate to the circumstances and farsighted. Most, but not all, were
adopted over the ensuing decades.
Funding and Budgeting

During the early years of the Fulbright Program, questions arose not only about the
overall level of annual funding but also about local currency versus dollar funding and
currency conversion. The post report to Washington for the 1963 exchange year noted, “A
specific allocation of a dollar supplement to the won salary of the Executive Director of
USEC/K is badly needed. The ROKG refuses to make conversion for this purpose and,
indeed, refuses conversion for any purpose except as provided for in section 104 (h) of the
P.L. 480 (Food for Peace) agreements. Dr. William Strauss, the Executive Director, has
two teen-age daughters who will be attending American universities next year. Should
this problem of dollars for him not be solved then he may not be able to continue with
USEC/K.”74
The first annual report of the USEC/K indicated that “the funds for the 1961 Program
Year were provided under Section 32 (b) of the United States Surplus Property Act of
62
The 1960s
1944 as amended by Public Law No. 584, 9th Congress (the Fulbright Act). A small
portion of the funds available under this Act are allocated for educational exchange
programs of which Fulbright is just one program. Included in this also is the Smith-
Mundt Program, PL402, and the IIE program.” 75
Annual expenditures by USEC/K from its first year through 1968 were as follows:
• 1961 - $220,000
• 1962 - $220,000
• 1963 - $250,000
• 1964 - $250,000
• 1965 - $250,680
• 1966 - $218,600
• 1967 - $189,573
• 1968 - $170,50676
The effects of the appropriations cut in 1967 were acutely felt by the Fulbright Program
in Korea. The executive director wrote, “IIE has written that all USEC/K nominees are
‘placeable.’ This normally would be good news–that none of the candidates submitted
by USEC/K this year were ‘not placeable,’ that is, rejected. It means that USEC/K’s
screening procedures—testing and interviewing—were effective. It means that the
USEC/K language training program was effective. It means USEC/K sent an excellent
slate of Korean candidates. But all this constitutes another illustration of tragic irony,
for the secretariat has had to tell twelve (12) of these candidates that their grants are
postponed. USEC/K does not have the $58,000 originally programmed to send them to
the States for graduate study.”77 By 1968 the Fulbright Program had sent 289 grantees to
America.
The significance of major budget decreases in 1967 and 1968 was addressed in a report
by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences. That report put matters this way:
Recent budget cuts have caused a sharp decline in the two-way intellectual traffic
between Korea and the United States previously supported by the Fulbright
and State Department educational and professional exchange programs. The
resulting sense of isolation and abandonment enveloping the Korean intellectual
and professional community gives timely warning of what may be expected, on a
much larger scale, if provision is not made for a bridge to be kept open between
the two countries. Most important, we believe that this will require a long term
63
commitment on the part of the United States well beyond the next decade. We
cannot emphasize strongly enough the need for the United States to recognize
and accept the fact that no developing country—especially one of the low-income
type that Korea represents—can stand a total severance of aid from the United
States without jeopardizing the progress already made and serious harm to the
effort it must maintain in the years ahead.78
The National Academy of Sciences report took the situation so seriously that it
included a rather detailed recommendation for establishment of a bilateral Korean-
American Development Institution.79
In the 1960s, USEC/K established the precedent of benchmarking Fulbright
Commission staff salaries against those of U.S. embassy staff. Therefore, in keeping
with decisions made by the commission at its June 1966 meeting, the executive director
authorized the accountant to make adjustments in staff salaries in order to meet rising
costs due to inflation. Staff salaries were increased 41% annually and 35% biweekly.
This was the same compensation plan established for USIS/embassy/USOM employees
effective January 29, 1967.80
In a report dated March 17, 1967, Donald H. Frantz, Jr. included a lengthy section
on “New Directions in Program Proposals” that addressed some of the recent budgetary
problems of the commission. He noted that he had tried to figure out some way to assist
the commission in putting more flexibility into its program in order to prevent disasters
such as had occurred over the previous two years, namely extensive surpluses and,
conversely, extensive cuts in funds.
Frantz put forth a proposal for a more flexible program. In his words: “The question in
the Executive Director’s mind is over use of funds. Is it possible to build into proposals
a means of transferring funds from the grant program to the in-country program81
and vice-versa? If it were possible, USECK could counter cuts in appropriations, make
effective use of surplus funds, and combat the ‘brain drain.’”82
Frantz’s specific proposals included one that suggested USEC/K be established as
a Fulbright House, as a center of activity for science, social science, and humanities.
Although the possibility that Fulbright Korea would become a center of support for all
U.S.-Korea scholarly exchanges had been discussed in commission meetings, this appears
to be the first mention of a “Fulbright House.”83 This idea of a Fulbright House would
eventually become a reality, first through the long-term lease of a building by that name
and later through purchase of the Fulbright Building in Mapo. How this came about is a
story for subsequent pages and chapters of this book.
Frantz’s proposals also included 1) that there be a closer relationship of the grant
64
The 1960s
program and the in-country program, 2) that alumni activity be stimulated by establishing
research grants for Korean Fulbright alumni, 3) that these grants be related to the
American graduate student program in order to enable graduate students to do field work
with young Korean scholars and to identify research centers and Korean mentors for
Fulbright, EWC, and HEW, and 4) that these grants have the backstopping of summer
grants for American professors to initiate or follow up on research projects in Korea that
were already under way.84
Infrastructure
During the 1960s, there were two types of infrastructure required to carry out the mission
of Fulbright Korea. One, of course, was the need for office space to accommodate an
expanding Fulbright Commission secretariat and apartments or houses for American
Fulbright grantees who came to Korea. The second requirement was that of vehicles for
transportation of both Fulbright Commission staff and grantees.
Office Space and Apartments

As already noted, upon the establishment of USEC/K on September 1, 1960, office
space was made available in the cultural affairs office of the U.S. embassy in Seoul. That
arrangement was only temporary, and after much negotiation an office was acquired near the
embassy. The secretariat moved into Room 702 of the Won Chang Building in December
1960. As more staff were added, the need for larger quarters arose. In addition to the
enlarged staff, other problems existed. Toilet facilities were inadequate, electrical and elevator
service was undependable, heating was provided for only four hours each day, and so forth.
Consequently, the commission decided to seek other quarters that would be more
suitable. After negotiation with the commission’s lawyers, the secretariat jointly occupied
with the Asia Foundation the third floor of a new office building within walking distance
from the embassy. The move took place on September 21, 1961. Although the secretariat
found the new quarters adequate for the time being, it anticipated that enlargement of the
program would necessitate the acquisition of additional space.85 In 1965, the commission
offices were relocated to the Sungbo Building in Jung-gu, Seoul.
In addition to locating adequate office space for the secretariat, the commission faced
quite a challenge in securing proper housing for American Fulbright grantees. In the
planning stages of the first-year program, the commission adopted the policy of asking
Korean host institutions to provide adequate housing facilities for a stipulated amount
of rent, which would be paid by the commission directly to the university or landowner.
65
Only one of six host institutions was able to do this, forcing the secretariat to seek
housing locally, with varying results ranging from completely Korean-style to modified
Western and modified Japanese.86
Equipment, Supplies, and Transportation

Along with the matters of office space for the secretariat and housing for grantees,
the provision of equipment, supplies, and transportation posed great challenges from
the beginning. At first, the embassy generously loaned certain surplus furniture to the
commission so that it could set up its own office. However, in 1960-61 the commission
locally procured one used Remington adding machine, two new Royal standard
typewriters, one new Royal portable typewriter, one used Royal portable typewriter, and
one new metal supply cabinet at a total cost of 935,000 won.87 This cost was higher than
stateside prices, but the commission was in great need of these items and, limited by won
purchases, could not obtain them from any other source.
During this early period, a change in Korean government policy regarding the
importation of foreign goods greatly hampered the commission in its daily operations
due to the loss of access to such necessary supplies as letterhead and stencils. The annual
report noted, “There are available a limited amount of locally produced office supplies, but
these are of a sub-standard quality, and those U.S. or Japanese made items which are still
available have risen, in some cases, in cost to 200% of the original price. The American
embassy continues to give certain small consumable supplies when absolutely necessary.
The commission, though it prefers not to, is forced to buy necessary office supplies
through black market sources at exorbitant prices. There seems to be no way to get around
this without MPC privileges which would allow the commission to purchase supplies
through US Army sources.”88
The initial group of American grantees was advised to bring typewriters with them if
they wanted access to one. The commission’s only access to such typewriters was through
local dealers who imported them at extremely high rates and attempted to sell them at a
profit. Since the American grantees said the baggage allowance was not sufficient to bring a
typewriter, the commission decided to raise it the next year specifically for this purpose. 89
The first annual report of USEC/K also noted, “The executive director was promised an
official vehicle upon taking up his position last September.” It detailed the need for such a
vehicle and the high cost of continuing to rely on buses, streetcars, hapseung (shared taxis),
and taxis. A Jeep station wagon had been donated by the Asia Foundation and was ready
to be transferred to the commission at any time. However, the problem was how to get a
tax-free license plate for it.90
66
The 1960s
During Fiscal Year 1964, USEC/K personnel were admitted as members of the
American Embassy Club commissary. This reportedly resulted in a material improvement
in morale.91
Fulbright House
At the commission meeting of September 19, 1967, executive director Edward Wright
reported on the possibility of obtaining office and apartment space in a new building
being planned for the area near Shin-A Ilbo and Embassy Compound I. He noted that
the present office space was totally inadequate and that it was increasingly difficult to
find adequate housing in Seoul. Further, he pointed out that it would be advantageous to
have centrally located housing for couples and single persons under commission auspices.
The building could provide two floors for office space, at 53 pyong (approximately 1,886
ft2) per floor, and up to five floors for apartments with two apartments per floor. The
cost, if “key money” were used, would be $19,630 per floor of offices, and $23,234 per
floor of apartments, with rent-free occupancy for as long as the commission desired; the
money would be refunded on departure from the building. If paid in annual rent, the cost
would be $11.00 per pyong (approximately 35.6 ft2) per month. The executive director
recommended that the commission try to obtain two floors of offices and five floors of
apartments for a key money cost of $157,040. He suggested that both the Korean and
American governments might contribute funds for this purpose. After some discussion,
the commission agreed that it was desirable to look further into the question of office and
housing space, and a committee was appointed.92
The topic of office and housing space came up again at the next commission meeting
on October 17, 1967. David Steinberg said that the Asia Foundation headquarters
had approved his exploring the possibility of obtaining space in the same building. The
chairman was doubtful that the State Department could provide funds for the new
building, but the commission confirmed that it was desirable to move to the new building
under one financial agreement or another, and that the commission could rent two floors
of office space and three floors of apartments under its present budget.93
On January 6, 1969, the Fulbright Commission offices moved into a new building
in Soonhwa-dong, thereafter known as Fulbright House. The commission leased seven
floors in this small eleven-story building: two floors of office and conference space and
five floors of apartments for American grantees (twelve apartment units including official
guest quarters for visiting scholars and officials). In 1973, the annual report noted, “The
use of this facility has greatly facilitated and enhanced the scope of the Korea program
in every respect. American grantees continue to be pleased with their centrally located
67
apartments, as well as with the study and reading areas available to them on the third and
fourth floors. The commission’s meeting facilities—a second floor conference room and an
eleventh floor meeting and reception room—have been extensively utilized.”94
The multiple moves made by the commission during the 1960s foreshadowed a
problem that it would deal with over the ensuing decades. As its programs expanded, so
did its need for office space and housing for American grantees. The need to move was
often connected with either the uncertainty or the cost—or both—of rental and chonsei
(key money) arrangements in Seoul. At the same time, the decision to name the building
rented in 1969 the “Fulbright House” indicated the commission’s need for stable, long-
term space from which to operate an expanding program.
At the commission meeting of February 15, 1968, executive director Edward Wright
reported that the original proposal on office and housing space had been approved
by Washington. However, the owner, in agreeing to the draft contract, had added the
provision that the amount of key money be revised every four years. The contract,
including this provision, had been submitted to Washington, but approval had not yet
been received.
Because of this uncertainty, Wright had looked into possible alternatives. One was
building on the property of the Korean Institute of Science and Technology (KIST), with
property donated by the Korean government. Details were presented, and this option was
thoroughly discussed.95 At the very next commission meeting, Wright announced that
legal technicalities prevented KIST from offering land to the commission and that a reply
was expected from Washington within the next week on the pending proposal.96
At the commission meeting of September 18, 1968, Wright presented a proposal,
including a budget, for program priorities for Program Year 1969. The chairman, Dr.
Daniel E. Moore, questioned him on the difference of $25,000 between the tentative
budget of $131,000 and the proposed expenditure of $156,000. Wright explained that
the monetary difference was expected to be derived from renting part of the living and
office spaces of the building then under construction. Carl Bartz asked Wright to explain
more specifically his plans for renting the space in the new commission building. Wright
responded by going into detail as to the market prices for apartments, the types and the
sizes of space available for renting in the new building, and so forth. Preference would
be given to visiting scholars. Moore asked if Wright did not expect legal problems to
arise in the commission’s relationships with the Korean government on this issue. Bartz
and Wright responded by saying that this was a temporary situation and that whatever
additional money the commission might raise through rentals would go into scholarships
for Korean students, since the first program priority of the commission was for Korean
graduate students to study in the United States.97
68
The 1960s
Fulbright Commission Vehicles

To place the Fulbright Commission’s need for vehicles to transport commission staff and
grantees in proper perspective, it is necessary to remember the situation in Seoul during
the 1960s. Public transportation consisted of city buses and taxis. Construction of the
first subway line in Seoul did not start until 1970. Back in the 1960s, it could be time-
consuming and frustrating to get from one place to another in Korean cities by public
transportation. Today’s public norms about forming a line to wait at taxi or bus stops
were not yet widely observed. Only the well-to-do could afford a private automobile,
and almost everyone who had an automobile also hired a driver. Most drivers wore white
gloves and kept the cars clean, and most cars were black.
It was apparent from discussion at Fulbright Commission board meetings that access
to automobiles and drivers was viewed as a necessity, given the status of visiting American
Fulbright scholars and their need to get from one place to another efficiently.
At its meeting of June 5, 1968, the commission was reminded that it had been authorized
to purchase three U.S.-made sedans and two Volkswagens for grantee use, but W. Kenneth
Bunce reported the misgivings of ambassador William J. Porter about USEC/K expenditures
on non-U.S. vehicles, even if it meant a saving for the commission. The ambassador had
suggested substituting one additional American car for the two Volkswagens. After due
consideration, the commission decided not to push the question at that time.98
69
70
Chapter 3
The 1970s
Fulbright During Korea’s Rapid
Industrialization
During the 1970s, the Fulbright Program in Korea continued to operate in a context of
occasional political turmoil. Near the beginning of the decade, President Park Chung Hee
imposed the Yushin (“revitalizing reforms”) system of government in order to prolong his
authoritarian rule. While he managed to stay in power under that system of government
for most of the decade, in October 1979 he was assassinated by the chief of his own
intelligence service.
The Korean economy continued its development in the 1970s, but at a more rapid
pace than before. Between 1972 and 1978, the economy grew at a rate of more than
10 percent, and per capita GNP surpassed $1,000 for the first time. This growth was
achieved largely through long-term plans that emphasized development of the heavy and
chemical industries (HCI), including steel, machinery, shipbuilding, petrochemicals, and
automobiles.1 Notably, although electronics are included in the HCI industry group and
there were efforts to develop the semiconductor industry in the 1970s, the electronics
sector overall was rather stagnant during the decade. That would change dramatically in
the 1980s.
71
A Brief Description of Life in Seoul

Edward Schultz
As a Ph.D. candidate, I moved with my

wife into Fulbright House in the fall of
1973, with a grant to carry out dissertation
research on Goryeo history at Sogang
University. Little did I realize that during
that one year, I would not only renew old
acquaintances with former fellow Peace
Corps volunteers and East-West Center
grantees, but meet and work with others as well, all of whom have remained close
friends to this day. In part because of Fulbright support, I have had the privilege
of growing up with a whole generation of scholars of Korea, both Korean and
American. To this day, we continue to meet, study, and learn together.
Living in Korea in the early 1970s posed all sorts of challenges, from watching
soldiers march out to check student unrest, to racing home before the midnight
curfew, to traversing town and country on crowded buses. Despite the travails,
even a casual observer could not but be impressed by the Korean spirit and the
Korean commitment to build their country. The “Miracle on the Han” that we
enjoy today was predictable and is a testament to the tenacity, the diligence, and
the sheer will of the people of Korea.2
Not only economically but socially as well, the pace of change quickened in Korea
during the 1970s, and the Fulbright Program in Korea adapted to the new environment.
As noted in the commission’s program plan for 1972, in its social science project the
commission continued to seek ways to encourage and support American and Korean
scholars who wished to engage in teaching, study, and research in the social sciences, with
particular focus on the process of national development. “Korea is an ideal place for such
an endeavor, given the rapid and dramatic change in Korean society in recent years,” the
annual report stated.3
The 1970s ushered in several changes for the Fulbright Program in Korea and set some
precedents that have continued as part of the program to this day. The decade began
72
The 1970s
under the leadership of Edward Wright, who served until 1977, becoming one of the
two longest-serving executive directors in the history of the program. Student counseling
formally began during this decade, as did the Fulbright Forum, a public lecture series
that provided an opportunity for American Fulbright Scholars to share their research
with other Fulbrighters and the Seoul academic community more widely. Also, it was
in this decade that the commission was enlarged and its name changed to the Korean-
American Educational Commission to more accurately reflect the binational character of
the Fulbright Program in Korea.
Leadership Changes in the 1970s

At the board meeting of November 14, 1977, the commission decided to endorse the
executive director’s hiring of Shim Jai Ok as administrative officer. Until then, Shim
had worked as budget and fiscal officer/program officer for the Peace Corps. On an
initial interim basis, her work was to be divided between East-West Center liaison work,
budget planning and reporting, and general administrative work. These duties would be
reconsidered at such time as funding or staff adjustments might allow.4
At the end of that same year, KAEC executive director Edward Wright notified
chairman of the board James Hoyt of his intention to resign, effective either April 1,
1978, or September 30, 1978, in order to pursue a research project in Japan. In response,
a special commission meeting was called for January 20, 1978, to discuss the letter of
resignation. The commission formally approved acceptance of Wright’s resignation
as of April 15, 1978. An ad hoc personnel committee was formed to a) articulate
the qualifications for the executive director position and b) receive applications from
candidates, which would then be submitted to the commission as a whole.5
The search for a new executive director was successfully concluded during the summer
of 1978. At the commission meeting of September 20, 1978, Hoyt extended a welcome to
the new executive director, Mark Peterson, who was asked if he had a statement. Peterson
replied that he welcomed the opportunity to serve and was looking forward to working
with the commission.
At a November 1978 workshop held at Soraksan, an ad hoc committee on the
commission’s bylaws recommended several changes, including changing references to the
Department of State to the International Communication Agency wherever applicable.
Also, the following sentences were added: “The executive director shall prepare an
administrative budget to be approved by the commission. Non-budgeted expenditures
must receive prior approval of the Treasurer.”6
73
Program Priorities
The 1970s began with a continuation of the emphasis on national development that had
characterized the program during the previous decade. The program proposal for the year
1971 was discussed at the board meeting of February 18, 1970, and passed unanimously.
It included a section on national development that, as noted by chairman of the board
Daniel Moore, suited the aspirations of the Korean people and government as well as the
country plan of the U.S. embassy.7
In its annual workshop and meeting at Soraksan in October 1970, the board established
the following program priorities:
1. Social Sciences–particularly as they relate to various developmental programs,

2. Area Studies, including both Korean Studies and American Studies,
3. Science Education, with every effort being made to provide grants in the basic
and applied sciences, and to find related sources of funding for other candidates in
technical fields, based on MOE emphases. (This latter effort was particularly geared
toward training persons in modern electronic data processing and similar fields.)
4. Language Skills, Humanities and Fine Arts. (It was felt that the commission
had played an integral role in the 1960s in encouraging the adoption of modern
methods of English language teaching and that this focus could now be
relegated to last priority position, along with humanities and the fine arts.)8
As the decade unfolded, the Fulbright Commission adjusted its program goals from its
focus on development to a new attention to rapid industrialization. At the workshop and
meeting at Soraksan on October 25-26, 1974, a committee on project priorities suggested
that the Fulbright Program in Korea be devoted to “the study of man in a rapidly
industrializing society” and that emphasis be given to non-developmental fields that
were not receiving substantial support from government and international agencies. The
committee recommended that social sciences remain the first priority, with humanities
given virtually equal attention as second priority. Business administration would be
dropped from the program. Art would be made the third priority project, as distinct from
the humanities. Language skills would be eliminated, with linguistics being retained as a
field of study under social sciences. The report was unanimously accepted.9
At the board meeting of November 13, 1975, the following draft statement was
introduced: “The Korean Commission in Program Year ’76 established a program theme
related to the study and problems of man in a rapidly industrializing society. In the
selection of grantees, therefore, preference will be given to applicants whose proposed
74
The 1970s
fields of study in all appropriate disciplines are oriented in direct and indirect ways to
the investigation of problems unique to man in a rapidly industrializing society.” The
statement was adopted for inclusion in in-country scholarship announcements, and the
commission recommended it be sent to CIES for inclusion in any information sent to
prospective American candidates for KAEC programs.10
At the board meeting of March 10, 1976, there was consideration of a State
Department suggestion that the commission consider broadening its perspective from
grants to persons only in higher education to inclusion of grants in the professions.
Explaining the general background of the State Department suggestion, Edward
Wright pointed out that evidently any professional field would be acceptable provided
that it was not technically within the realm of academe. The discussion then proceeded to
address the administrative aspects of such a grant. The chairman polled the members on
their opinion on giving a grant opportunity to professionals in addition to academics. The
feeling was positive, and the suggestion would be given serious consideration. A decision
was reached that the chairman and one other commission member would study the
question and make a report at the next commission meeting.11
At the workshop and meeting of October 15-17, 1976, the board, after considerable
discussion, authorized the executive director to seek approval from both BFS and the
Department of State to amend the Program Year 1977 program proposal to include
grants for professionals. A decision was finally made to try to offer two grants for
professional development in PY77.
There was also thorough discussion of the thematic approach to the program.
Wright explained that the commission had, in reality, established a dual approach in
its programming, namely a thematic approach and program priorities. He offered the
opinion that the latter had been more successfully implemented than the former. Clyde
G. Hess suggested the idea of maintaining the theme while also recognizing a different
emphasis of its application in various award categories. That is, it would be more applied
in the senior/professional grant selection and less adhered to in the student selection. A
general agreement was reached to continue with the program theme of “the place of man
in a rapidly industrializing society” in a flexibly applied manner, as suggested by Hess.
On October 16, 1976, the workshop discussion opened with the topic of the place
of the natural sciences in the general program. Hess stated that due to the availability
of funds from the Korean government and other sources for programs in the natural
sciences, he would not object to the elimination of the field from the program altogether.
A final decision was reached to exclude the natural sciences, including mathematics,
from the program henceforth. In addition, the program priorities were reordered in the
following manner: 1) Social Sciences, 2) Humanities, and 3) Arts.12
75
One years later, at a workshop and meeting at Chungmu on September 30-October

2, 1977, the executive director presented a three-page report concerning changes in
the KAEC program and focus over a ten-year period. The projects funded in 1967
had included, in order of priority, American Studies, English Teaching, Science and
Technological Education, Mass Communications, Asian Studies, Comparative Law, and
unspecified grants. As of 1977, the project priorities were Social Sciences, Humanities,
and the Arts.
The rationale behind the changes was that over the preceding ten years it was felt that
fewer and broader project areas could provide greater flexibility in programming. Some of
the 1967 fields were still in the program, but were contained under the three broader fields.
More specifically, English Teaching and Science and Technological Education had been
dropped. This was because those fields had attracted the attention of many government
and private agencies. In the case of English teaching, the commission, in its efforts
from 1961 to 1973, had provided an infrastructure of educators for Korean colleges and
universities through its scholarship programs. The commission also helped to set up the
Language Teaching Research Center, which was headed by a former American Fulbright
grantee. Science education had been a major area of focus by both the Korean and
American governments, and the commission felt that its relatively modest funds might be
devoted to areas not receiving such extensive attention from other sources.
As of 1977, most Korean grants went to persons involved in higher education. This
was to allow concentration on the Fulbright Program’s goals and objectives, which were
related to educational exchange. In 1976, a “Professional Enrichment” grant was created
for persons in professions other than higher education.
In 1967, the program proposal had indicated that American lecturers in general were
underutilized and not as effective as might be wished. One means of coping with this
“problem” was to require Korean host institutions to contribute to the American lecturer’s
funding. By 1977, this contribution was a minimum of 200,000 won monthly in Seoul.
Another means was to establish closer liaisons with about 20 leading colleges and
universities, as well as with a variety of academic and professional associations.
Edward Wright’s 1977 report noted that “money is always a problem.” However, on the
positive side, funding from Korean sources had increased over the preceding ten years.
Total funding in 1977 was about $350,000 from all sources, with about $40,000 of that
coming from Korean sources.
In 1967, the major emphasis had been on “the training of Koreans in the United States
rather than on bringing Americans to teach in Korea.” In 1977, by contrast, the numbers
of new grantees were approximately the same. However, funding for Korean grantees
76
The 1970s
was about double that for American grantees because some of the latter were on partial
stipends with research funding from other sources. Also, there were about 35 Korean
renewal grantees in the U.S. on partial or full support from Fulbright funds.
In 1967, there had been few in-country activities sponsored by Fulbright. By 1978,
activities co-sponsored by the commission included the Fulbright Forum, Korean Studies
Forum (a print journal that grew out of the Fulbright Forum lecture series), the American
Studies Workshop, and the Fulbright Counseling Center for Study in America.13
Also at the October 1977 workshop, the commission decided to continue its policy of
favoring Korean provincial candidates for grants, when all other factors were equal.
For the eleven years preceding the October 1977 workshop, KAEC program level
personnel had been encouraged to teach one course at a Korean university. The discussion
strongly endorsed continuing that policy as a means for providing greater connections
with the academic community and greater respect for the academic credentials of the
KAEC staff.14
The commission also discussed the policy of helping non-sponsored individuals and
groups with academic/scholarly interests in Korea. The commission members concurred
that this policy should continue. The next such endeavor was a monthlong Korean Studies
group of 29 persons from the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma, Washington. This
activity was in line with the BFS guidelines encouraging commission support for non-
sponsored scholars.
American Studies
After considerable debate at the board meeting of February 18, 1970, there was approval
of a compromise proposal to support an American studies seminar on “Youth in
America,” to be held in Chunchon.15
At its October 1970 meeting in Soraksan, the commission recommended that a
revocable trust fund be set up with commission funding of the Korean currency equivalent
of $2,000-$3,000 to support on a continuing basis the administrative organization of the
American Studies Association of Korea. A special board of directors would be set up on
a binational basis to control the funds. The accrued interest would be used to support an
office operation for the association.16
The board meeting of June 28, 1971, included discussion of a request by the American
Studies Association of Korea for $1,500 for an autumn seminar on “Democracy in
America Revisited.” The request was rejected after a majority of those present indicated
opposition. The reason was that given the commission’s present funding shortage, there
were other projects that might receive higher priority consideration during the program
77
year. It was also indicated that the association’s structure and continuity were not as
strong as might be expected for an organization founded six years before. The chairman
suggested that USIS funds might be available for the seminar and that the president of
the association should be encouraged to call him at the earliest possible date.17
English Teaching
At the board meeting of January 19, 1971, there was lengthy discussion of a proposal that
the commission receive funds for the operation of an English Education Research Center.
Funding for the project was to come from the William Benton Foundation and would be
disbursed through the office of Encyclopedia Britannica (Korea), Inc. The proposed center
would concentrate on research and development in the field of teaching methods in
accordance with the proposals and priorities of the Ministry of Education and on setting
up model teaching programs to be used in teacher retraining workshops. The board’s
discussion centered around such matters as income-generating activities, tax status, the
locus of administrative responsibilities, and the relationship between the proposed center
and the commission.18
The board meeting of September 2, 1971, included an item on “revision of the
binational agreement to allow acceptance of funds for the Language Teaching Research
Center.” As a separate item, the commission unanimously approved a request by
Dale Enger that the Language Teaching Research Center (LTRC) be approved as a
cooperating institute with USEC/K.
In 1973, the commission continued to pay close attention to the newly established
LTRC. At its January 31 board meeting, the commission approved continued Fulbright
affiliation with the LTRC after a study by Edward Poitras and a committee. Later that
year at the December 3 board meeting, Lee Hai Kyung and Poitras made another report.
The commission voted unanimously to continue its logistical support of the LTRC.19
Support for the Sciences

At its meeting of April 27, 1970, the Fulbright Commission approved a grant for an
American lecturer in science education, subject to approval by the Ministry of Education.
As noted the previous year by executive director Edward Wright, the board had awarded
the only available lectureship to a TEFL lecturer, and it was understood then that if only
one grant were available this year, it should be in Science Education. Wright noted the
commission’s long history of supporting science education grantees who had worked with
the Ministry of Education.20
The board meeting and retreat of November 13, 1971, included an extensive discussion
78
The 1970s
of the natural sciences, the social sciences, and program priorities. A major question was
whether the natural sciences should be downplayed in the Korea program, as they were
being emphasized other agencies such as those of the United Nations, USAID and World
Bank-financed projects. After discussion, the board decided that American lecturers
would continue to be invited to Korea in the pure and applied sciences, partially financed
by Korean institutions and partially by Fulbright. In the Korean student category,
applications would be accepted only from individuals in the pure sciences, defined as
chemistry, biology, physics, geology, and mathematics. Excluded were the applied sciences,
including engineering and science education. Furthermore, an effort would be made to
limit the Korean student program in the sciences to no more than 20% of the Fulbright
student program.21
At the November 1978 workshop and meeting at Soraksan, the Ministry of Education
representative on the board presented a letter from his ministry asking that the
commission recruit and partially support three professors in the engineering and natural
sciences areas. In the ensuing discussion, it was pointed out that professors in engineering/
natural sciences commanded higher salaries and that the commission would probably
have to pay about $2,000 per month. The Korean government indicated an interest in
developing the natural science areas and recruiting more foreign professors. The difficulty
of recruiting professors in those fields was discussed. Professors in that area usually
tried to get grants to support their laboratory research on campus, not trips to distant,
developing countries. James Hoyt pointed out that the financial burden of picking up the
request as submitted would virtually eliminate the present program. He explained that
they would be gaining three professors in the natural sciences and losing ten professors in
the social sciences. Edward Taapken moved that they accept the proposal in principle and
then try to work out a cost-sharing method of carrying out the program in such a way as
to not diminish its current program level.
Emphasis on Seoul versus Outlying Regions

At the commission’s 98th meeting and workshop held at Soraksan in October 1970, there
was considerable discussion about its focus on the provinces. It was decided that at least
30% of graduate student nominees in each of the next three program years (1972-1974)
would be from provincial educational institutions, provided that they could meet the
commission’s minimum selection standards.
A related topic of discussion was whether Korean applicants should only be those
engaged in educational or academic pursuits. A decision was made to continue the
commission’s two-year-old policy of giving emphasis to applications from individuals
79
then employed with or guaranteed future employment by educational institutions or

scholarly research organizations.22
Politics
At the board meeting of November 6, 1972, there was a review of academic areas of
prime interest to the commission for Program Year 1974. There was lengthy discussion
of the first priority project in the 1973 program proposal: Social Sciences. It was pointed
out that meaningful social science research was not always possible under the climate of
political crisis that existed periodically in Korea.
At the board meeting of April 9, 1973, the first two items dealt with American
graduate student Bernard Wideman. There was consideration of a protest from the
Korean Ministry of Education concerning an article Wideman had written on the Korean
economy for the Far Eastern Economic Review.23 A letter received by the commission
from Korea’s Minister of Education, dated March 28, 1973, was translated into English
and distributed to commission members at the meeting. It noted, among other things,
that Wideman’s article, entitled “Korean Chauvinism,” not only “damnified the prestige
of our country” but had given rise to public criticism internationally. “We sternly protest
and urge your commission to take proper action,” the letter stated, adding that “we find it
regrettable that this impedes the promotion of friendship between the United States and
Korea.”24
The International Liaison Committee for Research on Korea

In 1970, the Korean headquarters of the International Liaison Committee for Research
on Korea (ILCORK) was established within the Fulbright Offices. The Committee
was formed with financial backing from the Agency for International Development. Its
aim was to provide for the equal involvement of Korean and American scholars in the
promotion and conducting of research and the sharing of information. 25
At the board meeting of April 28, 1970, the commission agreed to let ILCORK use one
of the Fulbright House studio (one-room) apartments rent-free, noting that its program
fit in well with the national development objectives of the commission. Expressing
some doubts about how well ILCORK was organized, Daniel Moore suggested letting
them use the commission’s mailing address and, temporarily, part of the commission’s
administrative space, with the understanding that the question of private office space
would be considered again later. This suggestion was accepted with the understanding
that the relationship would be on a businesslike basis once everything was well under way.
80
The 1970s
East-West Center
At the meeting of November 10-11, 1973, there was discussion of affiliation and support
of the East-West Center. Early the previous spring, KAEC had reassessed the demands
of the EWC program on its staff and concluded that a larger budget was needed from
EWC for functions performed. In April 1973, the commission requested additional funds
from EWC, but no answer was received until deputy director Jai-Ho Yoo visited EWC
in August. After some discussion, the commission voted to reduce service levels, in effect
providing only student grantee services for the remainder of the fiscal year, ending June
30, 1974.26
At the board meeting of August 29, 1977, the commission considered a cable received
from the East-West Center informing it of a decrease of over 50% in the amount of
commission salaries paid by EWC for FY78. It was unanimously decided that chairman
James Hoyt and executive director Edward Wright would be empowered to draft a
response to the EWC cable, to be transmitted through the U.S. embassy in Seoul,
expressing the consensus of the KAEC board members that only EWC activities
commensurate with the EWC budget allocation would be performed. The commission
went on record as deploring the proposed budget cut as a step that would give EWC less
professional servicing than other exchange programs between the two countries.27
The Start of Student Counseling at Fulbright

The Fulbright Student Advisory Service was launched in 1970 with a half-time counselor,
Catalog and reference collections were also initiated. 28 From the beginning, the U.S.
government showed its ambivalence about whether counseling was a proper role for the
Fulbright Commission.
Marita Houlihan, director of the Non-Sponsored Foreign Student Programs Staff,
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State, was a guest at
the board meeting of February 26, 1971. In her remarks, she mentioned that she hoped
the commission would, in the future, expand its non-grant programs and solicit support
from other organizations and foundations. She noted that the vast majority of foreign
students in the United States were unsponsored and that the expertise and prestige of the
commissions could be used in providing counseling support for these students.29
At a mid-year board meeting the following year, Sol Schindler, cultural affairs officer at
the U.S. embassy, reported that a visiting team of counseling experts sent by the U.S. State
Department had recommended that the commission’s counseling service be abolished.
It was indicated that the support funds for this service might be given to the American-
Korean Foundation to help support that organization’s counseling program. After a short
81
discussion, the chairman appointed a two-man committee composed of Kim Chin-Man

and Schindler to study the matter and report back to the commission at its next meeting.30
In November 1974, Fulbright formally opened the Fulbright Counseling Center for
Study in America in order to offer more assistance to highly qualified, self-supporting
Koreans studying in the U.S. Executive director Edward Wright said that the center
would be headed by Yoo Jaipho, John Pint, and Thomas Shroyer, who would aid Koreans
who wished to study in the U.S. for intensive research work. A press report stated, “The
Center maintains the largest collection of U.S. university and college catalogs in Korea
and distributes test bulletins of TOEFL, ATGSB, GRE, ACT, CEEB and CFMG. It
also counsels Koreans on selection of careers and distributes informations (sic) regarding
U.S. visas.”31
At the board meeting of August 29, 1977, Wright explained that a half-time student
counselor’s position had been vacant since January due to budgetary problems and that
it was now possible to fill this position. He suggested for the commission’s consideration
the appointment of Genell Poitras to this position. It had been determined that she had
already served quite well in this position during Joseph Nowakowski’s period of home
leave, and that there was a severe need for help in the counseling center at that time.
The recommendation was unanimously endorsed subject to the receipt of a satisfactory
curriculum vitae and letters of reference.32
At the board meeting of April 10, 1978, Poitras’ resignation was accepted and
appreciation expressed for her report on the counseling record from September 1977 to
February 1978. Candidates were encouraged to apply for the position of counselor as of
Poitras’ departure on May 31. The salary of $500 per month was listed for the half-time
position.
At the KAEC workshop and meeting at Soraksan on November 10–12, 1978, Mark.
Peterson explained a request from the National Liaison Committee (NLC) clearing
house that KAEC support a computerized student counseling program. The program
required that Fulbright’s student counselor collect $8.00, of which the commission would
keep $1.00 for its trouble and forward the balance to NLC. This would have required a
great deal of work by the counselor in helping to fill out long, complicated forms, and
the NLC clearing house represented only one-third of American universities. The board
voted to turn down the request on the grounds that it would be more of a burden to the
center and little help beyond what the center could currently do.33
At the board meeting of February 27, 1979, consideration was given to expanding the
Student Counseling Center. Kathleen Smith, Fulbright’s counselor, outlined several areas
of service the counseling center could provide if she were to work on a full-time basis.
82
The 1970s
In addition, the Ministry of Education had recently indicated that it would encourage
greater use of the counseling center by its grantees.
At that board meeting, commission members were presented with counseling center
statistics for the year from July 1977 to June 1978. They showed that there had been
16,377 inquiries by phone or mail or in person, nearly double the number for the same
period one year earlier. Some 5,419 students had visited the center, compared to 3,461 a
year earlier. The notable increase was attributed to the closing of the American-Korean
Foundation counseling center on December 13, 1977, which had made Fulbright the only
alternative source of information and counseling. While the number of student visitors
increased, the actual number of those counseled decreased from 237 in Program Year
1976 to 130 in Program Year 1977 due to the loss of a half-time counseling position for
lack of funds.
The commission was also informed that past practice had been to take counseling
center information and material out to the high schools and universities as well as the
American Cultural Centers throughout Korea. In the preceding year, however, it had
been impossible to maintain such programs to their former degree, although Smith had
continued the lecture tours in Pusan, Kwangju, Taegu, Chonju and Taejon ACOs.34
Despite these recommendations to expand Fulbright’s student counseling service, for
reasons of fiscal austerity the commission decided that the counseling operation would
not be expanded and that the current half-time counselor would not be hired on a full-
time basis. By mid-year, Smith had resigned her position as Fulbright student counselor,
and the chairman was authorized to sign a contract with Frederick Carriere, with the
same terms and benefits as the previous contract for the position.
By that point in time, the number of visitors to the counseling center had recently risen
sharply, and its facility was generally overcrowded, with standing room only conditions.
At its meeting of July 11, 1979, the commission authorized the executive director to
expand the space by removing the kitchen adjoining the counseling area.35
The Fulbright Forum

The final commission meeting of 1973 on December 3 featured a discussion of comments
made by two American student grantees. They had mentioned in their final reports that
they felt the commission had paid insufficient attention to their research projects. After
a brief discussion, Sol Schindler suggested that a Fulbright lecture series be organized,
with the lectures to take place every three to four months. This suggestion was passed
unanimously.36
At the board meeting of January 9, 1975, executive director Edward Wright presented
83
a proposal for a publication to be called Korean Studies Forum. Its purpose would be to
provide articles on Korea, primarily by Fulbrighters, for the program’s nearly 500 alumni
and other interested scholars. Most of the content would be derived from Fulbright
Forum presentations, and the executive director would be the editor. A binational advisory
board would be formed for this semiannual publication. Reaction to this proposal was
generally positive, and an agreement was reached to make a final decision at the February
board meeting.37
At the board meeting on February 27, 1979, consideration was given to a contract for
translation services for Korean Studies Forum. Mark Peterson was authorized to utilize
Carriere, or any other appropriate translator, in translating articles for Korean Studies
Forum on an ad hoc basis. The idea of making a long-term contract for the purpose of
translation services was rejected.38
Funding and Budget Concerns

As already noted in Chapter 2, levels of U.S. government funding for the Fulbright
Program were cut significantly in 1968 and 1969. By 1970, as indicated in the title of an
article in The Korea Times, the Fulbright Program was “in financial havoc.” Government
backing of the exchange program was at a ten-year low. The number of Americans
studying and teaching under the program had been cut in half in two years, and in some
countries, such as the United Kingdom, the Fulbright grants had practically reached
extinction. Senator Fulbright himself said the program was “in havoc, with elaborate
Reception following
Edward Shultz’s talk on
Korean history at the
Fulbright Forum. Summer
1974, Fulbright House.
84
The 1970s
supervisory bodies concerned with controlling a mere handful of grants.”39 In 1970, after
pleading unsuccessfully with congressional appropriations committees for restoration of
the program, Fulbright found a way of retaliating. As chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, he pushed through an amendment to the foreign aid authorization
bill that would force the Defense Department to cut its training program for foreign
military leaders that year from 5,026 to 4,428—the number of exchange grantees coming
to the United States. The Committee said the restriction would “tell the world and our
own people that the Senate is taking steps to reorder our national priorities to reflect our
true national values.”40
Not surprisingly, then, budget matters were a priority item at the first meeting of the
Fulbright Commission in the 1970s, which took place on February 18, 1970.
The chairman, Daniel E. Moore, counselor for public affairs, called the meeting to order
at 2:15 p.m. at the commission office. During a discussion of graduate student Fulbright
awards, Albert Barr, manager of the Chase Manhattan Bank, Seoul Branch, and a board
member, emphasized that people should be made aware of the fact that they were not
required to spend their entire incidental allowance. A resolution was passed unanimously
stating that incidental allowances were not to be used for lifetime memberships in the
Royal Asiatic Society.41
Another agenda item for the February 18 board meeting was the “Department of
State’s Response to the Commission’s Letter Inquiring about the Basis for Deciding the
USEC/K Budget Level (Attachment F).” Albert Barr expressed the opinion that the
letter was remarkably detailed and forthright for a Department of State letter. It was
noted that it had nonetheless avoided the essential question of what was the basis of the
original allotment of funds to various countries.42
In a discussion of non-grant program priorities, Wright stressed the need to weigh
priorities very carefully because of cuts in the budget. Funds for a high school science
workshop were eliminated, as was a proposed joint meeting in Japan and an American
studies seminar in India, unless a cost-sharing arrangement could be worked out with the
Indian commission.
At its very next meeting on March 10, the commission approved a recommendation
by Carl Bartz, the cultural affairs officer, and appointed a standing committee to look
for new sources of money and to explore new ideas for generating funds for appropriate
programs within the Korean context.
At its October 1970 workshop and meeting, held at Soraksan, the commission
decided to investigate the possibility of using PL480 (better known as the Food for
Peace program) funds as a possible source of Korean government contributions to the
85
commission’s program. Those funds were subject to yearly negotiations between the
governments of the United States and Korea.43
The commission also discussed cooperative lecturer grants. At the meeting of January
19, 1971, Wright explained that on his recent trip to Washington he had discussed
ways of bringing American lecturers to Korea, given the present shortage of funds. The
commission approved of further exploring the idea that the countries in the East Asian
region (except Japan) cooperate in bringing lecturers over on a circuit arrangement.
Wright was authorized to make a proposal to the State Department.44
At the board meeting of September 21, 1972, consideration was given to a request
by American grantee Cynthia Ong for additional kindergarten tuition for her son Paul.
After a long discussion, it was decided that it would be inequitable to pay additional
tuition for Ong’s child while not doing so for other grantee children. Ong had included
in her request the cost of a maid and taxi fares.
At the board meeting of July 15, 1975, it was reported that the East-West Center had
submitted only $15,000 of the commission’s budgeted amount of $17,722 for support of
EWC programs. The board instructed the executive director to write to EWC specifying
that the commission needed EWC funds before expenditure, that it needed a definite
understanding of EWC’s budget level, and that EWC should be aware of the costs for
running an independent administrative operation without subsidies from KAEC.45 As a
follow-up, the commission voted at the September 26 board meeting to reduce its EWC
services in accord with the reduced funds received from the center.
At the board meeting of December 19, 1977, the commission expressed continued
concern over what it deemed to be inadequate financial support by EWC for KAEC
representation in Korea. After extensive discussion, the treasurer and executive director
were asked to meet and draft a letter for submission to the chairman based on the premise
that services received would be based on the EWC budgetary support level. However,
because of conflicting schedules in December, this could not be done before the executive
director’s home leave beginning December 30, 1977. The executive director instead
stopped in Honolulu on February 20, 1978, to personally represent the commission’s
views. A tentative oral agreement was reached with EWC’s executive administrator for
academic programs, Arnold Lieberman.46
At the board meeting of July 5, 1978, Edward Taapken, the KAEC treasurer, gave the
commission a brief report on KAEC’s financial status based on a KAEC-prepared flow
chart and the recently completed audit. These documents showed that KAEC would have
a large deficit in meeting all commitments made through the end of Program Year 1978.
Based on the audit report, fund shortages in the amount of $52,636 derived mainly from
86
The 1970s
three factors: 1) KAEC had never received $20,000 of its Program Year 1972 allocation, a
fact supported by State Department documents; 2) the unexpected resignations of Edward
Wright and local employees necessitated unbudgeted expenditures; and 3) overcommitments
were expended beyond the Program Year 1977 grant program budget allocation.47
At the board meeting of September 20, 1978, Mark Peterson stated that he had
observed, and the ICA auditor who had visited recently had concurred, that KAEC
financial procedures were too cumbersome and inefficient. Based on Shim Jai Ok’s
recommendation and supported by the ICA auditor, George Beams, it was proposed that
the current system of several charts and ledgers be replaced by one large flow chart backed
up by two ledgers. The commission approved this change.
Peterson pointed out that the auditors had found a stipulation in the handbook that
commissions be given a two-year lead time in allocating funds. He stated that most of
the financial problems were now a matter of cash flow and that he would investigate the
matter further.
Regarding the eleventh floor apartment in Fulbright House, the chairman also reported
that Washington had cabled authorization allowing the key money returned in the event
that the apartment was given up to be used for the program. Peterson suggested that the
apartment be given up, since the money used in the program could offset the deficit created
in the current year’s budget for two Program Year 1978 American Lecturer grantees.48
The third session of the 1978 annual workshop at Soraksan on November 11 included
a review of the 1979 program proposal. Goals were examined, including 1) greater
participation from the Korean side, 2) binationality, and 3) fundraising.
Several aspects of the prospect of gaining more Korean participation and cooperation
were discussed. It was concluded that fundraising from private sources was a worthy goal
that should be pursued by the commission. But as was noted by Benjamin J. Kremenak,
who in his role as Asia Foundation representative had experience with fundraising in
Korea, the task would not be easy. 49
The Fulbright Korea Program Plan for 1980 contained the following summary of the
budget situation during the 1970s:
Small increases in support from the American government have helped to keep
the program viable but do not begin to keep up with the rising costs of living in
Korea. The Korean government contribution has also increased slightly, but still, if
KAEC had to rely on government contributions alone, the program would have
had to be cut back in recent years. The factor that has kept the program alive is
the participation of the local institutions. Wherever possible, the local institution
87
is asked to pay a regular salary, and the commission pays the difference. The
commission is hopeful that both governments will continue to increase their support
and that the local institutions will continue to show active interest in the program.
A breakdown of Korean government contributions to the KAEC program from 1971

to 1977 is as follows:
PY1971 $7,951.00
PY1972 $8,843.00
PY1973 $7,500.00
PY1974 $6,228.00
PY1975 $10,416.00
PY1976 $12,454.00
PY1977 $39,369.00

TOTAL $83,401.00

Infrastructure
During the first part of the 1970s, the commission’s operations were based in Fulbright
House, which was established during the 1968 program year. The commission leased
seven floors in this small eleven-story building: two floors of office and conference
space and five floors of apartments for American grantees (twelve apartment units). The
use of this facility greatly facilitated and enhanced the scope of the Korea program in
every respect. American grantees continued to be pleased with their centrally located
apartments as well as with the study and reading area available to them on the third floor.
The commission’s meeting facilities—a second-floor conference room and an eleventh
floor meeting and reception room—were extensively utilized.
Early in the decade, comments concerning the Fulbright House by American and
Korean scholars alike were very positive. The following comment made by one grantee on
his grantee report form was considered generally reflective of the views of other grantees
as well as short term visitors and non-sponsored individuals who, in one way or another,
had come into contact with the Fulbright House operation:
To me, the most remarkable accomplishment of the Fulbright Program in Korea
88
The 1970s
has been the establishment of the Fulbright House in Seoul. This facility has made
it possible for American visitors to settle in with remarkable speed and become
effective that much more quickly. It also makes possible short-term visits of a
month or so of experts for participation in specific programs where the housing
problem otherwise would have prohibited their visit. I can attest to two very major
cultural projects that would surely have floundered or ended up of only minor
note had it not been for the presence of American Fulbright scholars who came
only because of the facilities afforded by Fulbright House. It is clearly in the best
interests of both countries to continue such a farsighted establishment as Fulbright
House.50
Despite such grantee satisfaction with the Fulbright House, the issue of rental costs
arose as early as 1970. At the April 28 board meeting, Edward Wright brought it to the
attention of the commission that in spite of his verbal agreement to let the commission
use the basement free of charge, the landlord was now insisting on 30,000 won per
month in rent. Wright also noted that the figure was this low only because of several
Donald Clark gives

a talk on Korean
history at Fulbright
Forum. Spring 1976,
Fulbright House.
89
difficult months of negotiating. After some discussion, the commission accepted this new
arrangement for recommendation to the State Department.51
The original contract signed by KAEC with EZOO Co., the owner of Fulbright
House, called for a renegotiation of the key money (chonsei) after five years. Accordingly,
at its meeting of January 31, 1973, the commission approved a 5% increase in the chonsei,
as negotiated with EZOO Co.52
Later that year, during the meeting and workshop at Songnisan on November 10-11,
1973, the use of the Academy House Annex for program purposes was discussed. The
Academy House, a hotel and conference center located at about a 30-minute drive from
downtown Seoul, was offered to the commission for its program use for the equivalent of
$81.50 per month. It could be used for official visitors, to supplement Fulbright House
housing, and as a seminar and reception facility. After discussion, the board voted to
approval a trial rental for one year.53
Some time in the mid- to late 1970s, an issue arose with the water supply at Fulbright
House (see inset reminiscence by Don Clark), which would prompt the Korean-
American Educational Commission to move to new quarters. When executive director
Edward Wright asked the building owner to repair or correct this problem, the owner
balked, suggesting that it would be necessary to increase the amount of chonsei if such
repairs were to be done.54 At that point, the decision was made to seek other quarters for
the commission. At the board meeting of March 29, 1977, Wright explained that there
were tentative plans to vacate the Fulbright House as early as August 1977. 55
Remembering Life in Fulbright House

Donald N. Clark
1975: Junior Researcher Department of History, Korea University
1983: Senior Lecturer/Researcher Department of History, Yonsei University
1989: Senior Researcher Department of History, Yonsei University
Korea Fulbrighters of a certain age will remember Dr. Edward Wright, KAEC
executive director and the program’s leader in the 1970s. In those days, the
Fulbright Program leased most of a ten-story apartment building in Sunhwadong,
near Seosomun in downtown Seoul. The first three floors were used by the
building’s owner, but the rest were used by Fulbright. Grantees got their mail,
90
The 1970s
read newspapers, traded paperback books,

and received visitors in the KAEC grantees’
library/lounge on the fourth floor, which also
housed the KAEC offices. My generation
of American scholars of Korean Studies,
many of us having discovered Korea during
Peace Corps service in the previous decade,
drafted our doctoral dissertations in the fifth
floor work room. The sixth through ninth
floors were for grantees’ apartments. The
top floor was a penthouse reserved for Ed
Wright himself, used partly as a sometime
dwelling—for he had another apartment
Dr. Clark spent much of his life as the son elsewhere—and partly as a place to store his
of missionaries, a Peace Corps volunteer, a
Social Science Research Council fellow, and
extraordinary collection of Korean furniture.
a Fulbright scholar. It was a privilege to be invited to this place at
the pinnacle of the building. Wright hosted
early versions of the Fulbright Forum here, and from time to time we would listen
to distinguished scholars, and occasionally peers, delivering research reports, events
that always ended with the consumption of moderate amounts of alcohol and
the passing around of exquisite hors d’oeuvres made by Wright’s housekeeper—
morsels of rare quality for Seoul in the seventies. Indeed, scholars from all over the
city would converge on the tenth floor of Fulbright House on these occasions for
culinary as well as intellectual nourishment.
Residents of Fulbright House were well aware of our good fortune in having
furnished habitations waiting for us when we arrived in the city after enduring
the rigors of travel from America and passage through the inspections and
interrogations of Yushin-era Kimpo Airport. The building was located a short
walk from City Hall Plaza, easily accessible to Seoul’s first subway line, a few paces
from a steady taxi supply, and near a stop on the #8 bus line that seemed to go to
most places of any consequence in the city. Up the alley beyond Fulbright House
was the old Seoul Union, the city’s erstwhile expat swimming and tennis club.
(A unique feature of the Seoul Union was a pair of bowling lanes transplanted
from Unsan, in North Korea, where they had been in the gold miners’ staff club of
the Oriental Consolidated Mining Company before the OCMC was forced out
91
of business by the Japanese in 1939.) A stone’s throw away in the other direction
was a military police building, where one imagined, and occasionally even heard,
dark happenings under the Park dictatorship. And next to Fulbright House, at
about the level of the eighth floor, was the steeple of a Protestant church whose
bells went off at 4 a.m. every day and multiple times on Sundays. In other words,
Fulbright House seemed to be in the middle of everything, and to live there was
to experience the fast-changing urban landscape on many levels at once.
Fulbright House had many conveniences, including an elevator that worked
most of the time. The scale of the building was such, and we were young enough,
that if the elevator was out of order we could still get up to wherever we were
going. However, it did have one notable design flaw. The building’s oil tank was
installed on top of the concrete cistern in the sub-basement that was part of
the water intake. In time, spilled oil leached into the cistern, enough to give the
running water in Fulbright House, whether hot or cold, an oily sheen. Indeed, you
could run a dandy bathtub full of hot water, but it would have a diesel smell and a
yellowish cast—just barely acceptable for bathing.... The old Fulbright House looks
small today, but in those days it seemed tall, and it had great views of downtown
Seoul. Across the Seosomun-dong main drag was the JoongAng Ilbo, and beyond
it Namsan, with the newly-built Namsan Tower.
From the north windows you could see the Blue House, with its barrage
balloons and anti-aircraft emplacements atop buildings to enforce the no-fly zone
over the center of the city. Deoksugung Palace was visible beyond Paichai Boys’
High School (cf. the present Russian embassy site), and one never tired of the
majestic Bukhan Range sheltering the city on its northern side.
After Fulbright House, KAEC moved to the Garden Tower near the front
gate of Changdeokgung Palace, then again to a building next to the Cheondogyo
headquarters temple (Su’un Hoegwan), and much later to the present site near
Gongdeok Station. The cement tower formerly known as Fulbright House still
stands, but it looks forlorn and far outclassed in size and style by everything around
it—a metaphor for its heyday, still deserving of a grateful backward glance.56
At the board meeting of September 20, 1977, Edward Wright reported that the owners
of Fulbright House would be in a position to repay the KAEC key money in full after
receiving properly notarized documentation related to original registration of the key
money contract of 1968 and the building mortgage now being held by KAEC. This
92
The 1970s
meant that payment to the Garden Tower management for new Fulbright offices would
be made on schedule.57
At the November 1978 annual workshop and meeting at Soraksan, there was a
thorough discussion of housing, office space, key money, and rent. Mark Peterson
introduced the subject by pointing out that rents were increasing sharply and that the
current lease on the office space and the apartment unit for most of the grantee housing
would expire in the summer of 1980. He noted indications that the key money contract
for the office space would be changed, at the building management’s insistence, to a rent
contract, and that even if the contract were up for renewal at that time, the key money
required for the office space would be double its current level.58
My Association with the 1970-80s

Fulbright Forums
Song Joon Man
Emeritus Professor, Education
Ewha Womans University
My association with the Fulbright Program goes back to 1971, when I took
the screening test for a Fulbright scholarship at the office located in Soonhwa-
dong. The Fulbright scholarship helped me complete the Ph.D. program at the
University of Missouri in 1976. From that point on, my association with the
Fulbright Program continued and served to stimulate my growth as a scholar. I
maintained a personal relationship with Dr. Edward F. Wright, executive director,
until he retired. He was a kind of meticulous, quiet, and warmhearted person. The
Fulbright Program played a pivotal role connecting me to American scholars from
various fields and their dependents, the Peace Corps staff, and American embassy
people. It gave me opportunities to converse with them on a variety of issues,
providing fertile ground for my growth.
Meeting foreign scholars provided intellectual stimulus and widened my
horizons. As they had come to conduct research but had little knowledge about
Korea, we were able to talk to them on a daily basis and help them understand
93
things about which they had no previous knowledge

or that were difficult for them to understand. The
Fulbright-sponsored forum invited a variety of
scholars in various fields of study, including not only
visiting scholars but also foreign residents in Korea
and members of the Royal Asiatic Society. Traveling
with them was also very instructive since it gave me
an opportunity to dig deep into the customs and life
patterns of Koreans, though these were not related to
my own major.
Of particular interest was the colloquium, which
was known for being modest in the number of
participants—around ten or so. It provided a forum
for in-depth discussion and was well suited to providing intellectual stimulus.
Sometimes, the discussions carried on deep into the night. It was somewhat like a
brainstorming session without a time limit.
There were snacks and soft drinks made available to stuff empty stomachs.
Korean scholars remained late at night, and one of them, as I recall, was a professor
from Hankuk University of Foreign Studies named Ahn Byung Man.
Some of the foreign scholars knew more about Korea than their Korean
counterparts. We were caught off guard when they talked about the transition of
social status, land granting, and the tax system of the Choson Dynasty following the
Imjin ( Japanese) invasion of Korea. Their interests did not stop there. Their broad-
based knowledge of the humanities, society, folklore, religion, and art stunned the
Korean participants. Most memorable was Professor Feldman, a psychologist at
the University of Massachusetts, who taught at Ewha Womans University. Simply
because we taught at the same university, I had many more talks with him and learned
a lot from him. His eagerness to understand Korea left an indelible mark on me.
At the board meeting of October 9, 1979, it was reported that the telephone system in
the commission office, which had long been in need of replacement, could no longer be
repaired. On the advice of the secretariat and with approval by communication specialists
and the administrative officer of the U.S. embassy, chairman James Hoyt and the financial
committee agreed to purchase a system made by the Gold Star Co. for less than $2,000.59
94
The 1970s
Formation of the Korean-American Educational Commission

As discussed in Chapter 2, the United States Educational Commission in Korea
(USEC/K) had formally discussed the possibility of changing its name as early as May
1968. The actual change of the commission’s name took place through the exchange of
diplomatic notes in Seoul on June 1 and July 10, 1972. The notes amended Article 1
and Article 4 of the June 18, 1963 Agreement between the Government of the United
States of America and the Government of the Republic of Korea for Financing Certain
Educational Exchange Programs. The new Article 1 essentially stated that the United
States Educational Commission in Korea (USEC/K) would henceforth be known as
the Korean-American Educational Commission. The reference to funding was changed
from “to be financed by funds made available to the commission by the Government of
the United States of America” in the 1963 agreement60 to “to be financed by funds made
available to the commission by the Government of the United States of America and by
other sources for purposes of the present agreement” in the amended version.61
Article 4 in the old 1963 agreement had stated that the commission “shall consist
of eight members, four of whom shall be citizens of the United States of America and
four of whom shall be citizens of Korea.” The 1972 amendment increased the total
commission membership to ten members, five of whom were to be U.S. citizens and five
Korean citizens.
At the board meeting of December 11, 1975, the commission unanimously approved
an amendment of its bylaws to reflect a change in the commission’s official name to the
Korean-American Educational Commission, with a membership body of ten. Previously,
there had been only eight members.62
95
96
Chapter 4
The 1980s
Korea’s Domestic and International Political
Transformation
The 1980s were a revolutionary decade for South Korea, both politically and in terms of
the revolution in computing and communications technology that was under way around
the world. Politically, Korea experienced a transformation both at home and also in terms
of its place in the world.
The decade began as the military, led by General Chun Doo Hwan, seized power after
the assassination of President Park Chung Hee in October 1979. The Kwangju Uprising
in May 1980 bore some similarities to the Tiananmen Square episode in China, except
it was far bloodier, relative to population, and became far more central to Korean politics.
Political tensions in the wake of Kwangju kept building until there was a breakthrough
toward democratization in June 1987, with the prospect of successfully hosting the Seoul
Olympics at stake.
The 1988 Seoul Olympics were highly successful and heralded the success of South
Korea’s “Northern Policy” of reestablishing diplomatic, economic, and cultural ties with
the socialist bloc nations of Eastern Europe, Russia, Vietnam, and China, from which it
had been cut off during the long Cold War.
These political transformations inside Korea and in its relations with other countries
took place in the context of a global revolution in digital information technology. Indeed,
many would argue that the new digital communications media were a major factor
in political liberalization. South Korea’s case is noteworthy in that it was a military
government under President Chun Doo Hwan in 1980 that chose to liberalize the
97
nation’s telecommunications sector and revitalize the electronics industry.

In 1980, relatively few people in Korea had basic telephone service, but by 1987 the
nation had built what was then one of the most modern public switched telephone
networks (PSTNs) in the world. Along the way, it had entered the semiconductor
industry and gained the capability to manufacture its own electronic switching systems.
These accomplishments became known in Korea as the “telecommunications revolution
of the 1980s,” and they laid the foundation for later strides in broadband internet and
mobile communication that would characterize Korea in the 1990s and the first decade of
the 21st century.
In addition to the sweeping political changes and the communications revolution,
there were continuing improvements and development in Korea’s own system of tertiary
education and growth in the number of students seeking to study abroad in the United
States and other English-speaking countries. In such an environment, the demand for
counseling services and English testing, especially the TOEFL, could only increase.
Although the demands for English teaching and testing would increase in the 1980s,
South Korea was no longer considered a developing country. As of Fiscal Year 1982, the
U.S. Peace Corps, whose major activity in Korea for more than a decade had been English
teaching, began its withdrawal. The official reason given for its withdrawal was that it had
completed its work because of Korea’s rapid economic development.1
“Fulbright Korea’s Contribution

to the Field of Korean Studies”
Carter Eckert, 1981
Junior Researcher, Korea University
Today’s young scholars of Korean studies can look forward to a bright future.
Interest in the field is high, more and more universities have added or are adding
Korean studies positions to their faculty, and many of the larger institutions like
Harvard have established Korean studies centers within the university community
to support students and faculty in the field. Indeed, funding for undergraduate,
graduate, and faculty study, research, and publication has never been more
abundant, thanks in no small part to the emergence of organizations in South
98
The 1980s
Korea such as the Korea Foundation that have

made it their strategic purpose to assist in the
development of Korean studies programs abroad.
Such was not always the case. When Ed
Wagner began his career in the late 1950s, or
even when I started graduate work in Korean
history about 20 years later, the interest and
infrastructure described above scarcely existed.
There were few if any jobs on the horizon, and
even if one gritted one’s teeth and determined
to forge on in the blind hope that somehow,
somewhere, a job opportunity would eventually
Carter Eckert, Ph.D., Professor of
appear if one could get through the eight or so Korean Studies, Harvard University
years of graduate study, there was little in the
way of public encouragement and financial support to help one actually get to that
point.
But there was Fulbright Korea. And what a difference it made. Without
Fulbright support, I, like many if not most of my peers at that time, would most
likely have had to abandon the idea of field research, if not continuing as a scholar
in the field itself—it was just too expensive without that support. And the support
that Fulbright provided was not just financial. Having brought us to Korea and
provided us with comfortable housing and a stipend for food and other necessities,
the Fulbright office, which in my time was headed by the superb team of Mark
Peterson, Frederick Carriere, and the legendary Mrs. Shim, was also a welcoming
home away from home and a center of valuable information and assistance on
everything from pots, pans, and laundry to useful and important contacts in
Korean academic, corporate, artistic, and government circles, depending on what
one needed and where one wanted to go. More than that: Fulbright Korea was
also an intellectual gathering place, where one could meet and mingle with other
scholars of like interests, Korean and non-Korean alike, hear presentations of
new research, and even tentatively present one’s own work to a group of people
who were really and truly interested in what one was doing. Particularly in those
earlier days of Korean studies, it is impossible to underestimate the significance of
Fulbright Korea not only in keeping the field alive but also in laying the basis for
the thriving field we see today.2
99
Leadership Changes at Fulbright

There were also leadership changes in Fulbright during the 1980s. At its meeting of
July 28, 1983, the commission accepted the resignation of executive director Mark
Peterson. His letter to William Maurer, chairman of the Korean-American Educational
Commission, read in part:
Dear Bill,
It is with a great deal of mixed emotion that I write to inform you and the
commission that I plan to leave my post as executive director in order to accept
a position at Brigham Young University.... I have tremendously enjoyed my
association with the commission and the fine staff we have. It is hard to think
about leaving; the position of executive director does not have the permanence of
many jobs and I have always planned to develop my career at a university when the
time would be appropriate. BYU has made a fine offer and will be a stimulating
place to work.... It will be a good place for me to make a contribution to Korean
studies.... As to my successor, I would only ask the commission to consider the
current job market and to hire a Korean studies specialist.3
Before year’s end, some 50 applications for the vacant position had been received and
distributed to members of the search committee.4 By the time of the board meeting
of January 9, 1984, sixty-six applications had been received, and the résumés of the
four finalist candidates, those who had been approved by the search committee, were
distributed to the members for their consideration. Each commission member ranked
the four in descending order of preference, and Bill Maurer contacted the members
individually to record the rankings, which were tabulated and presented to the
commission at its next meeting. At that meeting on January 23, commission members
were advised of the results of rankings in the search for a new executive director. The
search committee was authorized to start at the top of the list and interview candidates
until a suitable candidate was decided upon.
At its meeting of March 13, 1984, the commission welcomed the new executive
director, Frederick Carriere, who was formally introduced to the commission and received
congratulations. His tenure officially began on March 1, and he would become, along
with Edward Wright, one of the two longest-serving executive directors of the Fulbright
Commission to date.
Another leadership transition during the 1980s occurred with the departure of board
100
The 1980s
chairman Bernard Lavin. The commission bid farewell to Lavin at its board meeting of
March 11, 1986. During an earlier stay in Korea some 25 years before, he had witnessed
the establishment of the commission, and during his last tour in Korea he had devoted
his time and energy to fostering its development.5
Also in the 1980s, the board received a recommendation that Shim Jai Ok be given a
meritorious step increase in light of her recent completion of an M.B.A. This training
was appropriate, as Shim would serve for many years as, in effect, the commission’s chief
financial and personnel officer.6
Program Priorities
Fulbright Korea’s program priorities in the 1980s needed to shift away from its earlier
focuses on development and, later, rapid industrialization. New priorities would need to
account for the impact of the communications revolution. In the 1980s, the commission
spent considerable time discussing and defining its new priorities.
At the board meeting of December 15, 1982, KAEC considered a request from
the Board of Foreign Scholarships for more specificity and direction in its program
orientation. The CIES advisory committee, on the other hand, continued to argue for
opening the program to recruit the best possible candidates from all fields.
After considerable discussion of various issues and alternatives, it was decided that the
program proposal would be written in much the same form as in previous years, with the
exception of putting more emphasis on Korean Studies and American Studies. Several
commission members indicated that Korea’s program should never have been portrayed
as being without focus. It had the broad objective of improving the higher educational
system in Korea, and it limited applications to those who were in the university system. It
was also mentioned that the academic breadth of the program was its greatest strength.
For the upcoming program proposal, it was agreed, in consideration of Washington’s
interests and suggestions, that there would be an attempt to arrange some specific
affiliations, particularly in areas that had been successful the preceding few years, but to
ask Washington to realize that in the Korean context it would be impossible to do so to
any great degree.7
One of the best indicators of Fulbright Program priorities during the 1980s is
contained in a memo sent to board members by chairman Bernard Lavin prior to the
board meeting of January 9, 1984. In it, he outlined five suggested areas of concentration
for the 1985 program plan, as follows:
101
1. Korean Studies in the United States

One of the most important ways to nourish better understanding of Korea and
its culture is through long-term educational programs in the United States. The
commission should consider the initiation of a specific project which would
involve exchanges between a consortium of universities in Korea and a consortium
of universities in the United States interested in advancing Korean studies, which
would involve Korean history, its culture, traditions, values, and accomplishments
as a modern nation, particularly through its strong educational system. Within
this overall concept could be included the development of textual materials to
be introduced into social science courses, particularly in the American secondary
school system. Although the primary focus of this program would be academic
and scholarly in nature, it would provide a bridge to strengthen contact with
institutions in the United States as the Department of Education and the
National Educational Association for educational exchanges of teachers, materials,
and learning resources.
2. American Studies in Korea

Corollary to the Korean studies program would be a long-term American studies
program in Korea. The commission might consider supporting such a program
at one of the major universities, or perhaps a consortium of major universities.
Through this project, American cultural values, ideals, and history, e.g. the
Constitutional history of the United States, could be studied in depth over the
long term. The program could include literature and arts, anthropological studies,
and other disciplines in the social sciences. One of the goals of the commission
might be to encourage, with private funding f rom American sources, the
establishment of a chair in American studies at one of the major universities.
3. Education
One of the most fruitful areas of exchange between Korea and the United States
could well be in the field of education. Historically, educational ties between our
two countries have been strong. However, in both our countries there has been
more progress in some areas than in others. The commission might well play an
important role in supporting comparative studies of education in Korea and the
United States, including research on effective methods of education, the present
and future role of computers, and an evaluation of their effectiveness at the
secondary and university levels. A project of this type could be considered with a
consortium of universities, Korean and American, or by concentrating efforts with
102
The 1980s
institutions such as the Korean Educational Development Institute and special

universities in the United States.
4. International Finance and Trade

Korea and the United States have become important trading partners—as
demonstrated by the fact that Korea is now the United States’ eighth largest
trading partner. This relationship is expected to develop and grow in important
ways far into the future. Although the relationship is basically sound, there are
important areas where greater understanding—political, economic, and cultural—
will be required if the relationship is to prosper to the fullest extent. There is need
to study and evaluate the international economic environment, which would
include studies on international trade liberalization, the free enterprise system,
finance, monetary policy, and policies on foreign investment from the points of
view of both countries. The vital element in this relationship is that of economic
interdependence and a clear understanding of what that interdependency involves.
Both Korean government officials and educators are well aware of the strong
influence which the Third World Dependency theory has on the campuses in
Korea. A basic misunderstanding of the theory and its application (as many
students apply it to Korea) produces negative results which can be seen clearly by
Korean government officials when university students enter the bureaucracy. This
problem was clearly pointed out as a problem area for the Korean government
by the late Dr. Kim Jae-ik, who suggested that Korean and American educators
should turn their attention to it. The commission could play a unique role in
fostering studies and exchanges between major universities and scholars in both
countries with special interest and expertise in the field of international trade and
finance.
5. The Communication Revolution

Within the past quarter century, both Korea and the United States have
experienced the effects of the revolution in communications technology. This
field promises greater revolutions yet to come. It is important that critical studies
be done on the effect which communications technology has had, and can have,
through cultural influences on traditional societies and on the enhanced role of
public opinion and its effect on governments. Conversely, such studies should
include an analysis of the issues involved in the rights and obligations of nations
with regard to the free flow of information for the protection and development
of individuals within nation-states. Some universities in Korea are well on the
103
road to developing departments and institutes in the communications field. The

commission should consider ways which might enhance mutual understanding
between Korea and the United States in this important area over the long term.8
Not all of Lavin’s suggestions were accepted by all commission members. In fact, one
of the most active members of the commission, Horace G. Underwood, took issue with
Lavin’s emphasis on applied projects, in particular the fourth point about finance and
trade. Upon receipt of Lavin’s memorandum, Underwood wrote a one-page letter in reply
for distribution to the board. It read, in part:
Intentionally or not, the proposal emphasizes the pragmatic and applied studies
rather than the academic, and I believe that this represents a change from past
practice. We have of course always included some very pragmatic projects, and
you yourself state at one point that the “primary focus...would be academic and
scholarly in nature.” Nevertheless, the overall tone of the proposal seems to cater
to a demand for specific applicability of the projects. This may be necessary in the
mood in Washington, but in the past the commission has (I believe) been very
reluctant to select candidates with narrowly focused professional (applied) goals
and has deliberately favored those with broader academic aims.
Whether or not I am correct in my overall analysis, I do object to the specific
emphasis on finance and trade in Sec. 4. Emphasis on Korean studies (in the U.S.)
and American studies (in Korea) is excellent, and education and communications
are important vehicles for building understanding. In a similar way, I would
hope that Sec. 4 could be rewritten in terms that would encourage exchange and
understanding through the medium of the other disciplines—economics, natural
sciences, etc. Phraseology stressing the internationalization of knowledge, the
prevention of lopsided understanding and/or the need for a broad spectrum of
relationships would both be a “focus” such as Washington is demanding and also
leave some latitude for meeting needs and interests both of Korean universities
and American scholars. Such matters as the Third World Dependency Theory that
you mention could well be included as an example of the need for such broader
academic exchange.9
Treatment of Korea in American Textbooks

At the board meeting of November 21, 1989, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA)
representative on the commission introduced the subject of the description of Korea
104
The 1980s
in American textbooks. At that time, distortions and errors about Korea in American
textbooks were an issue receiving considerable attention in Korea. The MOFA
representative suggested that Fulbright might consider funding research like that
proposed by Gari Ledyard of Columbia University. There was considerable discussion of
this issue, as reflected in the minutes. Horace G. Underwood moved that a subcommittee
be appointed to look into the matter and come up with a specific proposal for
consideration at a later meeting. This was passed unanimously.
Before turning to the next item, John Reid noted that there were similar problems in
Korean textbooks and suggested that the commission should consider addressing both
sides of the issue in the interest of reciprocity. In responding for the Korean side, Chung
Chung-Kil once again stressed the need for caution in raising such sensitive issues,
since open discussion of them almost surely would elicit a very negative reaction. Chung
also remarked that a powerful nation need not worry about its image, and the issue was
dropped without further discussion.10
Hah Seong Ho
Professor, History
The University of Alaska Anchorage
A Fulbright Degree Study Award financed

my master’s degree course at the State
University of New York, Buffalo, f rom
autumn 1989 through the 1991 summer
session. At the time I graduated from the
university, every student was agonizing over
a future career. I was one of them and made
a fateful decision in favor of graduate study
in American history. The United States
was an important partner country with
Korea, and there were supposed to be many
specialists on the United States. In reality,
however, I could not find anyone who could
105
guide my footsteps to this area of study. As my interest in the United States was
aroused, I was primarily concerned with such issues as the fundamental basis of
American politics, the system of resolving racial issues, and the like. I could hardly
find answers to questions concerning these issues. One of the books that most
impressed me at that time was A Daunting Journey, authored by Professor Kim
Joon Yup of Korea University. Although this book had to do with the modern
history of China, my curiosity was developing over the part of his nationalist
activities that moved him to become a specialist in Chinese studies. He presented
himself as someone worthy of emulation. Moved by his story, I made a decision
to become a specialist on American studies. I set my eyes on a goal and have
assiduously carried out academic pursuits toward this goal. My family was not in
a position to finance my study at a Korean university. My application for graduate
study at the State University of New York at Buffalo was accompanied by the
honor of receiving Fulbright scholarship.
Starting with a master’s degree, I advanced to the Ph.D. program. Upon the
completion of my doctoral degree, I was given an opportunity to teach in Canada
and Colorado for one year each. It was in the autumn of 2005 that I was tenured
to teach history at the University of Alaska Anchorage. It was my great honor
to see my book The Rise and Fall of the American System: Nationalism and the
Development of the American Economy 1790-1837 published in England. After the
book was published, I was invited to give lectures, and local newspapers carried
articles about the book. Seven years of study on the United States, I feel, have
brought me up to the level where I can claim myself to be well versed in America.
I am on the road to becoming an American specialist in the true sense.
Whether you like it or not, the United States is a country of great importance
to Korea, and thus I believe that we must continue to encourage American studies
within Korea. When we talk about American society and culture, there are a lot
of things to be discarded; at the same time, there are just as many things worthy
of learning. The more you understand America, the better your chance of grasping
Korea in an objective light. In this sense, the Korean-American Educational
Commission was of crucial importance in its role in the promotion of mutual
understanding.
106
The 1980s
Fulbright Forum Named in Honor of Edward Wright

At the board meeting of September 15, 1988, the commission noted the passing of
former executive director Edward Wright, who died of cancer in August. It approved a
recommendation that the Fulbright Forum be dedicated to his memory.
Frederick Carriere knew from conversations with Wright and several of his friends
that he regarded the forum and its related publications as one of his most important
achievements, and it had in fact been an important stimulus for promoting scholarly
interest in Korea among Fulbrighters and other scholars. The lecture series would thereafter
be known as the Edward R. Wright Memorial Fulbright Forum Lecture Series.11
Formation of Korea Fulbright Alumni Association

At the board meeting of September 20, 1985, one item dealt with preparations for the
formation of a Korea Fulbright Alumni Association. It was noted that the roster of
alumni of the Fulbright Korea program had been maintained with less than full devotion
throughout the preceding twenty-five years. As a result, the commission maintained
current addresses for only 501 of its 685 Korean alumni and alumnae. The board was
given a roster of the remaining 184 alumni, whose current whereabouts were unknown, in
hopes of contacting these “lost” alumni.12
The creation of a Korea Fulbright Alumni Association was a significant event in the
evolution of Fulbright in Korea. Therefore, a later chapter of this book is devoted almost
entirely to its formation and the founding of the Korea Fulbright Foundation.
In retrospect, it is natural that an alumni association would be created for Korean
alumni of Fulbright Korea many years in advance of similar developments for American
alumni of the program. For one thing, the Fulbright Commission operated out of offices
in Seoul, and this development took place in the era before the rise of the internet and
even routine use of e-mail. Also, culturally speaking, alumni groups and loyalties are
probably stronger in Korea than in the U.S.
Fulbright Agrees with ETS to Supervise TOEFL in Korea

As touched on in earlier chapters, both the teaching of English and the testing of Korean
grantees for English proficiency were concerns of the Korea Fulbright Program from its
very inception. More specifically, as noted in Chapter 2, both the U.S. embassy and the
Fulbright Commission recognized in the early 1960s that the Test of English as a Foreign
Language (TOEFL), created by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) in Princeton,
New Jersey, would inevitably have an impact on educational exchange activities. However,
107
it was only two decades later, in the early 1980s, that Fulbright first considered becoming
directly involved with large-scale English testing in South Korea.
The topic of a possible agreement with ETS to administer the TOEFL in Korea first
came up at the board meeting of February 19, 1982. The chairman, James Hoyt, explained
the background of TOEFL administration and said there had been discussion of the
advantages and disadvantages of KAEC administering the program. Hoyt indicated that
the embassy would like to see KAEC handle the program in Korea. Chung Chung-Kil
stated that the Ministry of Education fully supported KAEC’s application to administer
the TOEFL and that it saw no need to endorse any other organization, nor would it
grant educational foundation status to any other organization seeking to enter Korea to
handle TOEFL at that time. The commission unanimously recommended that KAEC
make a formal application to ETS to administer the TOEFL in Korea.13 There were
related considerations behind this decision. At that time, the Council on International
Educational Exchange was administering the TOEFL in Japan and naturally assumed
it would be most likely to get control in Korea, too. But in Korea in 1982, it was much
better to have the test administered by an agency such as KAEC with government
relationships on both sides. This was correct, and, even more importantly, ETS came to
understand that it was correct.
At the board meeting of May 12, 1983, the commission was formally informed that
ETS had sent a letter indicating its interest in having KAEC carry out responsibilities
for the administration of the TOEFL in Korea. It indicated that arrangements could be
made to initiate the program with the Fulbright Commission’s cooperation beginning in
April 1984.14
At the board meeting of November 21, 1983, the TOEFL was again discussed. Mark
Peterson’s memo to board members in advance of this meeting included all of the detailed
correspondence between KAEC (Frederick Carriere, director of the Fulbright Student Advisory
Service) and ETS regarding KAEC beginning administration of the TOEFL in Korea.
At the board meeting of December 12, 1983, the members spent about 90 minutes
discussing the TOEFL project. Carriere was present to answer questions and elaborate
on the written materials that had been distributed to all of the members one week
before the meeting. The commission voted unanimously to undertake the administration
of the TOEFL agency for Korea with two provisos: that the chairman ascertain that
administering such an agency was indeed within the scope of KAEC activities, and that
the TOEFL agree to increase its level of financial support of the agency should costs
exceed those agreed upon initially between the secretariat and the TOEFL.
With the additional space requirements of the TOEFL, it was apparent that the
commission would need larger quarters. The chairman suggested that a market survey
108
The 1980s
be conducted expeditiously, and the commission agreed that such a survey should be
conducted as quickly as possible.
On May 1, 1984, the Korean-American Educational Commission initiated a
contractual relationship with ETS to administer TOEFL activity in Korea. The
TOEFL was widely used by American colleges and universities for the admission of
foreign students whose native language was not English, and for that reason it related
directly to the central Fulbright mission of promoting educational and intercultural
exchange between the U.S. and Korea. This was recognized from the very beginning of
the relationship with ETS, and consequently KAEC, along with ETS, paid particular
attention to matters of test security.
The agreement with ETS was implemented smoothly, and delivery of TOEFL tests in
Korea took place without a glitch until 1986. At the board meeting of September 9, 1986,
the executive director provided the board with background on a recent delay in delivery of
TOEFL score reports. They had been delayed due to problems in the DHL distribution
system, which had reportedly been corrected. He also noted that the number of Korean
students purported to have been affected by this delay was grossly exaggerated by the
local mass media.15
On July 1, 1987, KAEC assumed administrative responsibilities for the Graduate
Record Examination (GRE). The GRE was, and still is, widely used for admission to a
broad range of graduate programs in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.
Exactly one year later, on July 1, 1988, KAEC took over administrative responsibilities in
Korea for the Graduate Management Admissions Test (GMAT). That test was the most
widely used requirement for admission to MBA programs in the U.S. and other nations.
A Deep But Short Bond with

the Fulbright Program
Kim Kyong Dong
Emeritus Professor, Sociology,
Seoul National University
My memory of association with the Fulbright Program is hazy. As I recall, it goes

back, if I am not mistaken, to the late 1950s, when I was engaged in a study of
109
rural communities under the guidance of Professor Lee Man-gap. This empirical
study, I came to realize later, was made possible through Fulbright support. My
direct association with the Fulbright Program included participation in interviews
and assessment of Fulbright candidates, both students and scholars. I recall having
attended meetings at the office of the Fulbright Commission in Ankuk-dong.
When I was invited as a research fellow for the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, my travel was supported by the Fulbright Program. Through
that connection, I became a member of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association.
Being engrossed in other things, I have rarely participated in the Fulbright events.
To my regret, I have not provided any service or contribution to the Fulbright
Program.
From my personal viewpoint based on my experience with it, I can proudly say
that the Fulbright Program has stood Korean society in good stead and made a
remarkable contribution to the consolidation of the relationship between Korea
and the United States. The advent of the Fulbright Program coincided with the
take-off stage of the Korean economy in the early 1960s, and the scholarships it
made available to Korean intellectuals were like manna from Heaven. There is
no denying that the Fulbright Program was the forerunner in producing Korean
elites who assumed leadership in various fields of national development. The
Fulbrighters in Korea were not confined to scholarly endeavors; a considerable
number have been entrusted with key positions in politics, business, and public
service. My study on Korean elites discloses that these elites have been in a
position to lead the tasks of national development.
The major feature of the Fulbright Program is a two-way flow of scholars and
students. In addition to the opportunities for Koreans to study in the United
States, a considerable number of American scholars and students have been
invited to engage in education and research in Korea. They have educated Koreans
and served as a window onto American society and culture. Their contribution to
this aspect of the relationship is something worthy of special attention. On their
part, the American counterparts endeavored to understand Korean society and
culture. Their research on various aspects of Korean society helped to enhance the
visibility of Korea in the world, thus making so many contributions to a better
understanding of Korea.
In a nutshell, the Fulbright Program has played a leadership role in cultural
diplomacy, thereby holding the two countries close together. On the Korean side,
110
The 1980s
there are organizations that were established much later with their own goals of
promoting international understanding of Korea. Although their roles are not the
same as those of the Fulbright Program, many of their activities were the result of
benchmarking the Fulbright Program. It is hoped that the Fulbright Program will
be a trailblazer in a new innovative program contributive to the mutual benefits of
the two countries.
Development of the Fulbright Student Advisory Service

Educational advising began developing as a profession in the mid-1970s, stimulated by
the growth of international educational exchange between the U.S. and other countries.16
By the start of the 1980s, this growth had begun to impact the counseling activities of the
Fulbright Commission in Seoul.
At the board meeting of January 8, 1980, the commission authorized the executive
director and chairman to negotiate an amendment to the contract of Frederick Carriere,
the student counselor, allowing him to work more than the twenty hours specified under
the current contract. The motion was passed unanimously.
At the board meeting of June 27, 1980, the commission authorized the secretariat to
spend up to $3,000 to improve the facilities in the counseling center. A new counter
system was installed, with the result that a clerk had to be hired to man the counter and
handle mundane requests while referring specific questions to the student counselors.
The motion passed unanimously. At the same board meeting, a negotiating committee
was formed to work out contract renewals with the executive director and the student
counselor.17
As the activities of the Fulbright Student Advisory Service expanded, so did the
importance of participation in the annual conferences of NAFSA: Association of
International Educators. The NAFSA conferences provided a valuable professional
networking and information-gathering opportunity to learn about practices at other
Fulbright Commissions and advising centers around the world. At the meeting of
October 16, 1981, there was consideration of travel by KAEC staff members to Manila
for a conference on U.S. higher education. Carriere, Nahm Chunghee, and Kim Sunsook
were authorized to attend the conference as proposed, as well as to visit appropriate
centers in Hong Kong and Tokyo on the way to and from Manila.18
111
Introduction of Computerized Counseling

At the commission meeting of February 19, 1982, the board approved a proposal for the
counseling center to begin a computerized counseling program, and the chairman was
authorized to sign the proposed contact. It was further agreed that the fee should be set
at 7,000 won initially, to be reviewed later if appropriate.
The computerized counseling service operated through the Foreign Student
Information Clearinghouse, a service of the College Board. It helped students select an
appropriate college from over 2,000 in the computer, based on criteria selected by the
student.
At the board meeting of May 6, 1982, the purchase of a copier for the counseling center
was approved in principle, and the secretariat was asked to investigate the matter and
establish a contract with the approval of the fiscal committee. An agreement was reached
to postpone the decision on the purchase of a microfilm reader/printer until the matter
could be studied more.19
At the board meeting of October 6, 1982, counseling was again on the agenda. In a
memo to board members prior to the meeting, executive director Mark Peterson noted,
“The demand for accurate counseling has skyrocketed with the easing of regulations for
Korean students to go abroad to study. The Counseling Center has seen a steady increase
in visitors. Recently, several commercial centers have opened and, while charging fees,
provide questionable service. We have responded by increasing services such as copying,
the microfiche catalogue, and the computer counseling service. We recommend that a
committee be formed to recruit, interview, and hire a counseling assistant.”
The board formed a committee as recommended. In his memo, Peterson noted that “Fred
Carriere has brought a new level of expertise and professionalism to the student counselor
position. He has greatly rationalized the operations of the center and has been recognized
at international conferences for his competence.” The commission voted to renew the
student counselor’s contract with a 10% increase in salary.20
Upon assuming the position of executive director nearly two years later, Carriere
proposed that the position in the counseling center be offered to Joseph Nowakowski,
with the proviso that the initial contract be written for one year only with renewal
conditional upon satisfactor y job performance during that initial year. The
recommendation was that Nowakowski be offered a beginning salary of $18,000 a year
and that the position be titled “associate director for student advisory and TOEFL
services.” Of the salary, $12,000 was covered by ETS through the TOEFL agency
agreement.21
Although the associate director’s title referred to both advising and testing, in reality
112
The 1980s
the two activities have always been closely related. The advising or counseling of students
for study in the U.S. includes the provision of information on how to prepare for, register
for, and take the TOEFL and other high-stakes academic admission tests.
In 1985, a video viewing room was constructed in Fulbright’s counseling center.22 By
that point in time, U.S. colleges and universities were beginning to use video materials to
promote their educational opportunities.
At the board meeting of September 22, 1987, the executive director noted that a full-
time internship position in the counseling service for an American student had been
included in the last program proposal and announced by IIE. He proposed to offer
part-time internships to three Yonsei University International Division students to fill
the position. Several commission members voiced serious reservations regarding the
suggested length of the internship, the amount of the stipend, and various other aspects of
this new concept. However, Carriere was authorized to make the three internship offers
proposed, but only on a trial basis for a period of no more than three months.23
At the board meeting of February 16, 1988, the commission accepted the secretariat’s
recommendation to create a new position for a full-time Korean counselor and to retain
one half-time internship position in the Fulbright Student Advisory Service (FSAS) after
careful review of the current and proposed staffing arrangements and their relative cost-
effectiveness.24
At the board meeting of December 1, 1988, the commission accepted with regret the
resignation of Joseph Nowakowski. He gave informal notice of his intention to resign as
Kim Nam Hyeong

counsels a student at
the Fulbright Student
Advisory Service.
113
associate director and indicated he would be leaving around mid-January 1989. A search
committee was appointed to fill his position.25
At the board meeting of January 26, 1989, the board members approved the
appointment of William H. Drummond, Jr. as associate director for advising and testing
on the recommendation of the search committee. It was further agreed that Drummond
would be offered a two-year contract, with the standard salary adjustment at the
beginning of the second year, after a probationary period of three months. Considering
exchange rate trends, the board also agreed, at Douglas Short’s suggestion, to fix
Drummond’s salary in won at the prevailing rate on the day the contract was signed.
Funding
At the board meeting of March 18, 1983, the level of contribution from the two
governments was discussed. The commitment from the Korean government was the
same as the previous year in Korean currency, at 255,834,000 won ($340,000). The U.S.
contribution was to be at least $475,000, which was less than its final allocation for the
prior year ($620,000). Adjustments to balance the number of grants available for Koreans
versus Americans were discussed.
At the board meeting of December 12, 1983, the tight budget situation was discussed.
The possibility was raised that no senior researchers would be able to go to the U.S. that
year. Various ways to obtain additional funds were discussed, including approaching both
governments about the possibility of year-end fallout funds and setting up an alumni
association that could be tapped for donations.26
At the KAEC board meeting of August 31, 1984, attachments presented to the board
included a cable to Washington summarizing funding for KAEC in Program Year 1984.27
At the board meeting of November 21, 1986, the executive director advised the board
that the Korean won appeared virtually certain to continue appreciating against the U.S.
dollar. As a substantial portion of the commitments against U.S. dollar funds currently
held by KAEC were to be paid in Korean won, the commission was in danger of suffering
an exchange loss in the range of $10,000 to $20,000 during the coming year. The board
approved an immediately conversion into won of the portion of current U.S. dollar funds
to be expended in that currency, as well as its investment in such a way as the treasurer
deemed appropriate.28
114
The 1980s
Infrastructure
At its meeting of June 24, 1982, the commission considered an invitation from the U.S.
government to move into space in the International Communication Agency building.
The invitation was outlined in a June 23 letter to the KAEC chairman from Bernard
Lavin, the public affairs officer. It read, in part: “President Reagan has consistently taken
the position that the cost of government should be reduced and ways and means found
to effect savings to the United States Government and the American taxpayer. As we
experienced this past year and may anticipate for the foreseeable future, funds for the
programs of the International Communication Agency are increasingly under pressure
for reductions, just as so many other U.S. programs are being similarly affected.”29
Lavin went on to detail the results of a cost-savings study that the embassy had
undertaken in cooperation with KAEC. The government would offer rent-free space
to KAEC on the third floor of the building, which had housed the American Cultural
Center. In addition to rent, savings would be realized on parking, utilities, telephone
charges, and custodial salaries. The study estimated that the total measureable savings to
the Fulbright Commission would be approximately $1,500 per month, a considerable
sum in the early 1980s.30
In response to Lavin’s proposal, it was moved, seconded, and approved that the
commission offices should remain in their current location until and unless financial
conditions warranted reconsideration.31 The matter of office space for Fulbright
Commission operations would not come up again until early 1984, when additional space
was needed to accommodate TOEFL operations.
At the board meeting of January 9, 1984, there was once again discussion of a proposal
to move to new office space. A survey conducted on behalf of the commission revealed
that the KOHAP space proposed at the last meeting was financially attractive. An
agreement was reached to hold negotiations with KOHAP until Professor Nah Gun-sok
could examine another possibility behind the government’s integrated office building.32
At a meeting later in January, the commission authorized the treasurer and chairman
to sign a contract with the KOHAP Building when all terms were acceptable and the
commission’s lawyer had approved them.
At its meeting of March 13, 1984, the commission was informed about the signing
of a rental contract with the management of the KOHAP Building for new office
space. Notification was also given of the removal of the secretariat to the new quarters,
scheduled for March 19, 1984. The new address would be KOHAP Building 403, 89-4
Kyongun-dong, Chongno-gu, Seoul.33 KAEC was to remain in this location for 16
years, by far the longest stay in any leased quarters, and only moved out in 2000 with the
115
Fulbright testing agency

and educational
services at the Fulbright
Commission headquarters
in the KOHAP Building in
Jong-no, Seoul.
purchase of its own building.

At the board meeting of May 18, 1987, the secretariat presented a recommendation
regarding housing for the executive director, since the lease on the house he was currently
occupying had expired two months before. The recommendation suggested that the
commission seriously consider buying a house, rather than renting or making a chonsei
arrangement.
After a lengthy discussion of the pros and cons of the housing option recommended
by the secretariat, a decision was made to enter into a rental agreement for this housing
on the proposed terms subject to the following conditions: receipt of a satisfactory
engineering report on the house; official confirmation of the appraised value of the
property; and favorable legal review of the terms of the rental agreement.
In addition, the commission decided to seek formal approval of its right to hold real
property and determine the procedure to be followed in disposing of such property
should the activities of the commission ever be terminated.34
At the board meeting of December 9, 1987, as permission to purchase the house
provided for the executive director’s use in the commission’s name had not been obtained,
KAEC’s lawyer and other experts suggested the problem might be resolved by registering
ownership of the house in the name of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association. The
board instructed the secretariat to resolve the housing issue in as advantageous a manner
116
The 1980s
as possible. It also empowered John Reid, Kim Suhng Dohng, Paek Ki Moon, and
Frederick Carriere to work out an appropriate legal solution.
The information revolution mentioned at the outset of this chapter affected not only
Fulbright Korea’s program priorities but also its day-to-day administrative operations.
In his executive director’s report at the board meeting of January 26, 1989, Carriere
described the progress being made in the computerization of the office, and the board
agreed to his request for authorization to spend up to $12,000 for IBM hardware. He also
noted that it was time to replace one of the commission vehicles and that the estimated
cost of a suitable replacement vehicle was $11,000-$13,000.35
At the board meeting of September 28, 1989, the executive director, in his report to the
board, noted that with the beginning of the new fiscal year the secretariat’s administrative
and fiscal record-keeping would be completely computerized. This marked a major
advance in efforts to upgrade and streamline fiscal operations.36
117
118
Chapter 5
The 1990s
Mobile Communications, the Web, and
Surging Interest in English
The 1990s were a decade shaped by the communications revolution, globalization, and the
shock of the Asian economic crisis, or “IMF Crisis,” as it became known in Korea. Thanks
to the invention of the World Wide Web early in the decade, the internet began its rapid
growth. Later, the continued development of smaller and more powerful semiconductors
drove the worldwide spread of mobile communication. Generally, the communication
revolution took place unevenly around the globe, occurring first in the advanced,
industrialized nations and months or years later in the developing nations of the world.
In South Korea, not only did the information revolution occur more rapidly than in
most other nations, but information and communications technology (ICT) was a major
factor that propelled the nation’s overall economic growth. By the end of the 1990s,
South Korea led the world in broadband internet penetration, was a major player in the
semiconductor, display, and television industries, and had become the first nation in the
world to commercialize CDMA technology and build a nationwide mobile network
based upon it.
During the 1990s, Korea established itself as one of the world’s advanced industrialized
nations. If any formal certification of this status were needed, it came in 1996 when Korea
formally joined the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),
a group of thirty of the world’s leading market economies.
Politically, the 1990s ushered in South Korea’s first democratically elected civilian
governments. Kim Young Sam took office as President in February 1993, and Kim Dae
119
Jung prevailed in the next presidential election and took office in February 1998. During
Kim Young Sam’s term in office, two former presidents, Roh Tae Woo and Chun Doo
Hwan, were tried and sent to prison for their role in the 1979 coup that brought Chun to
power. After the election of Kim Dae Jung in December 1997, the two former presidents
were pardoned after spending about two years behind bars. By December 1997, the
nation was in the teeth of an economic crisis that led to a $57 billion-plus rescue by the
International Monetary Fund, and Kim Dae Jung reportedly agreed to the pardon to help
unify the country and allow it to concentrate on the economic crisis.1
The “IMF Crisis,” as it came to be widely known within Korea, had a dramatic effect
on South Korea’s economy. It caused widespread unemployment and the bankruptcy of
many businesses. Fortunately, the effect was limited to the short term and hastened some
needed reforms. Consequently, the country’s economy experienced a sustained period of
growth during the first decade of the 21st century.
As in earlier decades, the changing character of the times had an impact on Fulbright
Korea. Both the advances in digital communications and globalization more generally
were factors in the continued increase in study abroad by Korean students, along with
the study of English and taking of the TOEFL, the TOEIC, and other English tests.
The private sector institutes, or hagwons, for both study abroad counseling and English
language testing burgeoned during this decade.
South Korea’s rapid adoption of digital information and communication technologies
had a direct effect on Fulbright Korea. During the 1990s, the commission continued to
network computers in its student advising center, introduced computer-based testing for
the GMAT and GRE, and published its first web sites. The decade began with heavy use
of fax machines and ended with almost exclusive use of e-mail for routine administrative
communication with New York and Washington, as well as in-country and internal
communication.
The broadly based growth of interest in English instruction in Korea also influenced
the Fulbright Program. Most notably, in 1992 the commission started the Fulbright
English Teaching Assistant (ETA) program, one that would grow to become the largest
single American grant program before the turn of the century.
The 40th Anniversary Commemoration

As noted at the beginning of this book, the decade of the 1990s began with a very special
event in the history of Fulbright Korea. Senator J. William Fulbright and his wife Harriet
Mayor Fulbright visited Korea on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the program,
120
The 1990s
Fulbright alumni
Lee Byong Ho
and former Prime
Minister Han Seung
Soo attend the 40th
anniversary of the
Fulbright Program
in Korea.
which was celebrated in Seoul on September 20-21, 1990. Prime Minister Kang Young
Hoon, Korea Fulbright Alumni Association president Hahn Sang Joon, and numerous
Fulbright alumni attended the various functions. Senator Fulbright’s address at the 40th
anniversary commemoration was a highlight of the event.
Reflections on the Exchange Program: An Address to Commemorate the 40th

Anniversary of the Fulbright Program in Korea
The Korea Fulbright Alumni Association Newsletter account of the 40th anniversary
event noted that “after a very heartfelt introduction by U.S. Ambassador Gregg, former
Senator Fulbright delivered an eloquent congratulatory address in a deep, healthy voice.”
Senator Fulbright began his address with the following words:
I am honored to be here with you at this 40th anniversary celebration of the

Fulbright Program in Korea. It is especially pleasing to see the arms race recede
and cooperation among the major powers dramatically increase. We may now turn
our thoughts toward visions of life in a peaceful world, and I am pleased to be
invited to share some of my thoughts with you, especially in regard to the goals of
121
the educational exchange program I helped to establish over 40 years ago.

My special interest in international education began during my three years
as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University in the twenties. Before going to
England, I had never been to the East or West Coast of the United States, and
the scholarship transformed my life. That experience, together with the horror
of the unprecedented nuclear destruction of the Japanese cities, prompted me
to introduce the educational exchange legislation in 1945 in the United States
Senate.2
Later in his address, Senator Fulbright noted that “conflicts between nations result from
deliberate decisions made by the leaders of nations, and those decisions are influenced and
determined by the experience and judgment of the leaders and their advisers. Therefore,
our security and the peace of the world are dependent upon the character and intellect of
the leaders rather than upon the weapons of destruction now accumulated in enormous
and costly stockpiles.”
Regarding the impact of new technology in the future, Senator Fulbright had the
following to say: “It is clear that the steady increase in international trade and cooperative
ventures in all fields will continue. The future will surely bring faster flights, more
television channels, and better phone systems, but none of these symbols of progress
automatically create greater empathy or cooperation among us. International educational
exchange has forced many thousands to try on foreign shoes, to see the world through
another’s eyes. Advanced science and technology are no substitute for the slow process of
learning to walk differently, to see clearly from another perspective.”
The Senator concluded his address in Seoul as follows:
There is a “multiplier effect” in international education, and it carries the only real
possibility of changing our manner of thinking about the world, and therefore
of changing the world. For every university professor whose outlook has been
broadened by study in another country, many thousands of students will gain some
measure of intercultural perspective. For every business person who has studied
abroad, many associates are likely to gain some appreciation of the essential futility
of nationalistic economic policies and of the way in which an international division
of labor benefits all countries. For every politician or diplomat who, through study
elsewhere, has gained some appreciation of the world as a human community,
untold numbers of ordinary citizens, as well as their leaders, may be guided away
from parochialism and narrow nationalism to broader, more fruitful perspectives.
122
The 1990s
Senator Fulbright’s remarks about the “multiplier effect” of international education

have a particular resonance in Korea. Based on sheer numbers, more Americans have
experienced Korea while in the military service than in any educational capacity. However,
the impact of those who have come to Korea and Koreans who have gone to the U.S.
under Fulbright and other educational exchange programs may be larger over the long
run than the numbers alone would indicate.
Establishment of the Korea Fulbright Foundation

In conjunction with the 40th anniversary of the Fulbright Program in Korea and Senator
Fulbright’s visit, the Korean Fulbright Alumni Association announced the establishment
of a tax-exempt foundation. The aim was to promote more active educational and cultural
exchanges and to encourage closer relationships among all Fulbright alumni in Korea and
throughout the world. A committee was formed to prepare for establishment of the Korea
Fulbright Alumni Foundation. Initial funding for the foundation totaled about $70,000,
made up of money from the “centennial fund” established by the Korean-American
Educational Commission to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Korean-American
diplomatic relations in 1983, alumni dues, and money raised during the commemoration
of the 40th anniversary of Fulbright in Korea. The Korea Fulbright Alumni Association
and the Korea Fulbright Foundation will be dealt with in greater detail in Chapter 8.
The Hawaii Conference of the Fulbright Association

As if all of the events in Seoul were not enough, the Fulbright Association, a membership
organization of U.S. Fulbright alumni, held its 13th Annual Conference in Honolulu,
Hawaii on October 5-7, 1990, on the theme of “Pacific Focus 1990: Change and
Challenge.” The conference was co-sponsored by the University of Hawaii and the
East-West Center, underscoring the importance of educational exchanges in the future
development of the Asia-Pacific region.
The sixteen participants from Korea and eight from Japan constituted the largest
national delegations from the Asia-Pacific region. The conference attracted nearly 200
participants from 14 countries, including most of the Asia-Pacific nations and Peru,
Mexico, Kenya, Hungary, and West Germany.
For the Korea participants, the conference offered a chance to see Senator Fulbright
and his wife again in one of the more pleasant settings on U.S. soil.
The Fulbright alumni who participated in the Honolulu conference passed the
following resolution: “In 1945, after the end of the painful Second World War, a
scholarship foundation was established through Senator Fulbright’s ceaseless effort
123
The Hawaii
Conference of
the Fulbright
Association held
its 13th annual
conference in
Honolulu, Hawaii
from October 5 to 7,
1990, on the theme
“Pacific Focus
1990: Change and
Challenge.”
and persistent endeavor. Participation in this meeting left us with a renewed sense of
responsibility as recipients of this award. We must therefore be pioneers who contribute
to ending wars and to solidifying world peace.” 3
Leadership Changes in the 1990s

On September 18, 1990, just days before the 40th anniversary of the Fulbright Program
in Korea, Shim Jai Ok became the first woman to hold the position of deputy director
of the Korean-American Educational Commission. Shim had started work in the
administrative offices of KAEC in December 1977 and served there for 12 years. The
Fulbright Korea Alumni Newsletter noted, “In preparation for the visit of Senator
Fulbright and his wife, Shim showed sincere responsibility and devotion, scheduling and
planning related events, including the fundraising dinner, and working past midnight
for over ten days. She married Chun Ha Yong, M.D., an alumnus of Seoul National
University Medical School, and has three sons.”4
The Fulbright Commission experienced two other major changes in leadership during
the 1990s. The first of these came following Frederick Carriere’s medical evacuation to
the U.S. on January 14, 1993. At the January 20 meeting of the Fulbright Commission,
124
The 1990s
chairman John A. Fredenburg explained to the members about Carriere’s sudden illness
and subsequent hospitalization for viral meningitis and encephalitis. Carriere had
informed the board, through his memorandum of January 14, 1993, that the doctor had
advised him to seek extended medical treatment in the U.S. On that same date, he had
departed Seoul for New York, accompanied by a nurse.
In his memo to the board, Carriere requested a working leave whereby he could carry
on certain responsibilities to allow for essential managerial continuity. Those areas of
responsibility were outlined in his memorandum. The board passed a motion accepting
Carriere’s offer to work on important KAEC matters to the extent possible while on sick
leave and expressed its appreciation for his willingness to continue to fulfill some duties
despite his illness.5
In another memo to the board prior to the very next board meeting in February,
Carriere wrote, “When I left Seoul, I thought there was only a slight chance that I would
be able to return. Based on the results of the additional tests and medical consultations
I have had since arriving in the U.S., I can now say with certainty that I will not be able
to return and continue in my position. Under the arrangements approved in the last
meeting, I will continue to perform as many of my duties as feasible. At Mr. Fredenburg’s
suggestion, I will submit a formal letter of resignation around the time my ‘working
sick leave’ period ends or when my successor is hired, whichever is sooner. Now that my
situation is clear, I recommend that a search be initiated both in the U.S. and in Korea at
the earliest opportunity.” 6
By the time of the next board meeting in April, the search committee had met, ads had
been placed in two successive editions of The Chronicle of Higher Education, and thirty
applications had been received. USIA had been asked to form a panel to do the initial
screening. Carriere and members of CIES were included on the panel.7 An early June
board meeting was devoted entirely to review and discussion of the candidates, and the
pool was narrowed down to eight finalists.8
At its June 23 meeting, the Fulbright Commission endorsed two candidates, a principal
and one alternate. At the same meeting, Fredenburg explained to the board that Mark
Peterson, former executive director and now a professor of Korean history at Brigham
Young University, would be available to serve as a short-term executive director if needed
and if approved by the board.
At the time, the commission not only was dealing with the task of finding a new
executive director but had also experienced difficulties with the incumbent associate
director. After an extended discussion of Frederick Carriere’s recommendation that
associate director Leonard Trudo be dismissed, the board voted to hire Mark Peterson as
125
executive director for the short term and to extend a contract to Trudo that would include
a 90-day probation period.9
The commission meeting of July 2, 1993, dealt largely with changes in key staff
positions at the secretariat. Carriere participated in this board meeting, his last as
executive director, via teleconference. Fredenburg reported that the principal candidate
had agreed to serve as executive director and that a contract should be ready within two
weeks. The contract was to be similar to that of the present executive director, except for
the salary. The board also approved offering a contract to Peterson to serve as interim
executive director for four to six months starting in late July.
Finally, the board passed a motion to request Trudo’s resignation under six specific
terms: two months’ salary, return travel for him and family, continuing insurance coverage,
use of an apartment for up to two months, visa sponsorship for two months, and
reimbursement for moving costs similar to his relocation to Korea.10
As it happened, unexpected problems arose in the final negotiation of contract terms
with the principal candidate, and he declined the offer to become the next executive
director. By September, Mark Peterson had assumed the position of executive director
on an interim basis. At the commission meeting of September 21, 1993, chairman
Bill Maurer reported that. an offer had been presented to the alternate candidate, Ray
Weisenborn. He added that Weisenborn had accepted the contract offer and signed
and returned the contract, indicating that he would be available to start in December. 11
Weisenborn actually began work with the commission around the first of the year and
attended his first board meeting as executive director on February 24, 1994.
Shortly after Weisenborn’s arrival, the commission initiated a search for an associate
director to fill the vacancy left by Trudo’s departure. The search resulted in a decision to
hire Gary D. Walter, who began work as associate director on October 3, 1994.12
In 1996, the commission conducted a search and interviewed three candidates for the
position of associate director, since Walter had announced his intention to leave that
position by year’s end. In November 1996, James F. Larson was hired as associate director,
with major responsibilities for managing the commission’s technology, its advising center,
and the introduction of computer-based testing, which had begun under Walter.
After nearly four years of service as executive director, Weisenborn resigned in
November 1997, and the search began for a new director. By the time of the commission
meeting of March 4, 1998, twenty-six applications had been received. Interviews took
place during the latter half of that month.13
Meeting in executive session on March 30, 1998, the search/interview subcommittee
reported that a total of 26 applications had been received for the executive director
126
The 1990s
position. Following interviews, two candidates were recommended to the entire board
for consideration. In the ensuing discussion, the board members discussed the merits
of the two principal candidates and selected as the new executive director Horace H.
Underwood, Professor of English at Yonsei University. The decision was unanimous
thanks to Underwood’s excellent qualifications, thorough knowledge of Korea, and
fluency in the Korean language.14
Program Priorities
The 1990s saw both innovation and continuity in the commission’s overall program priorities.
Grant Programs
The major innovation that affected Fulbright Korea’s program priorities during the 1990s
and beyond was unquestionably the introduction of the Fulbright English Teaching
Assistant (ETA) program.
The Fulbright ETA Program

At the commission meeting of February 1, 1991, discussion and approval of the Program
Year 1992-93 program proposal centered on the new English Teaching Assistantship
(ETA) program, which was the only significant innovation planned for the program
year. The Ministry of Education representative on the board initiated the discussion
by indicating that the MOE would cooperate with KAEC in implementing this new
program. For lack of a better expression, it was agreed that the announcement should
specify that the applicant should be a “native speaker of standard American English”
to discourage candidates with strong regional accents or unusual speech habits from
applying. Concern was also expressed about the high probability that some of the
cooperating schools might not accept Korean-American candidates, but the members
were not able to reach a consensus on the proper response to this controversial issue.
The commission approved forwarding the program proposal to the Board of Foreign
Scholarships and United States Information Agency.15
At the commission meeting of February 4, 1991, Frederick Carriere sent a memo to
board members that outlined the new ETA program. It began as follows.
The Korean-American Educational Commission (KAEC) and the Republic of

Korea’s Ministry of Education (MOE) recently agreed to collaborate in providing
a new type of opportunity in Korea for younger American students who are either
127
graduating seniors or recent college graduates. KAEC will manage this program
on behalf of the MOE beginning with the 1992-93 program year. A student
selected for the program will receive the benefits established for KAEC’s “Fulbright
Graduate Intern” category, which include roundtrip travel, a monthly living
allowance from a sponsoring institution, and some in-kind benefits incidental to
Korean language study and cultural orientation activities.16
The memo went on to specify that up to twelve American students would spend one
or more years in Korea as English language teaching assistants in Korean primary and
middle schools. The basic teaching assignment of an ETA would be approximately 12
hours per week and involve co-teaching with a certified Korean teacher as well as taking
the class over periodically for conversation lessons. The ETA would be required to spend
an additional two to three hours per week assisting the teachers in preparing lessons,
correcting homework assignments, and performing other related tasks.
Although the new internship was not a study award per se, independent study and
research that did not interfere with assigned responsibilities was encouraged from the
start of the program. Due to the less than half-time nature of teaching responsibilities,
it was envisioned that an ETA would have sufficient time to undertake formal Korean
language study, which was strongly encouraged. Other formal study opportunities were
also encouraged. In most cases, ETAs were to be assigned to schools located in major
urban centers such as Seoul, Pusan, Taegu, Taejon, and Kwangju where there were
universities with programs of study for international students.
Apart from the basic academic qualifications required of all students involved in
Fulbright-sponsored programs, including graduation from an accredited institution by
the beginning date of the award, the only specific eligibility requirements established for
an ETA were that he or she must be 1) unmarried and not over 30 years of age, and 2)
a well-rounded and articulate native speaker of English with the initiative necessary for
teaching conversational English and basic writing skills to Korean schoolchildren.
ETAs were required to participate in a two- to three-week orientation/training
workshop prior to beginning their assignments. Also, participation in at least two more
in-service training institutes during each year of the assignment were made mandatory.
An ETA was to receive a monthly stipend of 600,000 won (approximately $800) from
the participating school as a basic living allowance. The costs of meals and lodging were to
be covered from this allowance, but the schools were asked to help in arranging affordable
lodgings. Normally, an ETA would live in a boarding house or with a host family, often
under conditions that were spartan by typical American standards.
128
The 1990s
Although the most obvious immediate objective of the program was to enhance the
teaching of English in Korean primary and middle schools, from KAEC’s point of view
several long-term objectives deserved attention. Most importantly, KAEC believed that
the program, over a period of several years, would help to foster the development of a
“critical mass” of young Americans who would have a firsthand knowledge of Korea and
at least some basic Korean language skills. With such qualifications, KAEC believed that
these young Americans would be prepared to make more meaningful contributions to the
development of U.S.-Korea relations throughout their future academic and professional
careers.
Also, along with developing a greater capacity to use English for international
communication, KAEC believed that the young Koreans exposed to an American at an
early age were likely to form a more objective impression of the U.S. than might be the
case otherwise.17
At the commission meeting of November 19, 1991, an agenda item dealt with Fulbright
ETA pre-departure training and orientation. Fully concurring with the secretariat’s
assessment of the importance of pre-departure training and orientation for the ETAs,
the board approved a proposal on such training from the American Cultural Exchange.
Frederick Carriere reported that he had just learned from IIE that 24 applicants had been
recruited for the program.18
At its meeting of December 15, 1992, the Fulbright Commission considered a
proposal to adjust the ETA program benefits. After clarifying that this proposed
adjustment in benefits was intended solely as a stopgap measure for that year’s ETAs,
the board approved the request to provide them with a Korean language study allowance
comparable to what Fulbright student or junior research award recipients received.
The need for a long-term solution was recognized in the discussion. Carriere indicated
that he had been working on a proposal that would be offered to the board for its
consideration at a later meeting. He noted in advance that the core of the proposal would
be an expansion of the pre-service orientation program to include eight weeks of intensive
Korean language study.
There was also a discussion of adjustment problems. Carriere reported that one ETA
had just requested early termination and that there was a chance that at least one other
might do so as well.19
Problems with the ETA program were also discussed at the commission meeting
of February 23, 1993. Everyone agreed that the ETA program was a worthy one, but
that it needed to be improved. The secretariat’s view was that KAEC needed to recruit
a consultant to review the program. The secretariat proposed that the board retain the
129
services of Andrea Heiss. This was approved with no objections. The consulting service
would target the following year’s ETA program.20
A year later, the ETA program was again on the commission’s agenda. In his February
16 memo to board members in advance of the meeting, Ray Weisenborn presented
information about two memos received from the Ministry of Education regarding the
ETA program. The first asked for an accounting of how additional ETA funds would be
used. The second mentioned MOE plans to expand the conversational English program
into the latter three grades of primary school.21
The commission meeting of September 6, 1994, was attended by Craig Morris, the
new assistant education counselor, who helped with the report on the 1994 ETA training
program.22
As of 1995, a two-week language training program was conducted at Pacific Lutheran
University in Tacoma, Washington. ETAs departed Tacoma as a group, and for the second
year a three-week training program was conducted at Kangwon National University in
Chuncheon.23
At the board meeting of December 17, 1998, the commission considered participation
in the Fulbright Summer Institute by a Korean high school teacher. In the summer of
1999, USIA’s Branch for the Study of the United States would offer a “Fulbright Summer
Institute for the Study of the U.S. for Foreign Secondary School Teachers and Teacher
Trainers.” This was a six-week graduate-level seminar that provided a multidisciplinary
examination of U.S. society to enhance teaching focused on the U.S. Fulbright
commissions were urged by USIA to nominate participants.
At that time, the ETA program was having a positive impact on the middle and high
schools involved. There would be a multiplier effect if an ETA co-teacher, or another
teacher from an ETA school, could be sent to the U.S. for this six-week program.
The schools were already favorably disposed to learn about the U.S. because of their
relationship with Fulbright. In addition, the availability of such an institute grant would be
a powerful motivating factor to keep schools involved in the ETA program in the future.
Also, since most Fulbright grant programs involved both nations and travel both ways,
such a summer institute would be a first step in providing binational balance to the ETA
program. The secretariat would solicit nominations of, screen, and recommend at a future
board meeting the person to be sent. The cost, $8,300 for that year, could be met from the
budget as had been recently augmented. After consideration, the board voted to accept the
secretariat’s recommendation to participate in the USIA Summer Institute program.24
130
The 1990s
The Study of Korean Religiosity

DON BAKER
When Fulbright invited me back in the early 1990s, Korea was a much
more peaceful place. So instead of watching battles between prodemocracy
demonstrators and those who were violently opposed to democracy, I instead
wandered around the peninsula looking for evidence of both traditional spirituality
and the ways in which that spirituality had been transformed in recent decades.
I could have found books in U.S. university libraries on Korean Buddhism,
shamanism, Confucianism, and Christianity. But to actually understand what
Korean Buddhists, shamans, Confucians, and Christians do, I had to talk with
them and watch them engage in their various religious practices. A Fulbright
research grant made such direct contact and personal observations possible. The
result was a series of articles on various religious organizations in Korea today
and in the past, culminating in the 2008 publication of a broad survey of Korea’s
pluralistic religious environment, Korean Spirituality (University of Hawaii Press).
I would never have been able to write that book, informed as it is by personal
encounters with religious Koreans, if the Fulbright Program had not invited me to
Korea to research Korean religiosity.25
131
Establishment of the IEA Program

Another innovation in Fulbright grants during the 1990s was the establishment of
the International Education Administrators program. Until 1994, Fulbright Korea
had participated jointly with Japan in the Japan-Korea International Education
Administrators grant program. It was a three-week program, with only one week taking
place in Korea. At the commission meeting of October 6, 1994, executive director Ray
Weisenborn reviewed the IEA program for board members and focused on the limited
time participants had in Korea and their suggestions that the program time be lengthened.
He noted that it would be feasible to withdraw from the program with Japan and
administer an independent program in the summer of 1995. The commission authorized
the secretariat to proceed with planning a proposal and budget and corresponding with
USIS/DC and CIES.26
At its meeting of January 17, 1995, the commission voted to discontinue the
collaboration and initiate its independent program of 16 to 18 days for Americans
coming to Korea. As the success of the Japan program was marked by two-way exchange,
the KAEC secretariat believed that a two-week program for Koreans traveling to the U.S.
should also be initiated.
The preliminary proposal also stated that the goal of the program would be for
American and Korean lEA participants to visit the respective host country and interact
with government, education, and private organization personnel to become acquainted
with the philosophy, organization, and management of higher education with specific
regard to international programs.
Participants would attend small group and individual sessions with in-country persons
as identified above; visit colleges, universities, and government and private sector agencies;
and attend educational conferences when available. Participants would be responsible for
making brief subject presentations regarding their home country jobs and responsibilities.
American applicants would be recruited and initially screened by CIES, with final
selection by the KAEC board. Korean applicants would be recruited and screened by the
KAEC secretariat, with final selection by the KAEC board.
The respective schedules for Korean and American grantees were arranged so that each
group would attend the NAFSA: Association of International Educators conference in
the U.S. and meet there, with funding by KAEC.27
After consideration of the proposal, the board authorized the secretariat to proceed
with 1) identifying and bringing forward to the board American applicants for the IEA
program for the summer of 1995, and 2) identifying and presenting to the board Korean
applicants for the IEA grant program. The board would then select final American and
Korean grantees at the April board meeting.28
132
The 1990s
American Roving Lecturers

At its meeting of December 18, 1996, the commission approved a three-year plan that
included the trial of an American roving lecture series. The plan was approved by the
board with the understanding that annual review and modifications might be necessary.29
At the commission meeting of March 4, 1998, the secretariat reported that decreased
contributions from the Ministry of Education would cause a decrease in the commission’s
budget in won. KAEC would also experience decreased revenues from testing. The main
effect of these budget shifts would be on the number of American Fulbright grantees.
Because of this budget situation and staffing patterns, the secretariat recommended
suspension of the American Distinguished Roving Lecturer program, along with the
Korean and American IEA programs. The board voted to suspend both programs for one
year.30
The Fulbright-MOE Fellowship Program

By the early 1990s, the need for study abroad experience in the U.S. was felt even within
the Ministry of Education. In particular, those responsible for administering a growing
number of Fulbright grants felt the need to upgrade their own experience in order to work
more effectively with the Fulbright Commission and U.S. organizations involved with
the Fulbright Program. In 1992, the Ministry proposed creation of a Fulbright-MOE
Fellowship Program. The purpose of the program, as described in the official written
proposal by the MOE, was to “enhance and fortify the cooperative relationship between
Korea and the U.S. in the area of education, especially of educational administration or
policy making, by securing more American trained or experienced MOE officials who
would be familiar with American education and have in-depth understanding of the
Korea-U.S. relationship” and to “respond to the growing number of applicants within the
MOE who want to have an opportunity to study or practice professionally abroad for his/
her career development as a public official.” 31
In 1994, Kim Wang-bok, director of the International Cooperation Division of
the Ministry of Education, wrote to the chairman of the Fulbright Commission
concerning the selection process for that year. In his letter, he noted, “The Fulbright-
MOE Fellowship is exclusively offered to officials in the MOE, and the required fund is
independently provided from the Ministry, being separated from the other fellowships
of the KAEC.”32 The letter noted that the MOE had reserved some $60,000 to support
two Fulbright-MOE Fellowships. Furthermore, the Ministry had tried, but failed, to
recruit four candidates for the two awards. Therefore, Kim wrote, “Considering that the
Board allowed modifications in the selection process if circumstances warranted, it is my
133
opinion that the two semi-finalists, Mr. CHUNG Bong-gun and Miss UM Hye-yean, be
interviewed as stated in the Selection Process.”33
The selection process became a critical issue for the Fulbright-MOE Fellowship
program, to the extent that executive director Horace H. Underwood in 2003
recommended to the commission that the program be discontinued. The recommendation
he made for discussion at the September 19, 2003, meeting of the commission went
as follows: “One of the Fulbright grant programs in Korea has been the MOE Fellow
program. Despite many years of effort, this program has been unable to meet the
worldwide Fulbright criteria of open competition and transparency. When it was begun, it
fulfilled a need as there were few opportunities for government officials to study overseas.
Now, however, the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs sends
almost 200 Korean government officials overseas each year, including five through the
Fulbright-related Humphrey program. The Ministry has reduced Fulbright funding in an
amount almost equal to the amount of the MOE Fellow grant, based on changes in the
dollar-won exchange rate. Furthermore, all Fulbright programs are open to government
officials, and KAEC has increasingly emphasized the selection of such professionals in
the Korean graduate student program. Thus, the Secretariat recommended that the MOE
Fellow program be included in the Korean ‘graduate student’ grant program, and that
special efforts be made to urge government officials in the MOE to apply for Fulbright
programs.”34
The board discussed the secretariat recommendation at length and accepted a formal
written proposal from the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development
committing the Ministry to recruiting more openly and to seeking multiple applicants for
the MOE fellow in the next recruitment cycle. The board decided to accept the Ministry
proposal for the next recruitment cycle.
From the program’s inception in 1992 through 2008, the Fulbright Commission
awarded a total of ten Fulbright-MOE Fellowships.
The Lucent Global Science Scholars Program

On December 7, 1999, the commission voted to approve in principle participation
with the Institute for International Education (IIE) in a scholarship program funded
by Lucent Technologies. The binational agreement that established KAEC did not
limit the commission to the Fulbright Program but authorized KAEC to be involved
in a broad range of educational exchange and scholarship programs. As one example
of such an effort, the commission had for eight years worked with the GE Fund in
selecting recipients for GE Scholarships in Engineering and Natural Science. Now, IIE,
134
The 1990s
a cooperating agency in the U.S., had proposed that KAEC cooperate with itself and
Lucent Technologies in selecting recipients of Lucent Scholarships. The Lucent program
was administered by the same U.S. agencies that administered Fulbright, was firmly in
accord with KAEC principles, would give some additional visibility to KAEC, and would
provide some financial support as well.35
Non-Grant Programs
South Korea’s rapid economic growth and globalization and the information revolution
exerted a strong effect on the Korea Fulbright Commission in the 1990s, especially on
its student counseling center and testing activities. At the same time, South Korea’s
education sector witnessed the continued strong growth of commercial activities by
study abroad institutes, banks, and other corporations. By the 1990s, the role of private
institutes in the study abroad process and in afterschool tutoring had become a major
public issue and a kind of double-edged sword in Korea. Many parents felt that they
needed the private institutes to give their children an edge in the competition to enter
a top university, but at the same time many felt that the growing reliance on private
institutes represented a failure of the public education system.
Student Counseling: From Computerization to the Internet

At the commission meeting of March 7, 1996, associate director Gary Walter reported on
the AT&T “USA Study” Seminar. The board took the position that KAEC should not
be affiliated with events where it would be possible for an organization/agency to obtain
“commercial gain” from the event. In other words, KAEC should not participate and
thereby give formal or suggested “sponsorship” to a commercial organization. There was
also detailed discussion regarding use of the Fulbright name and logo.36
At the commission meeting of March 3, 1997, associate director James Larson made
a brief report on the Fulbright Student Advising Service’s information resources. He
noted that the 1997 goal was to install additional student advising computer stations,
with equipment contributions made by USIS and AT&T Korea. He pointed out that
the completed advising center would be an 80% electronic and 20% print information
resource.37
During the summer of 1997, the FSAS library was developed into a student
information resource equipped with ten computer stations. KAEC received donated
equipment from USIA (1), USIS (4) and AT&T (5). Several other Fulbright student
advising centers around the world had developed similar computer facilities and were
providing internet access for a nominal annual fee.
135
The secretariat proposed an annual “user fee” of 25,000 won, which would cover
expenses as opposed to recovering costs. In support of the proposal, it presented to
the board results of a user survey showing willingness to pay for such services. Of the
respondents, 49.5% said they had internet access and 50.3% said they did not.
The “user fee” would provide:
–Two hours of internet connection “per fee” (in 30-minute modules);

–KAEC staff assistance for internet access and use;
–Printing of internet information on a cost basis (150 won per page); and
–Individual internet online advising sessions with counselors.
After extensive discussion on the issue, the board voted not to approve a user fee. The
main questions were about how the 25,000 won was determined, whether there should be
a fee at all, and what the actual costs and numbers of client users were.38
There was also discussion of a motion regarding the possible implications for KAEC’s
“tax-free” status, the desirability of providing free service, and whether this would change
the nature of the commission. Larson noted that at a recent USIA Regional Education
Advisers (REAC) conference in Singapore, posts and commissions had been encouraged
to pursue means to generate “recovery” funds to support student advising. This could
include pay-for-service, subscription for student user name lists, and actual contracting of
advising services.
The motion to consider approval of a 15,000 won user fee for 12 hours of internet
access at the FSAS was tabled. The secretariat was asked to 1) investigate the “tax-free”
regulations, and 2) report to the board in six months to describe internet usage in the
Student Advising Library.39
Although Fulbright Korea continued to enhance its student counseling operations, the
status of the U.S. government-affiliated network of advising centers around the world was
a matter for debate in Washington, D.C. In 1998, a report to Congress by the General
Accounting Office on “Addressing the Deficit” said the following about the overseas
advising network supported by the State Department:
One activity we believe merits review is USIA’s student advising operation. USIA
spends about $2.6 million annually to subsidize more than 400 educational
advisory centers worldwide that provide information about the U.S. system of
education. Some of these centers are housed in USIA offices and are fully funded
by the U.S. government. Others are operated by host country universities or U.S.
136
The 1990s
nonprofit organizations and are partially funded by USIA. An additional $1.4

million is spent annually for training materials and other activities.
Proponents of the student advising operation believe that it is in the best
interests of the United States to support student advising because international
students spend nearly $7 billion dollars a year in the United States, contributing
substantially to the U.S. economy, and American students are introduced to
different cultures, enhancing diversity. Critics have concluded, however, that
new worldwide trends to internationalize higher education, advancements
in communication technology, and the increased sophistication of non-U.S.-
government-sponsored educational advising institutions indicate that a guidance
and oversight role for USIA is more important than an operational one. They
argue that the increase in private sector counseling services coupled with
dwindling USIA resources suggest it is an appropriate time for USIA to turn over
its educational advising role to the private sector. CBO estimates that eliminating
student advising would result in savings of $15 million over 5 years.40
The Introduction of Computer-Based Testing

In February 1996, the first contract for computer-based testing (CBT) was signed with
Sylvan Prometric. ETS had chosen Sylvan Prometric as a partner in the introduction of
computer-based versions of the GMAT, GRE and TOEFL. Then, in April 1997, KAEC
signed a contract with Prometric to operate a Regional Registration Center (RRC) for
Korea. The call center began on a small scale with just a few computers using Prometric’s
registration software, and subsequently grew as the volume of CBT testing increased.41
Actual computer-based testing in Korea began in three phases, starting with the lowest-
volume test. GMAT testing began in Korea in October 1997 in a Fulbright-Prometric
CBT lab that had been built within a large lecture and test administration room in the
space then leased by Fulbright in the KOHAP Building.
In October of the following year, CBT administration of the GRE began in the
KOHAP Building, using an expanded group of Fulbright-Prometric test centers.
At the board meeting of December 17, 1998, the secretariat gave the board a
background report on its educational testing activities with ETS and asked for approval to
continue being the exclusive agent in Korea for TOEFL and other high-stakes academic
tests. KAEC had been working since 1984 as the exclusive agent of ETS in educational
testing in Korea, both registering test applicants and arranging for those applicants to take
the tests. As testing became computer-based through the Sylvan Prometric Company,
KAEC, with previous board approval, became the sole site in Korea for computer test
137
registration and built computer-based testing facilities at the commission offices.

Now the question had arisen as to whether KAEC would continue to be the sole
agent in Korea for testing as in the past. Unlike the pattern in most other countries,
Sylvan and ETS seemed ready to work through a single agency—Fulbright—in Korea.
The commission’s future exclusive administration of tests would involve a variety of test
centers as in the past–at a minimum, several in Seoul and one in Taegu–but the test
centers would be at separate testing sites directly administered by KAEC rather than at
universities supervised by KAEC.
The secretariat conveyed its strong feeling to the board that involvement in testing
over the years had given KAEC an advantage in public exposure and immense financial
benefits. The income from testing had completely funded the student advising office,
with substantial funds left over for program support. The secretariat estimated that
this financial benefit would continue to be the case in the future, but only if Fulbright
remained the sole testing agent in Korea rather than competing for examinees with a
variety of independent test centers. Therefore, the secretariat recommended that KAEC
enter into the necessary agreements with Sylvan and ETS toward continued nationwide
responsibility for educational testing in Korea. The board unanimously approved this
recommendation.42 This action by the board was matched by equally significant and
potentially controversial decisions at Prometric and ETS. The decision to give exclusive
administration to KAEC was made in recognition of the years of superior testing
administration on its part and was highly important to the future of testing in Korea, as
Korea turned out to be the only country with high testing volume where all testing and
registration were given to a single administrator.
The Transition from the PBT TOEFL to the CBT TOEFL

The introduction of the computer-based TOEFL in Korea in the fall of 2000 required
a much larger build-out of test centers than for the smaller-volume GRE and GMAT.
Happily, that coincided with the commission’s move into the new Fulbright Building in
Mapo. Seven new CBT test centers were placed on two floors of the new building, along
with a 25-station call center to serve as a Regional Registration Center for all Prometric
CBT tests in South Korea. The call center opened for operation on August 1, 2000,
mainly to handle registration for the CBT TOEFL.43
In addition to the Fulbright Building testing labs, six large labs were placed in leased
space, conveniently located for student access in the Jongno district of Seoul. Also, two
labs were constructed in leased space in the downtown area of Taegu to better serve
students from southern regions of Korea.
138
The 1990s
Students line
up outside
the Fulbright
Building in Mapo
to register for
the last paper-
based TOEFL
tests in Korea.
The volume of paper-based TOEFL tests in Korea dropped noticeably during the
Asian economic crisis of 1997-98. However, by the final quarter of 1999 test volumes
began to rise again, in anticipation of the introduction of the computer-based TOEFL
and discontinuance of the paper test in October 2000. Unlike the paper-based test, the
CBT TOEFL included a test of writing. Korean students were apprehensive about the
new writing test, and there were countless commercial language institutes all over Korea
willing to seize on this apprehension to market their courses. This simple fact ignited a
surge of demand for paper-based testing during the first three quarters of 2000. There was
extensive coverage of this situation by both the broadcast and print media. For example,
the JoongAng Daily reported that on May 2, 2000, the application form distribution
windows at KAEC in Seoul were severely crowded with applicants all day long. Disputes
140
The 1990s
arose when applicants were given only three application forms, one for each remaining
month of testing in July to September. Also, the Mapo Post Office near KAEC was
reportedly overcrowded by more than 1,000 TOEFL applicants, despite the fact that the
post office had opened windows especially for these applicants.44 In fact, on that day the
queue of people standing in line to register for the TOEFL stretched down to the narrow
southern tip of the Fulbright Building, east past the headquarters of the National Health
Insurance Program, and beyond the neighboring Presbyterian church. It was simply the
largest crowd of people ever to show up at the Fulbright Building seeking service, and
several of the newspapers carried prominent pictures of the crowd.
In a stroke of good fortune for Fulbright, its annual contracts with ETS since the
early 1990s had called for an extra payment of $5 per test if the total administrations for
the year exceeded a certain number. This clause in the contracts was never invoked and
therefore did not become meaningful financially until near the date that the PBT was to
end in Korea on June 30, 2000. The contract for 1997-98 called for the extra payments
if test administrations exceeded 100,000. The IMF crisis struck Korea the next year, and
TOEFL volumes plunged to 60,000. ETS consequently agreed to pay the extra $5 if
tests during 1998-99 exceeded 90,000. The very next year, in 1999-2000, it lowered the
threshold to 64,500, but during that year the surge of interest in PBT took place, and
121,521 students registered for the test! That resulted in extra income of $285,105, or
318,468,000 won, for the period from July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000. Also, because
of the big surge in last-minute demand, ETS agreed to extend testing for three more
months, resulting in a modest amount of additional income for Fulbright
The significance of the additional income from TOEFL testing at that particular time
can hardly be overstated. In order to purchase the Fulbright Building, the commission
had to take out a loan of 1.6 billion won, the U.S. dollar equivalent of nearly $1.5 million,
from KorAm Bank. An income of almost $300,000 made a significant contribution to
reducing the debt and played an instrumental part in the purchase of the new Fulbright
Building. The process of finding and purchasing the building will be described in the next
chapter.
Funding and Budget Concerns

The decade began with a budget crisis of sorts at Fulbright. At the meeting of November
13, 1990, Frederick Carriere briefed the commission on the large salary increases just
put in place by the U.S. embassy. In the file for this meeting is a letter from Carriere to
Jeannette File-Lamb of ETS regarding these salary increases, in which he asked whether
ETS was willing to renegotiate its contract with KAEC. This situation also led Carriere
141
to recommend adjustment and early renewal of Bill Drummond’s contract, since the staff
salary increases would put his out of line with theirs.
By 1994, the Fulbright Student Advisory Service had been experiencing a growing
number of requests for service from American education institutions, in keeping with
global trends. Executive director Ray Weisenborn had recently attended the Southeast
Asia Advisors’ Workshop in Bangkok, where he learned that several commissions charged
a “user” fee to American organizations that requested services. Such services might include
personnel assistance for materials distribution to students, use of physical facilities for
conferencing, and information briefings by commission personnel. Fees ranged from the
nominal ($25) to the substantial ($125). As KAEC’s involvement with these activities was
constant and increasing, the secretariat proposed initiating such a fee, to begin January 1,
1995. The commission approved such a user fee at its meeting of November 13, 1994.45
Infrastructure
As noted at the outset of this chapter, the 1990s were a decade during which the
communications revolution transformed Korea, and with it the activities of the Fulbright
Commission, including its administration of grants, student counseling, and testing.
The early years of the decade featured computers, but they were not yet networked and
internet connections were not yet available. Fax rather than e-mail was the norm.
The Arrival of Computers, Then the Internet

At the first commission meeting of the decade in February 1990, Frederick Carriere
reported significant progress in the computerization of commission record-keeping since
acquiring new computers the previous summer. After starting from square one with
virtually no on-staff expertise, the commission now had the basic programs in place.
All routine daily fiscal operations had been computerized since September 1, 1989, and
staff members were increasingly relying on these programs for budgeting and other
administrative tasks. None of this would have been possible without the services of Shim
Jai Ok’s old friend Lee Jae Myung, who devoted over 100 hours to the development of
these programs (Dbase III Plus) over the preceding ten months. Lee was the same person
who had designed the interior of the Fulbright Commission offices, including drafting
professional architectural plans for the carpenters, free of charge, when the commission
moved to the KOHAP Building six years prior.
Carriere proposed that the commission compensate Lee at the rate of 25,000 won per
hour for up to forty hours of training for key commission staff and, further, that he be
142
the 1990s
offered compensation for at least 80 hours of past services at the same rate. Carriere noted
that due to an unexpected surplus of FY89 funds, the commission was in a position to
make this expenditure of 3,000,000 won without any difficulty. The recommendation was
approved.46
It was not until the middle of the decade that Fulbright installed its first administrative
computer network. In October 1995, the commission purchased seven Pentium 75 Mhz
computers, along with Microsoft Windows 95 and Office 95 software. In December
of that year, eight computers in the Fulbright Commission offices were networked and
connected to a Lexmark printer. This marked a big step forward in office efficiency,
allowing administrative staff to share files, collaborate on projects, and print documents
easily. Prior to installation of the network, all file sharing and most printing had been
done by “swapping” floppy disks.47
Use of e-mail by Fulbright Commission staff began shortly after the network
was installed, but it was initially handled in a UNIX environment, with a text-only
communication standard, using terminal emulation software. This required the one staff
member who was trained to handle e-mail to print out and hand-deliver all incoming
e-mail and to personally handle outgoing messages.
A screen capture of the KAEC Website, 2010.
A screen capture of the KAEC Website, 2005.
143
By 1996, the volume of Fulbright e-mail had grown and the problems of delivery were
increasing. In an effort to solve the problems, Fulbright e-mail accounts were moved to
a commercial Internet Service Provider that provided a modem connection and POP3
e-mail accounts. Although an improvement over the previous arrangement, this system
only allowed one user to download e-mail from the internet at a time. It was viewed from
the beginning as a temporary solution.48
Faced with the explosive growth of the internet as a primary source of information
and the need to reach a wider audience, the decision was made in 1997 to put Fulbright
Korea on the World Wide Web. After negotiations with several ISPs, Fulbright chose
one, registered the www.fulbright.or.kr domain, and was assigned a set of IP addresses.
The commission purchased a Cisco router and related equipment and leased a line for
direct connection to the internet through the ISP. In late 1997, the commission began
publishing the Fulbright web site. That site, www.fulbright.or.kr, was published in both
Korean and English and focused on the three major activities of the commission: grant
programs, educational testing, and student advising. Associate director James Larson
served as webmaster, and John Phillips, who worked for the commission part time,
continued to supervise technical aspects of network administration.
Following connection to the internet and publication of Fulbright’s web site, a second
branch of the Fulbright network was created to serve the Fulbright student advising
service. A total of eleven computers donated by USIS and AT&T were networked and
configured to serve the needs of visiting students in the advising center. A high-volume
laser printer and a CD-ROM server system were connected to the advising center
network.49
These internet and networking developments at Fulbright Korea were roughly in
keeping with worldwide trends. At the June 1997 quarterly meeting of the Board of
Foreign Scholarships, a recommendation was made urging Fulbright Commissions to
provide individual e-mail access to all American grantees going abroad. The KAEC board
voted to approve such a policy in March 1997, and it became effective in September of
that year.50 Anecdotally, it is noteworthy that the Educational Testing Service (ETS) in
Princeton was officially urging Fulbright to use fax machines rather than e-mail in all
ETS-related correspondence, for security reasons, as late as 1997!
First Steps Toward Purchasing a Building

Upon assuming the position of executive director, Horace H. Underwood quickly came to
an agreement with deputy director Shim Jai Ok on one thing: the Fulbright Program in
Korea needed its own building. The first moves toward purchasing a building took place
144
The 1990s
in the late 1990s.

At the commission meeting of December 17, 1998, Underwood discussed the
secretariat’s long-felt desire to acquire a permanent home for Fulbright Korea, a topic that
he had initially raised at a prior board meeting. The time was particularly advantageous
that year, as the price of property had declined considerably.
The secretariat was seeking a specific building and had already entered preliminary
discussions with real estate agents, but it needed the approval of the board to enter into
detailed discussions about price. Such specific details would be reported to the board
when worked out. The board voted to authorize the secretariat to enter into serious and
specific negotiations toward purchasing a building.51
By March 1999, it became necessary for Fulbright to establish itself as a legal entity
under the Ministry of Education. KAEC had existed for 50 years as a binational
commission without needing legal existence under Korean law. However, to regularize
the status of KAEC under Korean law, to clarify its relationship with the Ministry of
Education, and to act as a legal holding body for real property, it now appeared useful to
establish such a juridical person.
At its March 22 meeting, the board approved in principle the establishment of a non-
profit juridical person as a legal holding body for KAEC, if necessary. If and when such
establishment was clearly necessary, the secretariat was asked to write a detailed proposal
including the specific kind of holding body to be created, the relation of the board to the
legal holding body, and the liability of the individual board members.52
The Fulbright Building in Mapo was formally purchased in 1999. The process of its
location, purchase, renovation, and dedication will be described in the following chapter.
145
Chapter 6
The Fulbright Building

A Resource for the 21st Century1

On a bitterly cold but gloriously clear January morning in the year 2000, the fiftieth year
of the Korean-American Educational Commission, U.S. Ambassador to Korea Stephen
W. Bosworth stood in the parking lot of 168-15 Yeomni-dong, Mapo-gu, Seoul, and led
the assembled dignitaries, staff, and grantees in the ceremony of dedication for the newly
acquired building of Fulbright Korea. The acquisition of its own building after fifty years
of renting, leasing, and wandering epitomized the growth and transition of the Fulbright
Program in Korea from a fully funded development program of the U.S. government to a
U.S. Ambassador to Korea

Stephen W. Bosworth
leads assembled
dignitaries, staff, and
grantees in the dedication
ceremony for the newly
acquired building of
Fulbright Korea.
147
widely supported and substantially mature program of international educational exchange.

The period of 1998-2004, during which Horace H. Underwood was executive director
and Shim Jai Ok was deputy director, was not a period of substantial change in the details
of the traditional Fulbright programs involving the exchange of scholars and graduate
students. If anything, with the maturity of Korea’s educational system and the growth
of its economy, the relative importance to Korea of traditional Fulbright grants could
almost be said to have declined. In fact, those grants did not decline—their numbers
stayed stable—but other things were happening in KAEC in those years around the new
millennium and the mid-century mark of Fulbright Korea. Those new things included a
substantial commitment of funding by the Korean government to the Fulbright Program,
a vastly increased amount of funding derived from educational testing, an almost
complete shift to electronic means in educational advising, and an increased visibility and
importance for the English Teaching Assistant (ETA) program. Changes (intentional
and/or unavoidable) from this period not only have affected Fulbright Korea during its
fiftieth through sixtieth years but will continue to influence the direction of KAEC for
the rest of its first century.
The Need for a Fulbright Building

As it neared the fifty-year mark, it was becoming more and more clear that Fulbright
Korea needed a building. KAEC had been leasing space for decades, and though the
building in Seosomun-dong in the 1960s had been called “Fulbright House,” and the
KOHAP Building near Insa-dong was the Fulbright building to many grantees for many
years, KAEC had in fact been forced to move again and again as buildings were sold or
torn down for new construction, as leases were not renewed, or as owners changed. To
some extent, these travails have been recounted in earlier chapters of this history. KAEC
was generally considered a good lessee, because Fulbright tended to pay the rent and
brought educational prestige (though sometimes also annoying crowds of test applicants)
to the location. But prices kept going up, and the chonsei system of leasing meant that
more and more funds had to be poured into huge housing deposits instead of program
operation.
U.S. Government Concerns

Beginning in 1998, KAEC began to take more seriously the long-held goal of acquiring
a permanent home and initiated a triple effort of looking for an appropriate building,
arranging funding for a possible building purchase, and obtaining the necessary
permission by convincing the KAEC board and the two governments involved to give
148
their approval for the program to acquire property.

The board itself offered no objection, nor did the Korean government through the
Ministry of Education representatives on the board. However, there was some question
about the U.S. government, which at that time meant the United States Information
Agency (USIA), the source of U.S. funding and authorization. After checking with the U.S.
government, Fulbright Korea received written confirmation that USIA and the Fulbright
Foreign Scholarship Board had no objection to such a purchase, as long as no U.S.
government funds allocated to KAEC for the Fulbright grant program were used.2 This,
of course, was in keeping with a longstanding policy established early on by the Board of
Foreign Scholarships, as noted in Chapter 1. That policy partly explains why Fulbright
Korea is one of the very few commissions in the world to own its own building!
USIA finally gave its approval based on the KAEC statement that no U.S. government
money would go into the purchase of the building. Since the U.S. dollars provided by the
U.S. government for KAEC had for many years gone almost in their entirety to CIES and
IIE to provide funds for Korean students and scholars in Fulbright programs in the U.S., it
was not difficult to give such assurances. In the end, USIA gave its approval and blessing,
contingent on approval by the KAEC board chair of the specific property purchase.
The Challenge of Funding and Fortuitous Circumstances

The second challenge would be funding. Fulbright Programs are not supposed to amass
funds from year to year for future use, so it would not be possible to “save up” for a
building purchase. However, KAEC was fortunate in several factors that combined to
help make the funding of a building conceivable. In the first place, the very difficulties
KAEC had faced over many years in putting together funds for ever-increasing lease
deposits (chonsei) meant that if all leases were closed and KAEC moved to its own
building, that accumulated lease deposit, amounting to many hundreds of thousands of
dollars, would be available for use toward the building purchase.
A second positive factor was that there was an economic downturn in Korea in 1998, a
downturn that hurt many Korean companies but provided a brief dip in property values
and an opportunity to acquire a quality building that would normally have been out of
the reach of limited KAEC funding.
A third benefit was the beginning of Computer Based Testing (CBT), as previously
discussed, under which KAEC would manage all TOEFL and other ETS testing in
Korea. The plan was for continuous CBT testing, five days a week, which was particularly
well suited to a high-volume testing nation like Korea. KAEC was particularly fortunate
to be able to use its strong reputation and long experience to obtain the contract for
149
registering and delivering all ETS tests in Korea, providing a reliable revenue stream
that would enable the repayment of loans for a building. A related benefit, as discussed
in the previous chapter, was that apprehensions about the introduction of CBT in Korea
substantially increased the commission’s testing income during the final year of paper-
based TOEFL testing.
By providing space for seven Fulbright-Prometric computer-based testing centers that
could accommodate up to 102 examinees, and for a 25-station call center that served
as a Regional Registration Center for Korea, purchase of the Fulbright building had
several benefits for the commission. On one hand, ownership of the building reduced
the required cost outlay to rent space for the test centers and call center. On the other
hand, it eliminated the need to search for appropriately located space for such test centers
and a call center. Fulbright would be able to locate seven of the fifteen computer-based
test centers it required in its own building! Yet another positive factor was the building’s
location—perfect for computer-based test centers and Fulbright’s U.S. Education Center.
It was located at a five-minute walk from Gongdeok Intersection in Mapo, where the
two newest lines of Seoul’s subway system intersected. This would also be the terminus of
a future line connecting to the new Incheon International Airport, and it was on the edge
of the big university district surrounding Sinchon, comprised of Yonsei, Ewha, Hongik,
and Sogang Universities.
Fourth, and perhaps most important, was the support of an immense number of Korean
alumni—fifty years worth—who provided substantial funding for the building through a
fund drive, and also offered immeasurably valuable support during the process.
The Search for a Building

Approvals were in hand, funding was arranged, but a building was still needed. Deputy
Director Shim Jai Ok continually contacted many property brokers asking them to locate
appropriate buildings. KAEC staff (Executive Director Underwood, Deputy Director
Shim, and Cultural Affairs Officer Tom Haran) looked at a number of places, none of
which were very inspiring as they were older buildings in odd locations, with no real
opportunity for remodeling to fit the needs of the Fulbright Program in Korea.
It was discouraging.
Word was received of a building in Mapo owned by the Grand National Party (as a
political party, not as the government). While it was a bit run-down and would need
significant upgrading, it was in a good location and had good physical dimensions. KAEC
decided to move ahead, and at the insistence of the board chair a building inspection with
a formal written report was commissioned. Around the time the report was to have been
150
submitted, word came that the building had been sold—apparently the visible interest in
and wandering around the building of a group of Americans pushed another potential
buyer into deciding that the building must be a good buy, and that they had better buy it
quickly. So they did.
It was discouraging.
Finally, quiet news arrived of another building in the Mapo area that had just come
on the market–a relatively new building in a good location, not far from the subway,
a nice hotel, and good restaurants. The building had been built as the headquarters
of a construction company, but after it was completed their business had shifted, and
most of their customers were located far away south of the river; they needed to shift
headquarters. The executive director and deputy director quietly went through the
building and were impressed with the quality of the construction and the condition.
Naturally, most buildings are built by a construction company that is trying to make
a profit, which in Seoul has often resulted in a fine outward appearance covering
inexpensive wiring, plumbing, and heating systems. The building under consideration
had been built by the construction company for its own headquarters, and the “unseen”
bones of the building were of superior quality and showed good workmanship, giving the
promise of lower maintenance costs down through the years.
Keeping in mind the experience of having lost the previous building to a decisive buyer,
the KAEC board chair and CAO took the extraordinary step of giving full trust to the
recommendation of the executive director and deputy director, without requiring the kind
of drawn-out consideration that might have led to the building being sold. In addition,
Fulbright benefited because the seller was pleased to do business with a prestigious
educational agency. There was a moment of panic when a substantial line-of-credit lien
was discovered on the property, but it turned out that the line of credit had not actually
been drawn on, and the lien was soon cleared up. Even the current leaseholders occupying
the building were near the end of their lease periods or willing to move out. The building
was bought. The purchase price was 2,680,000,000 won, or the U.S. dollar equivalent of
$2,199,064.00.
The Fulbright Building: Like an Airplane Wing

Built on a narrow piece of land near the old Mapo railroad, the building is shaped like
an airplane wing, long and tapering, six stories above ground with two underground
stories. The lower basement contained legally required parking and machinery for the
building’s electricity, heating, and cooling, but the other seven floors were available for
use. It was quickly determined that the first floor would be the education center, the third
151
floor would house the administrative offices, the fourth and fifth floors would be grantee
housing, the top floor would be half lecture hall and half storage, and the first basement
level and second floor would be primarily dedicated to educational testing.
In the event, the timing was perfect for the acquisition of building space that could be
used for a call center and for educational testing, as computer-based testing would begin
in the summer of 2000, a short six months after KAEC moved into its new quarters. In
addition, the KOHAP Building, which KAEC had leased for a number of years, was
itself soon vacated and torn down for new construction. Timing was right for moving the
education advising office from a library-based system to an electronic one, as well as for
basing Fulbright in a growing area with (soon) two subway lines intersecting nearby and
the Mapo railroad, which had always depressed values in the area, being closed and torn
down. Furthermore, the building of ten small housing units provided immediate relief
not only for the housing budget for grantees but for the immense difficulty of finding
appropriate housing in Seoul, particularly for American graduate students.
In the information age, another advantage of the building was that Fulbright was able
to install its own digital networks, making the structure every bit as “smart” as the ultra-
modern LG apartments that were constructed across the street just a few years after the
commission moved into its new building. The internal networks, put in for the most
part during remodeling of the building, formed an essential infrastructure for overall
commission administration and were particularly advantageous for the activities of the U.S.
Education Center on the Fulbright Building’s first floor.
All in all, getting the building was a perfect end to fifty years of Fulbright in Korea, and
a perfect way to ensure the next fifty years.
Nine years after its

purchase, the Fulbright
Building underwent a
major transformation.
The sandstone exterior
was replaced with a
combination of light and
dark granite.
152
Sugwon Kang
Spending two years in the twilight
of my professional life teaching
Korean students has been a true
privilege; I cannot imagine anything
else I might have done during this
time that would have been more
rewarding. Watching some of these
famously passive, incommunicative,
and timid Korean youngsters slowly
transform themselves into lively
and inquisitive budding scholars,
capable of an occasional free-for-all in the presence of their professor, all in the
course of one semester, is certainly an experience to cherish. And that’s the reward
that awaits any future Senior Fulbrighter who has something to share and knows
teaching for what it is: a noble calling.
World Peace and the Fulbright Program:

50th Anniversary of Fulbright in Korea
On October 20, 2000, the Fulbright Program in Korea commemorated its 50th
anniversary with a conference and banquet in the Grand Ballroom of the Radisson Seoul
Plaza Hotel. The theme of the event was “World Peace and the Fulbright Program,” and
it was sponsored by the Korean-American Educational Commission, the Korea Fulbright
Foundation, and the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association.
The conference program contained short congratulatory addresses by Korean President
Kim Dae Jung and U.S. Ambassador to Korea Stephen Bosworth, the latter of whom
spoke in person at the event. The keynote speakers were James T. Laney, former U.S.
ambassador to Korea and former president of Emory University, and Kim Kyung-Won,
president of the Institute of Social Sciences, who also served as president of the Seoul
Forum for International Affairs, a private council concerned with Korea’s foreign relations.
Dinner speeches were given by Mayor of Seoul Goh Kun and Minister of Education Lee
Don-Hee.
153
On October 20, 2000, the Fulbright program in Korea commemorated its 50th anniversary
with a conference and banquet in the Grand Ballroom of the Radisson Seoul Plaza Hotel.
From top left: Dr. Lee Hae; Mrs. Lee Hiang Nan; Young Choi, KFAA member; Lee Dai
Soon, Korea Fulbright Foundation chairman; Kim Kee Soon, KFAA member; Horace H.
Underwood, KAEC executive director; Nancy Underwood; Shim Jai Ok, KAEC deputy
director; Kim Moon Hwan, KFAA member; Kwon Oryang, KFAA member.
From bottom left: Yoon Bokcha, KFAA president; Beth Nyhus, J. William Fulbright
Foreign Scholarship Board administrative staff; Hoyt Purvis, J. William Fulbright Foreign
Scholarship Board member; Ro Chung-hyun, 50th anniversary organizing committee
chairman; Bernard J. Lavin, former public affairs officer; Alan Schechter, J. William
Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board chairman; Mrs. Alan Schechter; Ahn Byong Man,
former KFAA president and former Minister of Education, Science and Technology.
154
Four individuals were recognized with special awards on the occasion of the 50th
anniversary commemoration. One was Horace G. Underwood, who had been born in
Seoul 83 years earlier and whose life had spanned momentous events in the history of
Korea, moments of despair and hope, destruction and growth. During the Korean War,
he had returned to active duty in the U.S. Navy and served for two years as the chief
interpreter for the U.N. Command at the armistice talks at Panmunjom. He served on the
first Fulbright Commission to be formed in Korea in 1960-61 and later served from 1980
to 1994. He is remembered as an active board member, always having done his homework
and always asking penetrating and valuable questions.3
The second individual recognized was Bernard J. Lavin, who served as the director
of USIS, and therefore as the chair of the Fulbright Commission, from 1983 to 1986.
Lavin was particularly remembered for his role as peacemaker in the days of the student
occupation of the USIS library in Seoul. Korean students, as part of their ongoing
resistance to dictatorship and to the perceived U.S. support of authoritarian regimes,
broke into and occupied the U.S. Cultural Center library, which at the time was across the
street from the Lotte Hotel. The police were insistent that they should storm the building
and arrest the students. Lavin resisted such precipitous and violent action, concerned
that at least some of the students would carry out their suicide threats and jump from
the building. He sent coffee and snacks to the students and went in person to talk with
them, spending many hours discussing the situation in Korea and the position of the
U.S., persuading the students that violence against the personnel and property of the U.S.
Cultural Center would not further their aims. The situation was defused without loss of
life.4
The third individual was Frederick Carriere, who spent more of his life working for
the Korean-American Educational Commission than any other American in KAEC’s
first fifty years. During the ten years that Carriere served as executive director, KAEC
struggled through several very difficult years when the program’s budget was under
enormous pressure. Eventually, KAEC emerged as a major agency for educational
testing and developed as a result of the revenue generated by its testing activities the
financial resources needed to expand its student and faculty grant programs. The key
to the phenomenal growth achieved during the decade of the 1980s was the mutually
affectionate solidarity developed and sustained even to this day between Carriere and the
KAEC staff.5
The fourth person recognized at the October 2000 conference was Shim Jai Ok, who
had worked for Fulbright for almost a quarter century, and for the preceding ten years as
deputy director. Shim had worked for the Peace Corps in Korea and the U.S. from 1967
155
to 1977, and the ideals of that program had clearly left their mark on all she had done at
KAEC. In particular, Shim was active in establishing and running the Fulbright English
Teaching Assistant (ETA) program placing young Americans as English teachers in
Korean regional middle and high schools. Her greatest achievement could be seen in
the existence of the Fulbright Building. She was the driving force behind locating the
building, negotiating the price, gathering the financing, confirming its tax-free status, and
getting the building registered in the name of KAEC itself.6
The October conference was also the occasion for issuing of the “Seoul Statement,”
which was printed in the formal program.
The Seoul Statement

The Seoul Statement by Fulbrighters in Korea declared in part:
The Fulbrighters assembled in Seoul unanimously consented to affirm and renew

the Fulbright ideal of world peace through educational and cultural exchanges.
Based on such an ideal, the Fulbrighters proclaimed the following four points:
• The world must be free from the fear of nuclear and military threats.
• Human beings must learn to live with and protect their fragile ecosystems.
• Countries must combat poverty and alleviate socio-economic disparity.
• Human rights must be protected and human dignity in all societies must be
respected.
To realize such ideals as proclaimed, Fulbrighters must continue to preserve and

enhance the existing friendly and peaceful relations between the peoples of Korea,
the United States, and other countries in the world.
As the Fulbrighters were marking the 50th anniversary of the Fulbright program
in Seoul, the participants cherished a desire that a Fulbright program may also be
initiated in Pyongyang in the near future.
We firmly believe that 50 years in the future, when Fulbrighters in Korea
celebrate their centennial anniversary, a united Fulbright program will be
promoting the mutual understanding of peoples between the United States and a
united Korea.
October 20, 20007
156
Leadership and Staffing

In August 2004, Horace H. Underwood completed his service as executive director and,
with his wife Nancy, put in place a longstanding plan for “early” retirement that would
allow them to be closer to their family in the southeastern United States. Underwood’s
move is more accurately described as “semi-retirement,” since he continued to serve
on the board at Yonsei University and with the Fulbright Commission, managing the
International Education Administrators grant program.
The search for Underwood’s successor ended with the selection by the commission of
Shim Jai Ok to be the next executive director. She thereby became the first woman and
only the second Korean to hold the post. Upon assuming the position, Shim asked the
commission to approve appointment of James Larson as deputy director, a move that was
formally approved in September 2004.
Program Priorities
Grant Programs
The first decade of the new century saw continued growth of the ETA program and
increasing recognition and development of the IEA grants.
A significant new outgrowth of the ETA program was approved by the board in 2001
and put into effect in 2002, ten years after the start of the ETA program. This was the
program to annually send selected high school teachers to Texas for a summer workshop.
The Texas program grew out of the success of the summer institutes, which had sent
Korean high school teachers of English to short-term programs in the U.S. for several
years. But the demand was far higher than the Summer Institute programs could handle,
and the timing in the summer, while beneficial to U.S.-based educators, was not as good
for the Korean school year, where the major break is in January and February.
It was eye-opening to learn how easy it was to implement the program. After obtaining
approval in principle from the KAEC board and securing approval of a one-sentence
concept summary from the FSB in Washington, it was simply a matter of putting out a
brief request for proposals and evaluating those proposals that came in. In the event, over
a dozen potential providers were contacted, largely in the southern U.S. (where weather
would be tolerable in January and February); four actually submitted proposals, two were
serious and almost equal, and the program at Austin, Texas, of the Texas International
Education Consortium (TIEC) was selected.
157
A key element in the program was that it was intended to be not only a language
program, but also an introduction to American culture. Furthermore, from the beginning
two out of the seven weeks of the program were designed to send the Korean teachers
out, two by two, to American high schools in Texas for observation, immersion, and
cultural exchange. This element, while frightening to the teachers at first, has effected
some of the greatest changes in knowledge and attitude.
It is unfortunately the case that when this program first started, many such “study
programs” to the U.S. were travel-and-tourism events where the Koreans selected were
senior managers who sometimes spent more time on the golf course than in class. This
first year of the program threatened to go in that direction, but the leadership of the
TIEC had extensive experience with Korea and Koreans, and sent individual reports on
each teacher to KAEC, which forwarded them to the individual school principal. Since
then, there has been little trouble with non-participation, but also no lack of serious
motivated teachers who value the challenging curriculum of this seven-week Fulbright
Program; applications are always far ahead of the available spaces.
The origins of this program came from the experience Shim and the secretariat staff
had with ETAs and their co-teachers starting in the 1990s. ETAs would frequently
comment to the commission staff that they could not understand what their Korean co-
teachers were saying to them in English! This lack of spoken English skills by many of the
teachers led to the idea of creating a program for selected English teachers in the United
States where they could put their spoken English to use and be immersed in an English-
speaking environment, even if only for a short time. Because the focus of the program
was on co-teachers and those who taught in schools where Fulbright ETAs were placed,
the program placed a secondary emphasis on experiencing and learning about American
culture. The idea, which turned out to be the case, was that this program for teachers
would have a synergy effect with the ETA program and would smooth interactions
between teachers and their ETAS.
As the Texas program has matured, it has become very well known and popular among
teachers from ETA high schools. The experience thus far has indicated that the period of
several weeks in the United States does give a boost to English teachers’ understanding of
American culture and to their use of English in the classroom. The long term outlook for
this program in the future is good, looking toward the day when Korean teachers will take
over the responsibilities currently shouldered by native speakers in the teaching of English.8
158
Outreach to American Alumni of Fulbright Korea

The year 2009 marked a turning point for the Fulbright Commission when it came to
outreach and contact with American alumni. Several developments were involved.
First, with assistance from the U.S. government, the commission was able to hire a
full time alumni coordinator. The financial assistance was given in recognition of the
forthcoming commemoration of Fulbright’s 60th anniversary. Along with preparation
for the events in Seoul, New York, and Washington, D.C., during 2010, Lisette Garza’s
responsibilities included a systematic program of outreach to American alumni of the
Fulbright Program in Korea. That outreach, needless to say, was greatly aided by the
internet.
Second, a group of five ETA interns came to the Fulbright office during their winter
break and worked on alumni outreach, 60th anniversary publications, and related matters.
Their focused effort during the period from mid-December through early February gave
a big boost to all of the activities.
Third, the commission initiated several new publications in both print and electronic
formats. It launched a 60th anniversary section on its web site, with the intent that this
would evolve by the end of 2010 into a permanent alumni section of the site. It also began
publishing a new newsletter.
On their own initiative, a group of former ETA grantees who had served as executive
assistants in the Fulbright Office formed an alumni organization called the U.S. Fulbright
Korea Alumni Association. This group began holding regular meetings in Seoul and
encouraged all Fulbright grantees to attend and to stay active in alumni affairs.
The outreach to alumni for Fulbright Korea’s 60th anniversary was the first such
commemorative occasion on which both Korean and American alumni of the program
were contacted. In addition to the gathering of contact information, alumni were
encouraged to submit their written reminiscences of the Fulbright experience. Some
of these recollections on the impact of the Fulbright Program were used in this 60th
anniversary book, published for the occasion. All of them have been published on the
60th anniversary web site.
While preparing to observe the 60th anniversary, the Fulbright Commission made a
decision, in principle, to have a single Fulbright Korea Alumni Association, encompassing
both Korean and American alumni of the program. As of this writing, the details need to
be worked out, but it will probably be structured as a single association with two chapters,
allowing the Korean and American chapters to operate smoothly according to their
respective cultural norms.
159
Support for a North Korea Program: Syracuse University –

Kim Chaek University of Technology Exchange Program
At the 281st meeting of the Fulbright Commission on December 5, 2002, a KAEC
proposal for involvement and financial support for educational exchange between
Syracuse University and the Kim Chaek University of Technology (KCUT) was reviewed
and discussed. At that meeting, the board approved in principle KAEC’s support of
Syracuse University-KCUT research scholars. However, it voted that such support should
be contingent on the explicit approval of both governments, not on a “no objection”
response, to be obtained through the representatives of both South Korea’s Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and Trade and the public affairs section of the U.S. embassy.
In January 2003, the Korean government indicated its approval of support for
this exchange program, but the U.S. government, for reasons having to do with its
governmental relations with North Korea, was not willing to give approval at that time.
Five years later, in January 2008, KAEC received the U.S. government’s approval from
Ambassador Alexander Vershbow. At the commission meeting of February 22, 2008, the
secretariat sought the board’s ultimate approval of this long-pending program.
In the original proposal submitted in 2002, Syracuse University had requested that
KAEC make a minimum donation of $115,000. The secretariat suggested that, upon
approval by the board to proceed further, KAEC would work with Syracuse University
on securing the program details, with the outcomes to be reported to the board. This
course of action was unanimously approved by the board. The vote was to “commit to the
program and provide funds at the appropriate time.” The board recommended that “funds
[be] committed but [be] released on confirmation that selected candidates have been
approved for entry into the United States.”9
Thanksgiving Dinner with the ETAs

When Horace H. Underwood became executive director of the Fulbright Commission, a
new tradition was started: that of hosting a Thanksgiving dinner for the ETA grantees each
year. Initially, Horace and his wife Nancy would roast the turkeys, and Thanksgiving dinner
was served in the Fulbright Building. Nancy supervised the Fulbright staff in fixing all of
the trimmings, and it was quite a spread, to say the least! However, with 60 to 70 people to
feed, it pushed the limits of the space and kitchen facilities in the Fulbright Building.
In 2004, near the end of the summer ETA training program in late July at Gangwon
National University, Underwood left the commission and Shim Jai Ok became executive
director. Shim vividly recalls meeting with two ETAs on a visit near the end of the
training program. They approached her and said they had heard that the Thanksgiving
160
dinner had been provided by the executive director and his wife; they then asked what
she was planning to do. She was somewhat taken aback, not having prepared for such
a question. However, after a moment she thought that there must be some way to host
ETAs for Thanksgiving and to continue the tradition begun by Underwood. Her initial
idea was to ask the U.S. ambassador to host such a dinner, with the cost being borne
by the Fulbright Commission. In 2004, she forwarded such a request to Ambassador
Christopher Hill through the embassy’s public affairs officer. Beginning in 2004, a new
tradition began, with the U.S. ambassador hosting a traditional sit-down Thanksgiving
dinner for the ETAs at the Habib House, the U.S. ambassador’s official residence. The
dinner has been held continuously since 2004. If the two ETAs had not approached Shim
in July of that year, she would never have thought of this. In fact, as she said publicly
at the farewell dinner for Underwood, she did not know how to cook turkey, and her
husband, being a Korean “yangban,” was certainly not going to help with such a meal, as
he had never once even helped with washing the dishes at home all his life.
The Thanksgiving dinner serves a very important purpose by providing the young ETA
grantees with an opportunity to meet and network not only with the ambassador but also
with other senior embassy representatives. Indeed, a certain number of ETAs each year
are even influenced to pursue a diplomatic career based partly on such interaction.10
Camp Fulbright
One grant-related innovation deserves special mention. In 2005, Fulbright introduced a
two-week English camp, called Camp Fulbright, into the six-week orientation program
for new Fulbright ETAs.
The main reason for establishing Camp Fulbright was to give ETAs actual English
teaching experience during their orientation, so that they would be less nervous on
starting teaching at their school. Camp Fulbright was also enthusiastically received by
the incoming ETAs, who placed great value on the teaching experience and contact with
students that the camp provided. The majority of the ETAs felt that the Camp Fulbright
teaching experience gave them much more confidence entering into their school
placements following orientation than would have been possible without the camp.
A second reason for the start of Camp Fulbright was that there were still many students
in Korea who had no opportunity to receive English instruction from native speakers like
Fulbright’s ETA grantees. In previous years, Fulbright had sent the children of alumni
to the U.S. under the LCP program, and a number of alumni had asked why an English
program could not be offered in Korea.
The camp was very well received in its initial year of operation. The recruitment of
161
students for the camp proved relatively easy, given the rising demand for such an experience Camp Fulbright
campers and staff,
in South Korea and the high level of interest among Fulbright alumni and among staff summer 2010
members at the schools around the country where ETA grantees were teaching.
Finally, Camp Fulbright was able to effectively draw upon outstanding ETA alumni
as staff members. Many of these individuals returned year after year, providing strong,
experienced, and enthusiastic leadership. They formed a group of very highly skilled
teachers who knew what to teach, effectively and by level. In 2009, the board approved
the hiring of Vinnie Flores, the director of Camp Fulbright, as a full-time staff member
of the commission. In addition to Camp Fulbright, Vinnie’s responsibilities included
coordination of Fulbright’s efforts to develop its own test of English.
Fulbright Test of English

By the early 2000s, English education in Korea was burgeoning, and students undertook
more extensive study of English at younger ages. English study at elementary and
162
secondary schools became commonplace, both in the school curricula and at private
institutes. Consequently, and not surprisingly, the number of young students taking the
TOEFL increased greatly. However, the TOEFL was designed for college and university
level admission and not for elementary or secondary students.
Around the start of the new millennium, it was clear that a gap had opened up in
the South Korean market for English tests. There was a clear need for some sort of
“junior TOEFL,” an English exam designed to meet the needs of upper elementary and
secondary students. Fulbright became aware of this need early on because of its intensive
work with elementary, middle, and high schools in connection with the ETA grant
program. In fact, during 2005 and 2006, in the period leading up to introduction of the
new iBT TOEFL, Fulbright introduced senior executives from ETS to the leadership of
Daekyo, in part to discuss the possibility of introducing and distributing an English test
more suitable than the TOEFL for younger students. Daekyo was, at that time, one of
South Korea’s largest and most successful private education companies. Its chairman was
a former Yonsei University professor who had briefly served as Minister of Education.
In 2007, the Fulbright Commission asked the Texas International Education
Consortium to assist it in the development of a new test of English aimed at middle and
high school students. The test was developed by administering preliminary versions to the
students of Fulbright ETAs in different cities around Korea. The development process
was completed in 2008, and the test has been used for class placement purposes in Camp
Fulbright. As of 2010, the Fulbright Commission had recouped approximately one-tenth
of the money it invested in test development.11
Internet-Based TOEFL:
The End of Fulbright Responsibilities for Nationwide Test Delivery
In December 2004, a group of ETS executives visited Fulbright. Their visit heralded
the beginning of the end of the computer-based testing era in Korea. The group was led
by Paul Ramsey, vice president in charge of ETS’s Global Division, and included Chris
Nguyen, a former CEO of Prometric who had been hired by ETS as a consultant, and
Krista Matthews, a lawyer employed by ETS who worked closely with him.
Paul Ramsey opened the meeting in the third floor conference room of the Fulbright
Building by informing the KAEC leadership that ETS thought Fulbright had legal
problems because of its contracts with Prometric for CBT, and that it would therefore not
be possible for ETS to continue working with Fulbright following introduction of the
new internet-based TOEFL, scheduled for September 2006.
The internet-based TOEFL, or iBT, tested the same language skills as the computer-
163
based test but was built on a dramatically different model of test delivery. The CBT
involved more or less continuous daily delivery, both morning and afternoon, occasionally
six days per week, through fifteen CBT test centers, all but two of which were located in
Seoul. This method of delivery had the advantage that large numbers of students could be
accommodated and could take their exam within a short time after registering. The ability
to add afternoon, weekend, or even, on occasion, evening test slots made it possible to
efficiently handle the increased volume of tests during the late fall and winter months.
The iBT TOEFL model of test delivery was introduced in part to deal with a persistent
problem that had been faced with continuous testing. Under the CBT model, students
would take the test, sign the required confidentiality statement, and then, in large
numbers, post what they could remember from test items to such popular computer
bulletin board sites as Hacker’s TOEFL. The internet-based test, by contrast, involved a
smaller number of test dates and simultaneous delivery of the test at a far larger number
of test sites. The move to an iBT format meant changing from a system that offered
50 or more administrations monthly to one in which the TOEFL would be given
simultaneously throughout the Asian region on only about four dates each month.
Initially, ETS suggested that in order to secure a large enough number of test centers,
it wanted to use not only universities but also high schools and commercial organizations
to deliver the test. Indeed, in repeated meetings with executive director Shim Jai Ok and
deputy director James Larson between December 2004 and the introduction of the new
test in September 2006, ETS seemed consumed with the idea of maximizing the number
of test sites.
In fact, securing sufficient test centers to meet the existing demand for TOEFL proved
to be a major problem. According to ETS’s own figures, the number of people taking the
TOEFL in South Korea jumped from 50,311 in 2001 to about 130,000 in 2006.12 The
latter number stemmed in large part from the last-minute demand to take the computer-
based TOEFL before it ceased to be offered after September 2006.
In the spring of 2007, Korea attracted international publicity because of the so-called
“TOEFL crisis,” as travel agencies began offering tour packages and Korean students
started to travel to other countries in the region in order to take the TOEFL. In April,
ETS vice president Paul Ramsey announced that ETS would create an additional 70,000
seats in Korea during 2007.
ETS also adopted the practice of announcing iBT TOEFL test registration incrementally.
This resulted in many South Koreans “clicking away frantically” at their computers in an
effort to register online or even hiring someone to register for them. Ticket scalping, in
which companies would register for a TOEFL session and then re-sell the tickets at a far
164
higher price, became common. When ETS opened up online registration for July testing in
2007, the organization reportedly attracted 32 million hits in one day from Korea.13 Much
of this traffic was undoubtedly caused by automated programs.
The practice of ticket scalping during the CBT era was well covered by the press. It
finally came to an end with Paul Ramsey’s announcement in April 2007. An article in the
JoongAng Daily reported that since this announcement, the price had been falling fast for
TOEFL slots being sold on the internet. One woman in Seoul had reportedly purchased
a ticket for 150,000 won ($160), which was even less than the official registration fee of
$170. Until a week earlier, test slots were traded at 300,000 won. However, many students
who had difficulty registering for the test using ETS’s online registration system turned
instead to Korean internet sites, led by the immensely popular Hacker’s TOEFL site.14
During the two years leading up to introduction of the iBT TOEFL in Korea,
Fulbright consistently warned ETS about the test security implications of recruiting
non-university sites. Despite ETS’s apparent unwillingness to accept the proposition,
Fulbright maintained all along that in the interest of test security, ETS should use only
university-based iBT centers. Furthermore, KAEC recommended that a regular schedule
of announced and unannounced inspection visits be put in place.
The security problem was vividly illustrated by a major security breach discovered with
the TOEIC examination in June 2009 by the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency (SMPA).
On June 23, the SMPA detained two suspects, with the surnames Kim and Park, on
charges of raking in some 50 million won ($38,750) from twenty-eight university
students and job seekers in exchange for using electronic devices to help them achieve a
high TOEIC score. One newspaper account described the scam as follows:
According to police, Kim would place a posting on the Internet 20 days before
the tests, guaranteeing would-be examinees that they could get high scores
using his service. When he received replies, Kim would call those test takers and
explain how his scheme worked after checking if there was a police officer in an
examinee’s family.
Then he asked the examinee to choose one method of receiving answers, either
by a cell phone text message or an earphone. He asked about the choice because
the cost was different.
When the examinee chose to use the earphone, Kim would issue electronic
devices the day before the test.
On the test date, Park would enter the test center with an actual examinee who
was equipped with an earphone the size of a grain of rice. He would also wear an
165
antenna resembling a necklace.

Park would use a small wireless device with buttons to send answers to Kim,
who was in a car with a wireless vibrating device. The device would vibrate once if
the answer was “A.” It would vibrate twice if the answer was “B,” and so on.
Then Kim would announce the answer to the examinee through the earphone.
In one case, the procedure improved a test taker’s score by 300 points. The
examinee paid 3.3 million won into Kim’s bank account in advance.15
The 2009 TOEIC scandal is illustrative of the lengths to which some Korean test takers
will go to achieve a high score. It raised questions in the minds of the Fulbright leadership
about whether such efforts had been made to cheat on the TOEFL, particularly since the
value of a high TOEFL score would be considerably higher than that of a comparably
high TOEIC score in South Korea.
In addition to matters of test security, Fulbright advised ETS on the localization of
information and registration materials for the new internet-based TOEFL, advice that
ETS eventually decided to ignore. In particular, ETS retained a U.S. company to translate
materials for use in the online registration system. The result was a poor translation with
blatant errors that was humorous to parents of students who arrived at the iBT test centers
in the Fulbright Building on the day of the very first iBT administration. For example, the
Korean word used for an admission “ticket” was something commonly used for “theater
ticket” but never used in reference to an admission document for a high-stakes academic
test. Such humor aside, it was the opinion of Fulbright Commission administrators
that ETS had failed to do adequate market research and preparation for introduction
of the iBT TOEFL. This was especially the case since the “internet-based” TOEFL
was introduced in a year when Korea was the acknowledged world leader in broadband
internet penetration! Consumer expectations could not have been higher. Despite repeated
reminders of this, ETS continued on its path, seemingly oblivious to the problem.
The main impact on Fulbright was, on one level, in terms of staff and financing. ETS’s
departure in a new direction removed significant revenue, even as the end of the PBT
TOEFL brought in funds that could be used for purchase of the Fulbright Building.
Commission staff levels went down by almost exactly two-thirds following the conclusion
of CBT in Korea.
Advising in the Digital Age: U.S. Education Center Services

During the first decade of the 21st century, the Fulbright Commission, and in particular
its U.S. Education Center, came to rely more and more on the internet as a channel
166
of communication for its activities. In the year 2000, shortly after the move into the
Fulbright Building, executive director Horace H. Underwood was on one of his visits
to the education center on the first floor when he took note of the small amount of
shelf space, along with the relatively large portion of it occupied by printed college and
university catalogues. He declared to the staff of the center, “You can now get rid of all
these college catalogs!” By that time, of course, virtually all U.S. colleges and universities
had their own web sites, and most were using video for campus tours. VHS shifted rather
quickly over to CD and DVD, and in more recent years to YouTube and online video.
The U.S. State Department had also taken notice of the new role of the internet in
international diplomacy. In 2001, then associate director James Larson was invited
through the U.S. embassy’s public affairs office to attend the NetDiplomacy 2001
Conference at the State Department in Washington, D.C. The conference featured an
impressive array of speeches by leaders from both government and industry. Probably
the most impressive speech was given by Secretary of State Colin Powell. In addressing
an audience comprised largely of State Department employees from around the world,
he had the following to say: “You are helping us design the most powerful tools to do
this. We do it many ways. I give speeches, the President gives speeches, people watch our
television programs, for better or worse coming in from all over. But the tools that we
now have through Net Diplomacy are just remarkable, in the sense that they can go over
political boundaries, they can go over cultural walls, they can break down any barrier that
is out there to communication.”16
In a personal testimonial on the new role of the internet in diplomacy, Powell related
the following:
I get up every morning early. The first thing I do is go down and fire up my
computer. And long before anyone has given me an intelligence report or before
I’ve read any newspaper, my server comes up. And I’ve coded it with certain news
segments that I’m interested in, and instantly I will get online about 20 messages
every morning, very early in the morning—too early in the morning. (laughter)
But I get about 20 messages of things going on in different parts of the world. So
long before the formal system—the intelligence community and the wonderful
systems that we have in the Department–starts to feed me the rest of the day, I
start out online instantaneously. And I have a pretty good sense of what is going
on in the world even before I have my first cup of coffee. Then I go outside and get
the newspapers and read them. Hopefully there is a correlation between what I got
on the Net and what I read in the newspapers. (laughter)
167
It doesn’t mean newspapers aren’t important. I devour them. Six every morning.
But I am increasingly finding that I supplement that with what I can pull down
out of the ether. In the course of the day, I will go online with one of the two
computers in my office, and I dare any one of you to come up in my office, and
you will discover they are not just sitting there as desk ornaments or paperweights;
they are fired up all day long. And I am using one for scheduling and other
purposes and writing notes to people—to their great distress (laughter)—and
with the other one I am essentially watching the world with all the other systems
that are there, so that I can know. Whether it’s breaking wire stories or if I have
a particular interest, I go. I always have a search engine running. I have just about
gotten rid of all paper reference materials that I used to use—no dictionaries, no
encyclopedias. Everything is search engine.17
Following the NetDiplomacy conference, Dorothy Mora of the Bureau of Educational

and Cultural Affairs convened a group of counselors for a follow-on session. At that
session, there was discussion of a possible Northeast Asian mini-conference the next year.
Fulbright Korea was asked to host the conference in recognition of the fact that it was in
one of the most active IT markets in the Asia region and that its U.S. Education Center
was leading the way in using the internet to augment student advising.
After completing this daylong follow-on meeting with Mora and colleagues, associate
director James Larson boarded a morning flight at Dulles International Airport on
September 11, 2001, expecting a smooth flight to San Francisco, with a connection
from there to Seoul. Unfortunately, this was not to be. As the plane entered the airspace
over Kansas, the pilot came on the intercom and made a very short announcement: “As
some of you may already know, planes have been flown into the World Trade Center in
New York. All civilian air traffic in the United States has been ordered down. We will be
landing in Wichita, Kansas, in approximately five minutes.” Upon landing, Larson went
with all the other passengers to the nearest television set and watched events unfold. After
spending two nights in Kansas courtesy of United Airlines, he flew to San Francisco and
on the following day was on the first airline flight out of the U.S. to Asia after 9/11.
On November 21-24, 2002, Fulbright Korea hosted a Northeast Asia regional
miniconference in Seoul on the theme of “Optimizing the Use of the Internet in
Educational Advising.” The conference web site described it as a “follow-up to the
Netdiplomacy 2001 Conference at the State Department in 2001. Its purpose is to
promote creative ways for State Department-affiliated advising centers to use technology
and the web in the advising process.”18 The conference venue was the Fulbright Building,
168
and participants stayed at the Holiday Inn (Seoul Garden) Hotel, a ten-minute walk away.
Participants in the miniconference included all the members of the Fulbright
Commission’s web team, including Gary Rector, a longtime Korean resident and former
Peace Corps Volunteer, who had been hired as an outside consultant to advise and help
with web design. Representatives of the British Council, the Canadian Educational
Commission, and the Australian Educational Commission were also invited to participate
in some of the sessions. Other participants came from Education USA-affiliated advising
centers in Japan (2), Hong Kong (2), Taiwan, New Zealand, and Ukraine. Dorothy Mora
and Heidi Manley came from the State Department in Washington, D.C.
Almost eight years later, the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural
Affairs again turned to Fulbright Korea’s U.S. Education Center to host a regional
workshop. This one, held in April 2010, was a Social, Mobile and Visual Media Workshop
on the theme of “Advising in the Digital Age.” The goals and objectives of the workshop
were as follows:
• To gain a better understanding of social networking and new media to assist with
EducationUSA advising, marketing, communication, and outreach.
• To discuss the advantages and disadvantages of certain technologies and share
previous outcomes/experiences of using technology at advising centers.
• To increase the ability to design and disseminate advising-related digital video
content through various media channels for prospective international students
and parents.
• To implement at least one new form of social media and digital technology into
advising activities and/or improve upon existing forms.19
Participants in the workshop came from China (3), Hong Kong, Thailand (2), Malaysia
(2), Japan (2), Laos, Fiji, and Mongolia (2). Rick O’Rourke, the regional advising
coordinator out of Tokyo, worked with Fulbright Korea staff to plan and administer the
workshop. Gina Anderson and Marty Bennett, EducationUSA marketing coordinators,
participated in the conference remotely from Washington, D.C. Adobe Connect
software was used to facilitate their participation as well as to make key sessions from the
workshop available live on the internet.
The April 2010 workshop provided an occasion for Fulbright to develop a mobile
version of the website for its U.S. Education Center. This proved to be timely, as
smartphones and mobile broadband services were spreading rapidly following the arrival
of Apple’s iPhone in the South Korean market late in 2009.
169
Infrastructure
The major change in Fulbright Korea’s infrastructure during the first decade of the 21st
century was the purchase of the Fulbright Building. That process was described in the
opening section of this chapter, except for one very important aspect of the infrastructure
that was touched on only briefly. In addition to providing office space, testing facilities,
housing, and space for the U.S. Education Center, the entire building was networked to
support the various Commission activities.
Upon purchase of the Fulbright Building in 1999, the main communication links to
the outside world came into the building on the bottom basement level (B-2) in the form
of regular phone lines. When Fulbright moved into the building, these lines were used for
an ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network) line to support broadband internet access
for Commission staff and the web-based activities of the U.S. Education Center. By 2003,
the ISDN line had been upgraded to an E-2 line and Korea Telecom had installed fiber
optic cable directly into the building’s underground via the B-2 level.
The design of the Fulbright Building’s networks was fairly straightforward. A backbone
cable was installed, running vertically up the EPS conduit, which also supplied electrical
power to each of the eight floors of the building. One or more switches were installed on
each floor, from which Category 5 (100 Mbps) cable was used to connect with outlets in
each office, room, or apartment within the building. A room on the second floor of the
building, with direct access to the EPS conduit, was designated as the “server room” and
network administration center.
Initially, the networks within the building were divided into an administrative network,
for the use of Fulbright staff, and a public network, for the use of visitors to the U.S.
Education Center on the first floor and most residents of the apartments in the Fulbright
Building.
Upon moving into the Fulbright Building at the end of 1999, Fulbright was still relying
on Microsoft Windows-based server software. Shortly thereafter, a major decision was
made to adopt Linux and open source solutions for server software. This decision was
made primarily for reasons of security and cost savings, with the greatest concern being
for the security of Fulbright’s networks and web sites. With this move, the Fulbright
Commission became one of the leading organizations in Korea to do so. More generally,
Korean government and private organizations continued to rely on Microsoft solutions,
a situation that led many industry observers to characterize the nation as a “Microsoft
monoculture” and posed problems for implementation of secure online and mobile
banking or financial transactions.
170
By early 2010, Fulbright Korea was hosting more than 25 web sites, including its
own sites and those of major U.S. study fairs and consortia, KOTESOL, and a growing
number of U.S. universities, colleges, and community colleges.
171
172
Chapter 7
The Hubert H. Humphrey

Fellowship Program,
EWC, & Other Grants
In 1978, Fulbright Korea took on responsibility for administration of a new grant

program named after Hubert H. Humphrey, a longtime United States Senator from
Minnesota who served as Vice President under Lyndon B. Johnson.
The Humphrey Program was designed for mid-level managers from developing
nations, with the aim of producing future leaders. It provided for a year of professional
enrichment and non-degree graduate-level study in the United States for accomplished
mid-level professionals from designated countries with a wide range of development
needs.
Although it was not a Fulbright grant, the supervision of the Humphrey Fellowship
Program worldwide was given to the J. William Fulbright Scholarship Board. In South
Korea, the Humphrey Fellowships came to have a strong impact on the Fulbright
Program, bolstering it in important ways.
Hubert Humphrey’s Background and Career

Hubert Humphrey has been called a “prairie progressive.” Born in South Dakota in
1911, Humphrey learned his ideology first hand in the persistent agricultural depression
of the Midwest during the 1920s and 1930s. He and his family were victims, like so
many others, of the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression that had evicted them from
173
their home and business. Humphrey’s poor, rural upbringing stirred both him and his
pharmacist father to become politically conscious, ardent New Dealers. Thus Humphrey
was “permanently marked by the Depression,” which in turn stimulated him to study
and teach college political science in the employ of the New Deal’s Works Progress
Administration. After Humphrey became an administrator in that agency, the Minnesota
Democratic Party recognized his oratorical talents and, in their search for “new blood,”
tapped him as candidate for mayor of Minneapolis. Although he lost his first race in
1943, he succeeded in 1945. This post would prove to be Humphrey’s sole executive
experience until the time of his vice-presidency. He made the most of it, successfully
impressing his reformist principles on organized crime by stretching his mayoral powers
to their limit on the strength of his personality and his ability to control the city’s various
factions. Hubert Humphrey’s mayoral success and visibility propelled him directly into
the Senate for a career that would encompass five terms. He was first elected in 1948 after
gaining national attention at the Democratic National Convention with his historic plea
for civil rights legislation.1
Humphrey served as Vice President under President Lyndon B. Johnson from 1965 to
1969, during a period when the Vietnam War divided America along both political and
generational lines. In 1968, after Lyndon Johnson had decided not to seek another term
as President, Humphrey ran for the presidency against Richard Nixon and lost narrowly.
He ran again for the U.S. Senate and was re-elected to his old seat, which had been
vacated in 1970 by Eugene McCarthy.2
The Humphrey Fellowship Program

Fellows are nominated by U.S. Embassies or Fulbright Commissions based on their
potential for leadership and a demonstrated commitment to public service. The
program provides a basis for lasting ties between citizens of the United States and their
professional counterparts in other countries. It fosters an exchange of knowledge and
mutual understanding, through which the United States joins in a significant partnership
with developing countries.
Fellows are placed in groups by professional field at selected U.S. universities offering
specially designed programs of study and training. The J. William Fulbright Scholarship
Board, appointed by the President, has overall responsibility and awards the fellowships.
The Institute of International Education (IIE), a private not-for-profit educational
exchange agency, currently administers the program in cooperation with the Bureau of
Educational and Cultural Affairs at the Department of State.
174
The Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program,
Born in Wallace, South

Dakota, in 1911 to a mother
who was a homemaker and
a father who was a small-
town pharmacist, Hubert
H. Humphrey enjoyed
an illustrious career as a
statesman and champion of
civil and human rights.
Fellowships are granted competitively to professional candidates in a broad range of

social science, administration, policy, and management fields.3 Since 1978, more than
3,700 fellows from over 140 countries have participated in the program. More than 40
universities have hosted the fellows for their year of study.4
A core part of the fellowship is a special yearlong Humphrey Seminar organized by
the host university. In the seminar, fellows are introduced to the skills and perspectives
they will need as global leaders, share approaches to common issues and problems in their
regions, and learn about many aspects of U.S. culture and society.
Fellows are placed in groups of seven to fifteen at selected U.S. universities, which serve
as their academic and professional base. Fellows audit or register for a partial course load
to enable them to travel and network with their American peers and experts in their field
of work, attend conferences, and engage in a professional affiliation (work experience)
without the pressure of meeting specific degree or diploma requirements.
The purpose of the Humphrey Fellowship is to enrich fellows’ professional skills and
knowledge. The program provides fellows opportunities to meet, exchange information,
and share experiences with their American counterparts and Humphrey colleagues from
around the world. Through conferences, networking meetings, seminars and workshops,
fellows expand their perspectives on their work and on global issues.5
175
The First Humphrey Fellowship Announcement by Fulbright Korea

As background for an item at the commission meeting of February 27, 1979, executive
director Mark Peterson informed the board about a bill recently enacted by Congress to
provide fellowships for young, promising leaders in many countries around the world.
Binational commissions were being asked to recruit candidates for the fellowship. In the
first year, there would be one candidate from Korea, but subsequently there would be
three each year. The secretariat’s recommendation was that KAEC recruit Humphrey
fellows.
The announcement read as follows:
The Korean-American Educational Commission is pleased to announce the

inauguration of the Humphrey Fellowships in memory of Hubert H. Humphrey,
the late Vice President of the United States. Fifty fellows, half of them women,
from selected countries will be offered one year of study in the United States.
In 1979, one Korean candidate will be recommended for consideration. In most
cases, study will not be for degree work, but the fellow will receive a certificate of
completion.
Candidates must have absolute fluency in English. Candidates should be
promising young professionals with some years of solid professional experience
and with demonstrated potential for leadership in public service. Fields of study
will be limited to food and agriculture, health, planning and resource development,
and public administration and management. Interested persons are invited to
contact the Korean-American Educational Commission (Fulbright).6
The recommendation to recruit Humphrey fellows was unanimously approved by

the commission. From that time until the mid-1990s, Korea was a regular and active
participant in the Humphrey Fellowship program.
Discontinuation and Resumption of

the Humphrey Fellowship Program in Korea
In 1995 and 1996, the Humphrey Fellowship program in Korea was suspended for two
full years on the grounds that Korea was no longer a “developing” country. However, Park
In Gu, one of the Korean Humphrey program alumni from the year 1981 who had had
a very successful industry career, rising to the position of vice chairman of the Dongwon
Group, objected strenuously to the discontinuation of the Humphrey program. He visited
176
Tom Haran, the U.S. embassy’s cultural affairs officer and a Fulbright Commission board
member. He also visited the Fulbright office and expressed his shock that the Humphrey
program had been stopped in Korea.
Park suggested to the senior administration of the Fulbright secretariat that if the
program were discontinued, it would be difficult to continue having alumni meetings. At
that time, the Asian Humphrey alumni meeting was held in Malaysia. Park felt that in
order to host such meetings, there had to be a strong alumni base within the host country.
Of course, it would be difficult for Korea to host such a meeting if the program there
were discontinued.
Park himself had had a great experience through the program. Unlike other similar
scholarship programs available for government officials, the Humphrey program provided
opportunities to meet other people, attend seminars, and build practical social skills in
addition to academic knowledge. Since the U.S. had spent so much money funding the
program, it seemed that it would be better for both Korea and the U.S. to continue this
program rather than see it forgotten in Korea. Furthermore, Korean government officials
needed to learn what was going on in the United States in society, education, culture, and
related fields.
Park therefore suggested a method of cost-sharing by the two countries. In fact, upon
resumption of the program the two countries shared the cost for the first year, after which
the program was fully funded by the Korean government. Convinced of the argument,
Haran agreed to accompany Park to Washington, D.C. The two of them visited the State
Department and convinced the people there that the Humphrey Fellowship had to be
reinstated. The State Department took this under positive consideration. In the meantime,
Park returned to Korea and visited the Ministry of Government and Home Affairs and
the National Assembly. He told them that there was no other program available similar
to the Humphrey program.
On his next trip to Washington, Park was able to tell the State Department
representatives that the total cost of resuming the Humphrey Fellowship program in
Korea would be borne by the Korean government. This is how the program came to be
reinstated in 1997. To this date, it remains the only such arrangement by the Humphrey
program with a foreign government.
Over the years, Korean Humphrey fellows have assumed many senior leadership
positions in the Korean government. In the early 1990s, a Humphrey Fellow alumnus
became Minister of Information and Communication, and at least three Humphrey
alumni have held vice-minister positions in various government ministries.
177
East-West Center grants

The East-West Center was established by the United States Congress in 1960 as a
national educational institution to foster better relations and understanding among
the peoples of the United States, Asia, and the Pacific Islands through programs of
cooperative study, training, and research.
Then Senator Lyndon B. Johnson first publicly suggested the idea of an international
center during a speech at the American Society of Newspaper Editors in Washington,
D.C., on April 16, 1959. He proposed that the nation establish an international university
in Hawaii “as a meeting place for intellectuals of the East and West.”7
wang Yon kyun

Emeritus Professor, Economics
Chung Ang University
The scholarship programs of the Korean-American

Educational Commission in the late 1960s included
both Fulbright scholarships and East-West Center
scholarships. The year 2010 marks the 60th and 50th
anniversary of these programs, respectively. I was a
beneficiary of the latter and went to the University
of Hawaii, where I completed a master’s degree
program. I received a scholarship from a university
on the East Coast where I obtained a Ph.D. Later,
I had an opportunity to serve as a research fellow
at a university in the west as a Fulbrighter. The
opportunity to pursue graduate studies and serve as a research fellow in the United
States set the stage for me to grow in a professional capacity.
Upon graduation from the university, I worked for the Bank of Korea, with
responsibility for the collection and analysis of economic data. It was a time when
the scarcity of enterprises enhanced the prestige of working for a bank among
students who majored in economics.
However, I was not content with the job. I wanted to pursue advanced studies
leading to master’s and doctoral degrees. There were no programs for doctoral
degrees at Korean universities, and even master’s degree programs were not
organized into a curriculum. At national universities, each undergraduate class
178
was crammed with 100 to 200 students. Overburdened with the crowded classes,
professors had no time to prepare for teaching graduate students. The pathetic
dearth of scholarships for graduate students made graduate studies almost
impossible. Those few who pursued graduate studies spent much of their time
reading the English texts of established economic theories, leaving no room
for updated theories. Courses in econometrics, necessary to validate theoretical
hypotheses, hardly existed. Econometrics is the combination of theoretical
study and a mathematical or statistical approach. One of the reasons for treating
economics as a science is that economic theories and hypotheses are empirically
validated by mathematical and statistical approaches. The empirical approach is
called positive economics. In order to establish an economic theory capable of
predicting future needs, mathematical and statistical approaches are indispensable.
Dependence on computers increased in proportion to the necessity of processing
data for analytical purposes. However, at that time there was no computer at the
College of Commerce in Seoul National University. I am not sure if any computers
were made available to students at Seoul National University. The absence of
econometrics and international economics was the motivation for my decision to
pursue advanced studies in the United States.
In the 1970s, the value of the dollar was so high that it was almost impossible
to earn enough to finance a round trip to the United States simply by tightening
one’s belt. Even American universities were so squeezed financially that
scholarships were not available to graduate students in the first year, and the
chance for a scholarship was much slimmer in the social sciences. Scholarships
were available to graduate students in the second or third year on the condition
that they had achieved high grades. Unless one was from a wealthy family, it was
almost impossible to pursue an advanced degree. Amid such a dire situation, no
one would have dreamed of overseas studies had it not been for the East-West or
Fulbright scholarships
In my case, I was blessed with both of these scholarships. Education and
research experience in the United States stood me in good stead in teaching
and research at a Korean university. I taught international economic theories,
econometrics, and economic theories relevant to Korea. I have written many
papers related to economic prediction, foreign currency policy, trade policy, liberal
capital flow, economic stability, and the like. I served the Korean government and
international agencies in the capacity of a consultant.
Cultural experience is an important accompaniment to academic study, and it
179
is crucially important to national development. Globalization and an increasing

proportion of service industries are implacable trends. If Korea is to develop into
an advanced society with a competitive economy, it is imperative that it develop a
new work ethic commensurate with new economic practices. Koreans need to be
trained in democratic modes of thinking, attitudes, and free discourse.
That same year, Senator Johnson introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate, and an identical
bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on behalf of John Burns. Following
a study by the State Department recommending establishment of a center, a final bill
was passed and signed into law by President Eisenhower on May 14, 1960. An initial
appropriation of $10 million supported creation of the center.8
As mentioned earlier in the book, Fulbright Korea had some contact with the East-
West Center from its inception, announcing services and sending one high school teacher
there for training during its first year of operation. During the early years of its operation,
there were some years in which the number of East-West Center grantees exceeded that
of Fulbright grantees, and a full-time staff member was allocated within the secretariat
to work on East-West Center affairs. Without question, the East-West Center grant
programs added a strong regional emphasis and an important dimension to the Fulbright
Commission’s activities.
By 1973, KAEC had reassessed the demands of East-West Center services on its
staff and determined that a larger budget was needed to continue with the services. It
requested increased funding from the center, and its deputy director visited the East-
West Center for discussions. However, the center was not forthcoming, so the Fulbright
Commission voted in 1973 to cut back on its services. The question of adequate funding
from the East-West Center in support of the services it expected from Fulbright Korea
continued to be a matter of concern through 1977, when the center cut its funding to the
commission by 50 percent.
For many years, Fulbright Korea offered services that shortened the application
process for East-West Center grants and made it more convenient for applicants than
going directly through the U.S. embassy in Seoul. However, after the terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001, a requirement was established that all East-West Center grant
applicants needed to have a visa interview at the U.S. embassy. This new requirement
made Fulbright’s services relatively useless. Therefore, within a year or two of 9/11
executive director Shim Jai Ok discontinued the services and recommended to the East-
West Center that it no longer pay the Fulbright Commission for services.
180
The GE Foundation Scholar-Leaders Program

The binational agreement that established KAEC does not limit the commission to
the Fulbright Program but authorizes it to be involved in a broad range of educational
exchange and scholarship programs. In 1992, with board approval, KAEC began
working with the GE Fund in selecting recipients for GE Scholarships in Engineering
and Natural Science under the GE Foundation Scholar-Leaders Program. The entire
application and selection process for this fellowship program was administered by the
Fulbright Commission.
A total of 143 students received GE Foundation Scholar-Leaders awards over the
years. From 1992 through 2005, the GE Fellowship selected students in their junior year
and provided two years of support. Starting in 2006, the program was expanded, with
students selected in their sophomore year for three years of financial support. Twice each
year, General Electric Korea sponsored a reception for all current and past recipients
of GE Foundation Scholar-Leaders scholarships. These receptions served a valuable
function in putting new fellowship recipients in touch with alumni and in creating a sense
of community among all of the recipients. The GE Foundation Scholar-Leaders Program
continued in Korea through 2009, at which point it was discontinued by GE because of
corporate financial difficulties.
Lucent Global Science Scholarships

In 1999, the Institute for International Education (IIE) proposed that Fulbright work
with Lucent Technologies in selecting recipients of Lucent Scholarships. The Fulbright
Commission approved KAEC participation with IIE in a Lucent-funded scholarship
program in December 1999.9 The first Lucent Global Science Scholars were selected in
2000, and that program continued until 2005.
The GE Fellowships and the Lucent Global Science scholarships had the positive
effect of continuing Fulbright’s activities in support of science and technology. In 1994,
the commission had voted to focus Fulbright grants exclusively on the social sciences and
humanities, and these two grant programs helped to maintain an important degree of
Fulbright involvement with science and technology.
181
182
Chapter 8
History of the Korea

Fulbright Alumni
Association
The establishment of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association (KFAA) in 1987, over
a year before the Seoul Olympics, was a major milestone for the Fulbright Program in
Korea. As already described, the Korean government began to play a more active role in
the Fulbright Program from 1980, when it increased its financial support to the program
tenfold. However, the formation of the KFAA would add a broad new dimension to
Fulbright Korea that we will describe in this chapter. It set off a sequence of events that
would culminate in the establishment of the Korea Fulbright Foundation, which was
officially announced during Senator Fulbright’s visit to Seoul in 1990.
This chapter looks at how the process of creating an alumni association, and later a
foundation, took place. It provides a brief history of the KFAA and explores some of its
significant accomplishments to date. Many of the major accomplishments, such as the
association’s active involvement in planning and hosting major commemorative events, as
well as the purchase of the Fulbright Building, are dealt with more extensively in other
chapters of this book.
The Korea Fulbright Alumni Association

As described in earlier chapters, the genesis of the Fulbright Program in Korea can be
traced to the binational agreement signed on April 28, 1950, but the disastrous Korean
War nearly brought its implementation to a halt. It was not until the United States
183
Educational Commission in Korea (USEC/K) was formed that scores of Korean students
selected as grantees began to depart annually for study in the United States, with the
first group departing in 1961. The Fulbright grantees represented the cream of the crop
in those days, and even today the Fulbright scholarship is regarded as one of the highest
academic honors a Korean aspirant can receive. Those early grantees studied at prestigious
universities in the United States and returned to Korea upon completion of their studies
to inhabit positions of leadership in academia, politics, officialdom, business, culture,
science, and technology. Their combined expertise contributed powerfully to the drive for
national development.
Despite the Fulbright Program’s tangible contribution to modernization, it took quite
some time to found the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association (KFAA). One reason for
the belated advent of the KFAA might be the lack of a feeling of solidarity like that
felt by graduates of the same university. Most universities provide their students with
opportunities to share a common experience of studying and to enjoy a good degree of
solidarity. That makes it easier to bring graduates together into a fraternal society. Such an
opportunity was not readily available to Fulbrighters. Once a year, recipients of Fulbright
scholarships were brought together for an orientation program prior to departure for the
United States, after which they were dispersed to various universities all over that country.
Upon returning to Korea after their U.S. experience, they had too few meetings at which
they could share common experiences and recollections. Consequently, they lacked a
common frame of reference to bind them into a fraternity.
Gathering Support for the Idea

By the late 1980s, there were about 700 Korean alumni of the Fulbright Program. In
those days, Fulbright executive director Frederick Carriere felt strongly that a Korean
Fulbright alumni association should be formed, and so he and Shim Jai Ok approached
leaders of the Fulbright alumni in all major regions of the country and asked them to
form such an association. They traveled throughout South Korea to meet with alumni
of the Fulbright Program in order to persuade them of the need for some sort of formal
alumni association. They visited each of the major regional cities several times, holding
conferences and offering support.
Formation of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association followed the establishment
of local chapters in each province. Of course, because it had so many more alumni, the
Seoul metropolitan region formed the largest organization, initially designating six
charter trustees and 24 regular members. The formation of all of these regional alumni
associations, including that of Seoul, was what propelled formation of a national Fulbright
Korea alumni organization.
184
History of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association
Foundation of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association

On May 22, 1987, the chairmen of the regional alumni associations convened in Seoul
for a breakfast meeting at the Seoul Plaza Hotel, and the Korea Fulbright Alumni
Association was formed. Structurally, the organization was established with eight regional
independent chapters. Each of the regional chairmen would formally serve as a vice-
chairman under the single person selected to be chairman of the new national association.
Professor Kim Doo Hyun of the Korean Legal Institute, who was president of
the Seoul Metropolitan Area chapter, was selected as the first president of the Korea
Fulbright Alumni Association. His vacant presidential seat in the Seoul chapter was filled
by Han Sang Joon, who had been serving as vice-president. Kim’s remarks, published on
the occasion of the first anniversary of the formation of the association, took note of the
turbulent political context in Korea:
The outset of the KFAA, as you are well aware, was coincidental to waves of
political movements crying out for democracy. The campus was so much disturbed
that one year passed without a tangible outcome we could show off. With one
year yet to serve as the president, I am under pressure to get something done. It
was in this mental framework that we came to celebrate the first anniversary of
KFAA. This is the time to renew our commitment to educational programs, the
achievement of which depends heavily on the support and cooperation of our
fellow Fulbrighters.1
Another important event coincided with the formation of the Korea Fulbright Alumni
Association. In commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the Fulbright Program
worldwide and the 25th anniversary of establishment of the United States Educational
Commission in Korea, a colloquium was held at the Seoul Plaza Hotel with a keynote
address by Fulbright Anniversary Distinguished Fellow Robert A. Scalapino. He spoke
on “U.S. Foreign Policy and Northeast Asia.”
At the same colloquium, former Deputy Prime Minister Lee Han Bin gave an
important address, cited elsewhere in this book, in which he talked about early
educational exchanges with the U.S. and the position of American-educated intellectuals
in Korea. His comments included the following:
The student-sending program in the post-liberation period had a strong pragmatic

tone, as the Korean participants chose to study in the United States. The Garrio
Program sent assistant professors to further their higher education in the United
185
States and their fields of study were limited to agriculture, forestry, fishery,
nutrition, geology, medical science, engineering and management. Subsequently,
the U.S. State Department launched a program that invited leaders in various
walks of life to short-term educational programs in the 1950s. The participants in
this program represented education, journalism, law, and social welfare.
The pragmatic orientation of the educational program was clearly manifest in
the military training program. According to the national plan for the expansion of
the armed forces in the wake of the Korean War, ranking officers were dispatched
to Staff College or schools of strategic studies in the United States.
Pragmatic orientation was an alien concept for Koreans who had experienced
the humanity-orientation of education. The blind acceptance of the strange
concept brought back a nostalgic yearning among Korean scholars for the
humanities. The Yenching Institute of Harvard University surfaced to quench
Koreans’ thirst for humanities. It was the Korea Fulbright Program that mediated
between Harvard University and Korean aspirants hoping to study the humanities.
By mediating between the two, the Korea Fulbright Program opened a new
chapter in the annals of educational exchange. Started in the 1960s, this program
expanded the area of studies to social science and added a new role as an inviter of
American scholars to teach at Korean universities or research in cooperation with
Korean counterparts.
The 1960s witnessed the proliferation of programs to provide greater

opportunities for Koreans to further their higher education in the United States.
Most typical of them was the East-West Program. It sent scores of Korean
students to American universities, and their repatriation provided a motive
to sharpen the development edge of scholarly expertise to bear on national
development. The self-financed students whose number increased in the 1970s had
their shares of contribution to national development after they obtained advanced
degrees from American universities.2
On June 8, 1987, the new association acted to establish a Fulbright Alumni Fellowship
program. On July 11, 1987, the first Fulbright alumni fellow was selected.
In May 1988, the inaugural issue of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Newsletter was
published. On May 20, the first anniversary of the establishment of the Korea Fulbright
Alumni Association was celebrated at the Shilla Hotel in Seoul. U.S. Ambassador James R.
Lilley delivered a congratulatory address for the occasion.
186
On September 22, 1989, the second anniversary of the establishment of the Korea
Fulbright Alumni Association was celebrated at the Korea Chamber of Commerce
and Industry. There, Hahn Sang Joon was selected as the second president of the Korea
Fulbright Alumni Association. Lee Hyun Jae, the former Prime Minister, delivered a
special address on the topic of “Educational System of Korea and New Direction.”
The Korea Fulbright Foundation

At the September 1989 meeting of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association, a
preparation committee was established to form the Korea Fulbright Foundation. Finally,
on January 11, 1991, the foundation was legally established.
The Korea Fulbright Foundation has carried out several important activities over
the years. First, on four occasions thus far the foundation has hosted dinners for Korea
Fulbright alumni and American grantees. At these dinners, American grantees have been
able to network with their Korean colleagues and, on many occasions, have questions
answered through them. In this manner, Korean alumni are able to provide valuable
assistance to American grantees.
Second, the foundation has given awards to American student grantees to assist with
their research. In 2008, awards of $1,000 were given to Franklin Rausch for his research
on Ahn Jung Geun and Aimee Lee for her research on Korean paper making (hanji). In
2009, Carla Stansifer received a grant of $3,000 to help her with filming the processing of
Korea lacquer art. As of this writing, these awards are still being offered.
Third, when Hurricane Katrina struck the United States, the foundation donated
$10,000 through the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy, Mark Minton. This was
supplemented by $38,000 donated by the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association.
Finally, on October 23, 2009, the Korea Fulbright Foundation sponsored a symposium
to help commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Fulbright Program in Korea. The topic
was “The Direction of Korea’s Education in the Twenty-First Century.”
Major Accomplishments of the Alumni Association & Foundation

Both the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association and the Korea Fulbright Foundation have
contributed to the growth and development of the Fulbright Program in Korea in various
ways, including the following:
187
• H elping to finance and organize commemoration of important historical

occasions in Fulbright Korea’s history,
• Fundraising for the purchase of the Fulbright Building in 1999,
• C haritable contributions in the wake of the Asian tsunami in 2004 and
Hurricane Katrina in 2005,
• Participation in U.S. Fulbright Association meetings and other international
meetings of Fulbright alumni from around the world, and
• Program initiatives that would not have been possible for the commission itself
with only grant funding from the two governments.
Fulbright 40th Anniversary Commemoration

This book opened with an account of the 40th anniversary of the Fulbright Program in
Korea, which was the occasion for Senator Fulbright’s only visit to Korea. The Korea
Fulbright Alumni Association and the Korea Fulbright Foundation both played key roles in
organizing and making possible the commemoration of that milestone in Fulbright’s history.
Senator J. William
Fulbright and
Harriet Fulbright
greet guest at the
40th anniversary
celebration of the
Fulbright Program in
Korea.
188
Senator J. William
Fulbright greets
Korea Fulbright
Alumni Association
member Professor
Ro Jung Hyun at the
40th anniversary
commemoration
of the Fulbright
Program in
Korea, which was
celebrated in Seoul
on September 20-
21, 1990.
Fulbright 50th Anniversary Commemoration Project

In September 1994, members of the Korea Fulbright Foundation and the Korea Fulbright
Alumni Association formulated an idea for a Fulbright 50th Anniversary Research
Award. The concept was to have awards given to American scholars whose research would
“promote academic understanding between America and Korea.” Of course, they also saw
the significance of acknowledging the vision of Senator J. William Fulbright. That vision
was planted in 1946 and in fifty years had spread worldwide, influencing untold numbers
of world citizens.3
Key members of the foundation and the alumni association worked with the
secretariat to develop this grant program. The project received many good proposals
before finally awarding grants of $5,000 each to three American scholars: Mel Gurtov,
a political scientist; James F. Larson, a communication scholar; and Robert R. Swartout,
Jr., a historian. They co-authored a book, edited by Ray E. Weisenborn, titled Korea’s
Amazing Century: From Kings to Satellites. The book was originally printed, published,
and copyrighted in Seoul by the Korea Fulbright Foundation and the Korean-American
Educational Commission in 1996.
In 2009, the Fulbright Foundation and the Korean-American Educational Commission
decided to digitally publish the book through Google Books to ensure wide availability
189
while retaining the copyright. The volume can be read online or downloaded in a PDF
version on Google Books.4
The dedication page of the book reads as follows.
To the Fulbright program for its fifty

years of nurturing world peace and
understanding;
To the memory of Senator J. William
Fulbright whose vision lit this candle
and carried it forth;
To t h e K o re a n a n d Am e r i c a n
Fulbright scholars who have shared Dr. James F.
Larson presents
their lives with commitment to a
Mrs. Harriet M.
global village.5 Fulbright with a
commemorative
copy of Korea’s
On November 25, 1996, the 50th Amazing Century:
From Kings to
anniversary of the worldwide Fulbright
Satellites on the
Program was commemorated at the occasion of the 50th
anniversary of the
Korea Press Center, and a copy of Korea’s
Worldwide Fulbright
Amazing Century: From Kings to Satellites Program in 1996.
was presented to Mrs. Harriet Mayor Fulbright, who, along with Dr. Cho Soon, was a
keynote speaker.
Bronze Bust of Senator Fulbright Dedicated in Fulbright Building Entryway

On October 20, 2006, a ceremony was held to dedicate a bronze bust of Senator J.
William Fulbright in the foyer of the Fulbright Building. This dedication was held on the
occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Fulbright Program worldwide and in honor of
what would have been the Senator’s 100th birthday. It was the first such commemorative
event among Fulbright Programs around the world.
The bust was sculpted by Professor Ted Aub of Hobart and William Smith Colleges.
Professor Aub’s wife, Philia Lee, had been a Fulbright grantee, and only because of this
fortunate circumstance was it possible to have the project commissioned at such a low cost.
The bust was made possible thanks to a contribution of $10,000 from Fulbright Korea
Alumni Association members. Some associated costs for the unveiling ceremony were
covered by the Fulbright Commission.6
190
This bust was made

possible thanks
to the contribution
of $10,000 from
Fulbright Korea
Alumni Association
members. Pictured
here from left to
right: Suh Dong Hee,
Yoon Bokcha, Kang
Chang Hee, KAEC
executive director
Shim Jai Ok, and
Choi Young.
60th Anniversary Commemoration Activities

As described in Chapter 6, the KFAA and the Korea Fulbright Foundation played
a major role in organizing events in Korea and the United States during 2010 to
commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Fulbright Program in Korea. In particular, the
idea to publish this 60th anniversary history was given its initial support and impetus by
the KFAA, which, among its many efforts, formed a committee, undertook fundraising,
and solicited Korean alumni reminiscences.
English-Cultural Program for Children of Fulbright Alumni

In 1996, the fourth president of the KFAA initiated an English language and cultural
program in the U.S. for the children of Fulbright Alumni. Administration of the program
was entrusted to the LCP International Institute, which provided connections to host
institutions in the U.S. Following a preparatory period, the first program was offered from
January 1996, coinciding with the winter vacation in Korean schools. A second program
was offered from July of that year. The winter vacation program was attended by 46
secondary school and college students. Secondary school students and college students,
including graduate students, were sent to college and universities in California. The
191
summer vacation program was attended by 18 students. Secondary school students were
sent to Highline Community College in Des Moines, Washington, and college students
(including graduate students) to Irvine Valley College in Irvine, California.
The 1997 summer program was attended by four students. Secondary school students
were sent to Mira Costa College Center, Oceanside, California, and college students
to Highline Community College Center, Des Moines, Washington. The participants
underwent an intensive course of 25 hours per week. The weekend program included
a sightseeing tour to adjacent places of interest and sport events. The program also
featured a home stay, which provided cultural immersion and maximized conversational
opportunities through daily contact with family members.
The LCP proved to be a great success, eliciting positive comments from both parents
and the hosting institutes. The latter were positive about the quality of students and their
motivation to learn, and this was attributed to the rising expectations of their parents.
KAEC was fully engaged in the planning, contacts, travel arrangements, and all work
related to entry visas. The Fulbright Commission’s professional capability in this regard
gave the LCP an edge over other competing programs. Indeed, the KAEC administration
had thought that if alumni members’ children could be sent to the United States for
language training for a contribution of approximately $500 per child, the program could
still be administered for far less than a private language or study abroad institute would
receive for such a program.
The LCP yielded a profit of 5,000,000 won, which was transferred to KAEC. The fund
was eventually used to bring two American “roving scholars” to Korea.
Initially, Shim Jai Ok did all of the administrative work for the English and cultural
program for children of alumni. The program was so successful that then executive
director Ray Weisenborn proposed to the board that he take over administration
of the program, with the help of an assistant. After a few years of the program, all
documentation was transferred to a secretary hired by the KFAA. In 1999 and 2000,
the program was discontinued for two years for lack of adequate linkages with U.S.
institutions, but it was subsequently reinstated for two more years, running through 2002.
Although it was very popular with Fulbright alumni and produced income for the alumni
association, the program was eventually discontinued due to lack of agreement within the
commission about how it should be staffed.7
Fundraising for Purchase of the Fulbright Building

The Korea Fulbright Alumni Association played a critical role in recruiting alumni donors
who contributed to a fund that helped to purchase the Fulbright Building in 1999. The
192
decision to launch a fundraising campaign was made by the sixth board of trustees of
the KFAA. Many Korean alumni enthusiastically participated in this campaign. Two
hundred six alumni eventually contributed a total of about 251,387,250 won toward
purchase of the building.8
Contributions for Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina Relief

In a sure sign that Fulbright Korea alumni efforts had come of age, alumni organized to
gather money and send contributions in the wake of two massive natural disasters. These
were the largest contributions made by any Fulbright Commission.9 In December 2004,
a major earthquake, followed by a tsunami, hit Asia and Africa, devastating many coastal
areas.
At a January 2005 executive committee meeting of the Korea Fulbright Alumni
Association, Kang Sung Hack, the newly elected president, recalled his surprise at being
asked by Fulbright executive director Shim Jai Ok to raise funds for tsunami relief
in Southeast Asia and also to commission the sculpting of a bronze bust of Senator
J. William Fulbright for placement in the Fulbright Building to commemorate the
centennial of the late senator’s birth and the 60th anniversary of the Fulbright Program
worldwide.10
Kang was dumbfounded when Shim further mentioned that the alumni had to raise
at least $10,000 for each project, or a total $20,000. Such a huge amount of money
was unimaginable at that time for Korean Fulbrighters, almost all of whom were
academicians.
While the centennial anniversary is a very meaningful event for Western peoples,
including Americans, the sixty-year anniversary represents a major milestone for Koreans
and Chinese, marking a return to the beginning of the sexagenary cycle of the Chinese
zodiac. Kang also realized quickly that the alumni had to accept the request to “help”
Shim, the first female executive director of Fulbright Korea, prove that she was as able as,
or perhaps more so than, the several American predecessors she had served for the last 28
years. Over that time, Shim had come to be regarded by most Korean Fulbrighters as the
“alter ego” of the Korea’s Fulbright Scholarship program.11
Therefore, out of respect for Shim, the alumni made up their minds to launch the
necessary fundraising. Kang expected members of the Korean Fulbright Alumni
Association to donate for the fundraising for the name and person of Shim Jai Ok, rather
than for Fulbright Alumni Association’s own sake, because almost all Korean Fulbrighters
had met her more than once for their own reasons. In his initial letter to members, he
tried to appeal to their hearts as well as brains.
193
However, in the midst of this first fundraising effort, the tragic news broke about
victims of Hurricane Katrina in the United States. Kang quickly convened a special
meeting of the executive committee, which unanimously decided to launch another
fundraising effort for “Katrina relief.”12
To deal with the added fundraising burden, Kang proposed increasing the membership
of the executive committee of board members from about fifteen to about 100. He called
a meeting of the new expanded membership and asked them to adopt a fundraising plan
for Katrina relief, which they did without hesitation. With board approval, he sent a
letter to the members saying that the time had come to return the favor they had received
from the American people many years before to people suffering in the present day in
New Orleans, a sacred home of American jazz music. He argued that Koreans had been
able to study and carry out research in the U.S. thanks to taxes paid by the American
people, which had allowed them to upgrade their social status and standard of living.
With American Katrina victims having suffered from a natural disaster, he said that this
presented a “good” opportunity to help those solitary poor Americans. In particular, he
urged board members to double or triple their contributions to set a good example.
The response was swift and strong, and the so-called “CNN effect” of global media
played a significant role in the fundraising for Katrina victims by repeatedly broadcasting
scenes of the tragedy. The Korean alumni collected and delivered a total of about $38,000
to the U.S. embassy in Seoul within a very short time. They also sent $16,000 to Jane
Anderson of the Fulbright Association for tsunami relief, including an additional $6,000
that had been collected from the staff of the Fulbright Commission in Korea.13
Over a period of months, Shim Jai Ok worked closely with Anderson. They contacted
Porntip Kanjananiyot, executive director of the Fulbright Commission in Thailand. After
some negotiation and careful consideration of alternative uses of the money donated,
the decision was finally made to donate $14,000 to a portable library project for schools
in tsunami-affected areas of Thailand. Schools benefited from the project by receiving
quality books, while teachers gained knowledge in the teaching of reading. Students were
also able to learn more about U.S. culture.
The fundraising effort for this project, led by the Korea Fulbright Association, was
joined by the U.S. Fulbright Association, the Irish Fulbright Alumni Association, and
similar groups in Costa Rica and Togo. As the letter from Shim and Anderson to
Thailand’s executive director stated, “The gift is made on behalf of the global Fulbright
alumni community and comes to you with the good will and support of Fulbrighters
and friends throughout the world.”14 Very important to the worldwide Fulbright alumni
movement that contributed to the gift were the plans of Thai alumni to visit the schools
194
and provide assistance with reading activities.

Kang was pleased to report to the Fulbright Association that the Korea Fulbright
Alumni Association had come of age at last, not only in terms of numerical age but also
in terms of its moral behavior. He noted that Korean Fulbrighters had upgraded their
moral status from that of humble beneficiary into that of proud benefactor by doing
significant community service for two years. He also expressed the hope and expectation
that the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association would continue to do work for educational,
intellectual, and community service in the spirit of the Fulbright Program.15
Support of the KAEC Administration

Over the years, the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association has consistently offered its
support to the Fulbright Commission when it has been needed. For example, at the
commission meeting of December 9, 1987, the board approved using the Korea Fulbright
Alumni Association to register ownership of a house for the executive director. As
permission had not been obtained to purchase the house provided for the executive
director’s use in the commission’s name, KAEC’s lawyer and other experts suggested
the problem might be resolved by registering ownership of the house in the name of the
alumni association.
Another example of the alumni association’s support for Fulbright Commission
activities came around the time Shim Jai Ok was named the ninth executive director of
Fulbright Korea in 2004. At that time, it was becoming apparent that ETS was going
The Korea Fulbright

Alumni Association
at the Fulbright
Association’s 13th
annual Conference
in 1990.
195
to dramatically change its relationship with the Fulbright Commission in connection

with the introduction of a new delivery mode for TOEFL in October 2006. In terms of
revenue flow, and therefore all of Fulbright’s programs, the implications of ETS’s move
were huge. It meant the loss of several million dollars in gross annual revenue that had
come to the commission during the years of the computer-based TOEFL from 2000 to
2006.
Knowing about the prospective loss of revenue, and wanting the first female executive
director of Fulbright Korea to succeed, several key members of the alumni association
made cash donations of five million won per person to Shim, accompanied by the
suggestion that she establish an educational corporation for the broad purpose of ensuring
sufficient revenue for the ongoing work of the Fulbright Commission.
After giving the matter a great deal of thought, Shim eventually chose a different
course of action, opting to approach both the Korean and United States governments
directly with requests that they increase their annual allocation to the Fulbright Program.
Given the many uncertainties of operating an educational company in parallel with the
Fulbright Commission, she eventually decided firmly against that route and returned the
donations to the Korean alumni.16
However, this poignant episode stood out in her mind, and she gratefully acknowledged
this alumni support in a speech at the 2009 meeting of the Korea Fulbright Alumni
Association, held at the Korea Press Center in downtown Seoul.
A Chronology of Korea Fulbright Alumni Association Presidents

KFAA/Election Date President
First/May 22, 1987 Kim Doo Hyun, Korean Legal Institute
Second/September 22, 1989 Dr. Hahn Sang Joon, Emeritus President of Hanyang University
Third/November 8, 1991 Professor Kim Yong Kwon, Department of English Literature, Sogang University
Fourth/November 18, 1994 Professor Ro Jung Hyun, Department of Public Administration, Yonsei University
Fifth/November 25, 1996 Dr. Ahn Byong Man, President of Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
Sixth/September 1998 Kim Kee Soon, Dean of Graduate School, Hanyang University
Seventh/October 20, 2000 Professor Yoon Bokcha, Yonsei University
Eighth/December 20, 2002 Professor Song Sang Hyun, Law School, Seoul National University
Ninth/December 5, 2004 Kang Seong Hak, Professor of Political Science, Korea University
Tenth/December 2006 Professor Choi Young, Professor of English Literature, Ewha Womans University
Eleventh/December 2, 2008 Kim Moon Hwan, Professor of Law, President of Kukmin University
196
The acquisition of
its own building
after fifty years of
renting, leasing,
and wandering
epitomized the
growth and the
transition of the
Fulbright Program
in Korea from
a fully funded
development
program of the U.S.
government to a
widely supported
and substantially
mature program
of international
educational
exchange.
197
198
Chapter 9
Taking Stock
This book has traced the development of Fulbright educational and cultural exchanges
between the United States and Korea over a span of six decades. It has also related that
development to the dramatic transformation of South Korea and its emergence as one
of the world’s leading economies and an aid donor nation. Whether measured politically,
economically, socially, or culturally, the changes Korea experienced over those decades are
striking both for their scope and their rapidity. South Korea’s rise from the ashes of the
Korean War to become a highly developed, innovation and technology-driven economy
has led generations of scholars, journalists, and policymakers to use such expressions as
the “Miracle on the Han River” to describe the nation’s transformation. In Korea’s case,
the Fulbright Program contributed significantly to overall development of the formal
education system, to development of leadership, and to the creation of a healthy national
environment for and attitude toward study abroad. The relatively early and large-scale
development of both test administration and counseling activities made the Fulbright
Commission’s involvement in Korea’s education sector and in the movement toward study
abroad more comprehensive and more influential.
Major Factors in Korea’s Rapid Development

Most studies of South Korea’s remarkably rapid development over the past half century
point to education as a major factor, and that has been a primary concern of this book.
Among the other major reasons for Korea’s dynamism, its development and exportation
199
of information and communication technologies deserve special mention. One need only
look at the makeup of South Korea’s economy and its exports today to see the importance
of semiconductors, television sets and displays, and mobile handsets. Such typical
listings of export categories tend to obscure the role of the small, medium, and large-
sized companies that manufacture the components that go into consumer and industrial
electronics products.
Without strong education, it is difficult to envision the technology development and
innovation taking place today within Korea and its large, transnational jaebeol groups.
Study abroad—in which Fulbright played a critical role, especially in the early years—
contributed to both the development of a strong educational system in South Korea and
to the quality of leadership in government, academia, and the private sector there.
Education in South Korea’s Development

At the time of liberation from Japan, less than 25% of the 20 million people who lived
on the Korean Peninsula received what could be called a formal education. Moreover, less
than one percent of them were able to get even a limited version of the “higher education”
that Japan permitted. By the end of World War II, school buildings were run down and
supplies practically nonexistent. On top of this, there was a gross shortage of teachers. All
of the Japanese teachers were repatriated to Japan, and many Korean teachers were called
upon to serve the nation in other capacities. Nevertheless, teachers were scraped up from
wherever they could be found. Korea had barely started to build its educational system
when the Korean War broke out and the schools were again devastated.1
It was from this “basket case” that Korea built its present education system. By the
early 1990s, the rate of literacy and primary school attendance both approached 100%.
Currently, achievement of a high school education is nearly universal in South Korea, and
more than 80% of high school graduates proceed to tertiary education. In recent years, the
Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) has shown that Korean students
rank at or near the top in the world in average PISA mathematics and science scores.2
One lifelong educator and longtime Fulbright Commission board member, Horace G.
Underwood, called the eagerness of the Korean people to have an education perhaps the
greatest strength of Korean education: “Korean society abounds with stories of parents
who sold their homes, even their ancestral farms, so that a child might get to a university.”3
Over the years, the World Bank has studied South Korea’s national development rather
intensively. A recent World Bank/OECD study of Korea identified the four key pillars of
the knowledge economy as follows:
200
Taking Stock
• An economic and institutional regime with incentives for the use of existing
knowledge and the creation of new knowledge.
• Education, training, and human resource management (an educated,
entrepreneurial population that can both use existing knowledge and create new
knowledge).
• A dynamic information infrastructure to facilitate effective communication,
dissemination, and processing of information.
• An efficient innovation system comprising firms, science and research centers,
universities, think tanks, consultants, and other organizations.4
The four pillars in the World Bank’s framework make the central role of education
abundantly clear not only in terms of formal education and degrees, but also in
recognition of the need for strong industry-academia-government cooperation in research
and development and for broad public knowledge and awareness of the role of science,
research, and technology in development.
The Role of Study Abroad in Korea’s Development

At the end of the Korean War, South Korea found itself without a well-developed system
of tertiary education. This was in part because of the destruction of the Korean War, and
also an effect of the long Japanese colonial period. Under these circumstances, it was not
surprising that Koreans would turn in large numbers to study abroad. That same set of
circumstances helps to explain the impact of the Fulbright Program in Korea.
Under Japanese colonial rule, intolerable repressions in Korea influenced many Korean
youth to study abroad; ironically, many of them chose to study in Japan. Immediately
following the Korean War, explains Hong Sah-Myung, “one awesome wave of Korean
scholars after another bypassed Japan and headed for North America and Western
Europe.”5 The flow was so high that the Korean government was forced to introduce
required and stiffly competitive examinations, which ensured that only the brightest of
young students would study abroad. Hong6 reported that each year then saw some 6,000
students leaving Korea, until 1981, when the number jumped to 15,000. The increase
represented the effects of a new “open door policy” for study abroad that had been
announced by the government in 1979. Although precise data are unavailable, the number
of Korean students going abroad kept increasing through the 1980s and beyond.
As noted, there was widespread interest in and need for study abroad following the
Korean War. However, the Korean government strictly controlled study abroad during
those early years after the war, primarily as a measure to protect the country’s precious
201
foreign currency reserves. Every penny was needed for the rehabilitation of Korea after
the war. One consequence of this policy was that government or public scholarship
funds were the sole source of finance for study abroad. This worked to the benefit of the
Fulbright Program in Korea.7
On one level, the Fulbright Program’s impact on study abroad by Koreans can be viewed
narrowly in terms of Fulbright grants and the impact of Fulbright grantees. However, as
this book has shown, the Fulbright Commission in Seoul had a broader impact on study
abroad through its student advising and testing activities. Direct involvement with high-
stakes academic admissions testing in particular produced a double benefit for Korea. On
the one hand, it helped to ensure that these high-stakes tests were accessible to students
throughout the country and were administered in a secure, fair, and impartial manner.
These conditions are absolutely critical for a healthy educational exchange relationship
on a scale such as that between the U.S. and Korea. In addition to this benefit, Fulbright’s
testing activities produced income that allowed the commission to greatly increase the
number of its grants to both Korean and American students and scholars.
Fulbright’s Impact on Korean Leadership

When one looks at the high proportion of U.S.-trained Ph.D.s in Korea’s universities,
research institutes, government agencies, and private corporations, the impact of study
abroad in the U.S. on Korean leadership quickly becomes apparent. In 1998, Kim Doo
Hyun, the first president of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association, wrote, “The
participants in the Fulbright Program represent a wide spectrum of leaders, including
government officials, diplomats, attorneys, journalists, scientists, professors, entrepreneurs,
and artists. They are leaders in their respective organizations and are in a position to
influence, in one way or another, the decision-making process in their countries.”8
In Korea, the Fulbright Program had a particularly strong influence on leadership
for several reasons. First, Fulbright alumni set a standard of excellence that many other
Korean students sought to emulate. From the start, competition for Fulbright grants to
study in the U.S. was very high, and only a few of Korea’s best and brightest received the
awards each year.
A second, related factor has to do with public expectations of educated elites and their
responsibility to society. As former Deputy Prime Minister Lee Han Bin noted in a 1987
commemorative address:
The returnees from exposure to American education occupy leading positions in

the bureaucratic, military, industrial, journalistic and political sectors. Their rapid
rise along the hierarchical ladder was most salient among the East Asian countries.
202
Taking Stock
As they occupied leading positions, public expectations of their role was running
high. The public expectations of the educated elites, particularly the American-
bred scholars, were realistic in light of the imperatives facing the country at the
time.
First, the people expect the educated elites to bring professional expertise to bear
on various problems spawned in the dust of rapid development. We are reminded
of Moon Ik Jom, who brought cotton seeds on his way back from mission to the
Yuan Dynasty. No one expected that scores of cotton seeds would bring a dramatic
change in the clothing modes of Koreans. The scientists, economists, managers,
and others who returned with advanced degrees from the United States were the
modern versions of Moon Ik Jom.
Second, the educated returnees were expected to become precursors in the
realization of democracy. For the last four decades, Koreans have developed the
American perspectives which vary depending on their ideological or political
standing. Amid the variation of their attitudes, there is one thing which has been
constant, an agreement that the United States represents the highest version of
liberal democracy. For a country which aspired to liberal democracy, it behooves
that (sic) the people expect the educated elites to become precursors in the reform
move toward liberal democracy. Per capita income of Koreans exceeded $2,000,
and average Koreans attained to (sic) high school education. This provides the
ground for precipitating the formation of a middle class and the realization
of liberal democracy. With so many educated in the United States, a question
inevitably arose as to what kept the country from realizing democracy.
Last, the people expect the educated elites to become a moral paragon by living
a life of diligence, austerity, and saving, worthy for others to pattern after. When
it comes to a spiritual life, many Koreans are attached to the traditional moral
virtues. They expect the educated elites to be a sensitive evaluator of the Western
value, guarding against the onslaught of those which do harm to Koreans and to
champion our traditional values worth to preserve (sic). The familism which is
unique of Koreans may be promoted as a counterweight to the Americans who see
their families frequently break down.
In summary, education played a vital role in South Korea’s remarkable development

since the mid 20th century. Furthermore, the Fulbright Program and education abroad
were leading catalysts for study abroad and for the development of education more
generally. Finally, almost from its inception the Fulbright Commission in Korea played a
more comprehensive role in educational and national development than was the case for
203
many other Fulbright Commissions around the world, which concentrated more narrowly
on Fulbright grants. In addition to grant programs, the need for significant involvement
in educational testing and advising became apparent from the early years; these two
activities became major emphases for Fulbright Korea over the years and are an important
part of its prospects for the future, as the following section will show.
Fulfilling Fulbright’s Mission in the Future

Given South Korea’s remarkable transformation, along with the role that education
generally and the Fulbright Program in particular played in it, some might suggest that
the mission of Fulbright Korea has been fulfilled or accomplished. In this concluding
chapter, we suggest why that is emphatically not the case and offer some suggestions as to
the direction future Fulbright Korea activities might take.
As a starting point, it is important to remember that the central mission of the
Fulbright Program revolves around the simple, somewhat idealistic notion that somehow,
through intercultural and educational exchange, the peoples of the world might learn to
live together in peace. As Senator Fulbright wrote in the foreword to one of his books, “Our
future is not in the stars but in our own minds and hearts. Creative leadership and liberal
education, which in fact go together, are the first requirements for a hopeful future for
humankind. Fostering these—leadership, learning and empathy between cultures—was
and remains the purpose of the international scholarship program that I was privileged
to sponsor in the U.S. Senate....”9 Unlike the Peace Corps, whose mission was to help
developing countries, the underlying philosophy of the Fulbright Program was broader,
longer-term, and even global in scope from the start. So how does this apply to the future
possibilities for Fulbright Korea?
Fulbright’s Role in Reconciliation on the Korean Peninsula

The continued division of the Korean Peninsula stands as a stark reminder of the war that
ravaged the nation 60 years ago and is perhaps the world’s most prominent vestige of the
long Cold War. Because the DMZ marks an armistice rather than real peace, the division
of Korea can also be thought of as a failure of the Fulbright ideal. After all, the original
Fulbright act called for the financing of educational exchange through the sale of surplus
war materiel, with the goal of helping the nations of the world to better understand each
other so that they would eventually have no need for the weapons of war.
The conspicuous failure to achieve mutual understanding and reconciliation thus far
in Korea suggests an obvious new area of activity for the Fulbright Program, namely to
204
Taking Stock
undertake a range of new initiatives to encourage reconciliation on the Korean Peninsula.

There are several compelling reasons why this should be a major emphasis for the
future. The first is that the U.S. and Korean government representatives who signed the
binational agreement on April 28, 1950, had no knowledge that war would break out on
the peninsula and certainly could not have envisioned a devastating war and longstanding
division of the nation. The opposite is most likely the case; they signed the agreement with
the expectation that Korea would soon be reunified and that the Fulbright Program would
lead to educational and intercultural exchanges with all Koreans in both North and South.
Another reason for reconciliation as a program objective is that Fulbright Korea has, in
fact, already started down this road. The Seoul Statement issued in 2000 and reprinted in
Chapter 5 made this much clear. Beyond that, the Korea Fulbright Commission in Seoul
voted in 2002 to commit funds to support the Syracuse University exchange program
with Kim Chaek University of Technology in Pyongyang, although with the proviso that
no government funds would be used. Funding was to come from the Korea Fulbright
Alumni Association. The Korean government quickly gave its approval to this plan in
January 2003, and it was approved by the U.S. government five years later.
Finally, the mission of the Fulbright Program clearly implies that every possible
opportunity for interpersonal and intercultural exchange should be sought out. While
some might suggest that exchanges under the Fulbright Program should follow
political and military agreements between the U.S. and North Korea, we would suggest
an alternative scenario in which Fulbright exchanges occur early in the process of
rapprochement and reconciliation.
New Dimensions of Fulbright through Digital Media

This book has traced the role of education, especially international educational exchange
in which the Fulbright Program played a leading role, in the transformation of Korea.
Another key factor in the dramatic changes in South Korea was the development
of indigenous technological capacity, especially in the field of information and
communication technologies. Economists refer to these technologies as “general purpose”
technologies because of their broad use across many industries and in conjunction with
other technologies.
Today, South Korea is frequently referred to as the world’s most “wired” country.
However, this is somewhat of an anachronistic misnomer, since the nation’s networks are
mostly digital, consisting of digitally switched fiber optic cable networks and the wireless
networks used for mobile communication and for the digital multimedia broadcasting
(mobile television) that has become so popular with Korean citizens. A more accurate
205
description of South Korea today would be to say that it has the densest and most
advanced digital communication networks of any nation in the world. As related in earlier
chapters, the construction of these networks began in the 1980s, picked up pace in the
1990s, and continues today.
As this book is written, mobile broadband as exemplified by Apple’s iPhone and
Android phones has started its rapid diffusion throughout South Korea. These new,
rapidly evolving devices will form a central component in the future ubiquitous network
society that the Korean government declared as its goal back in 2006. What does South
Korea’s status as a world leader in information technology suggest for the future of the
Fulbright Program?
For one thing, it means that there are increased possibilities for bilateral cooperation
on common problems and challenges in telecommunications and the ICT sector
generally. In 2008, Korea’s National Information Society Agency, in cooperation with
government, academic, and private sector organizations in both Korea and the U.S.,
convened the 1st Annual Korea-U.S. IT Policy Forum. The goal was to make this
forum, which was initiated by the Korean side, into an annual bilateral meeting. There
are numerous concrete examples of the need for such a forum. For example, both Korea
and the U.S. today are confronting the social problem presented by internet addiction.
Korea encountered the problem earlier and on a larger scale simply because it possessed
high-speed broadband internet several years before it became available on the same scale
in the U.S. The popularity of massive multiplayer online games soared in South Korea
during the late 1990s as so-called “PC bangs” (PC rooms, a form of internet café) became
ubiquitous.
Another useful example is the area of policies, planning, and technologies for the
provision of broadband internet. The 2010 FCC report Connecting America: The National
Broadband Plan mentions Korea as one of a handful of nations around the world that have
developed broadband plans. It recommends that the FCC study specific aspects of Korea’s
approach, including the voluntary system of building ratings for broadband connectivity,
its utilization of available frequencies, its policy to provide broadband as a universal
service, and, most particularly, its use of five-year plans to ensure the achievement of long-
term policy goals.10 Some observers have noted that Korea has the advantage of being a
geographically small nation (about the size of Indiana) with a high concentration of its
population in urban areas. While this is true, it is nevertheless equally apparent that the
building of Korea’s digital networks has been a long-term, massive construction project,
similar in that respect to the building of freeways through its mountainous countryside.
There is much the United States might learn and a great deal to be shared in this
206
Taking Stock
important area of infrastructure, innovation, and technology.

A second broad range of possibilities opened up for Fulbright Korea by the information
revolution is for the adoption and use of the new digital networks—including social
networking, video, and mobile—to allow new forms of interaction and collaboration
among Fulbright grantees and alumni. The Fulbright Program has already adopted
online applications for grants, web sites for commissions and advising centers, and
the like. Social network and videoconferencing, to take two simple examples, offer the
possibility for grantees currently teaching or studying in the U.S. or Korea to have direct
and meaningful contact with prospective grantees or the next cohort of those accepted
for Fulbright awards in either the U.S. or Korea. As of this writing in 2010, the pace
of communications convergence seems to be quickening. Clearly, the emerging ease
and economy of videoconferencing via Skype or other software facilitates new forms of
international collaboration.
In 2009, Fulbright Korea hired its first alumni coordinator. A substantial portion of
her efforts involved outreach to American alumni of Fulbright Korea. They had become
far more accessible than in the past thanks to the internet and its social networking
capabilities.
A third distinct example of how Fulbright Korea might contribute to improving
mutual understanding between Korea and the United States has to do with the role
of digital media in the creation and maintenance of national images. The Lee Myung
Bak administration in Korea is the latest to recognize that Korea suffers from an image
problem around the world, including in the United States. It formed the Presidential
Council on National Branding in an effort to deal with this situation. In general,
Korea’s national image around the world is shaped by mainstream media coverage
and, increasingly, news as disseminated through the internet. This results in an image
dominated by the continued division of the nation, periodic incidents or tension along the
DMZ, and the on-and-off six-party talks on North Korea’s nuclear problem. While the
brand images of Samsung or LG Electronics may be more immediately recognized and
more favorable in the U.S. and around the world, surveys show that large percentages of
people do not know that they are Korean companies.
South Korea’s national image problem persists despite the wealth of information made
available globally via the World Wide Web. Why is this the case? In part, the image is
accurate, because the division of Korea and the ongoing armistice that stopped fighting
in the Korean War are historical realities. Although the two Koreas and the rest of the
world have come to live with these realities, they do affect not only national image but
also, sometimes, calculations of investment risk by international corporations considering
207
location in South Korea versus other nearby Asian countries.

To understand Korea’s national image problem, one must also consider two early and
rather well substantiated findings from the modern field of communication research:
selective attention and selective perception. Although the availability of text, photos,
and video news has arguably increased exponentially in recent decades, the users of such
information are all human beings who selectively search for, attend to, and perceive the
news about any event or nation. Over and above this, one might argue that the flood of
information produced by today’s digital networks creates an information overload effect
that actually highlights the human processes of selective attention and perception.
So the new digital media themselves are no panacea in solving the problems of
inaccurate mutual perceptions. The problem of Korean perceptions of the U.S. is a rather
persistent one, as illustrated in the widespread protests against import of American beef
that virtually paralyzed the Korean government for months in early 2008.
It seems very apparent in this new era of instant digital communication that Korea and
the U.S. are still far from achieving the core goals of the Fulbright Program. Furthermore,
it seems that only more research, more understanding, and more thoughtful consideration
of the new communications environment will help to achieve truly strong and peaceful
relations between Korea and the U.S. based on an accurate understanding of each other.
It seems that there is wide scope here for imagination about how to use the new media
modalities in future Fulbright programming.
Lee Sok Koo

Professor, American Literature
Yonsei University
In the summer of 1989, I attended a three-week orientation program offered by

Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. There were 30 Fulbrighters at the
program, representing countries around the world. The program left an indelible
mark on me. Even today, it pops up in my mind as a refreshing memory of
my days in the United States. Two rooms and a kitchen were assigned to four
participants, and I shared a room with a Nigerian Fulbrighter. Another room was
occupied by Swedish and Greek Fulbrighters. During our stay in the dormitory,
a mysterious event happened. The Swedish participant was not seen for a couple
of days in the dormitory. However, we eventually came to realize what made him
208
Taking Stock
disappear: he was with another Swedish female participant. This couple aroused
our curiosity whenever they appeared, though their affairs had nothing to do with
our life.
The three-week program was not for lectures alone. It included soccer games to
be played by two teams, an excursion to Shenandoah National Park, and a musical
concert. Most memorable was the concert by Smokey Robinson. The stage for
the musical concert was an outdoor music hall on the outskirts of Washington,
D.C. There were no designated seats, and the audience was free to sit on any
part of the lawn. Not far from us were an old black gentleman and a young lady.
They had snacks and a bottle of wine in their basket. The lady was sitting on the
knees of the old man. They enjoyed the concert, drinking and eating. We were not
exceedingly curious about the relationship between the two, but since we thought
our curiosity might become a problem, we decided not to think about it any
longer. I was reminded of William Wordsworth’s remarks—that half of the world
was created by the sights of viewers. As the concert was ascending toward its
peak, the couple rose up and moved their bodies to the beat of the music. The late
afternoon sunlight cast its warmth on the back of the couple. The leisurely life of
the audience as embodied by the scene of the concert impressed itself on my mind
as something to be long remembered.
I made the acquaintance of a couple of participants while I was attending
the orientation program. They were Lassen from Morocco, Denis from Brazil,
and Suvenja from Thailand. Our friendship continued beyond our days at
the university. What made our friendship long-lasting was that all four of us,
coincidentally, were bound for Indiana University. Lassen in particular was
frequently in touch with me. His major in comparative literature produced a
common area of concern with me, and we often met in the classroom. Proficient
in Arabic, French, and English, Lassen was able to read Lacan’s original text on
psychoanalysis, known for being difficult to comprehend. He translated Derrida’s
“About Literal Characters.” I had heard of the two names but was far from any
comprehension of their scholarly work. Lassen maintained a scholarly edge over
me, and this was why I envied him. He often invited me to his house and treated
me to Arabic foods. With a good sense of humor, he treated invitees and made
them laugh. I made the acquaintance of other Arab students through Lassen.
They awakened me to unknown parts of the Western world, as seen from the
Arab perspective. There were other Fulbrighters in the Department of English
209
Literature. The feeling of a common bond with Fulbrighters brought us into a

cohesive social solidarity. There was a Tunisian student named Sali, a tall and
slender man with a well combed mustache. He was lit like a Christmas tree among
girl students and set their hearts on fire. He was known as a member of the royal
family among the professors, but he never mentioned it to me, nor did I try to
confirm it. They regarded me as a man from a wealthy country. Judging from this
view, I gathered that the economic situation of their countries was in a deadlock. I
am told that Sali has married and is now teaching American literature at Nantes
University in France. The notion of a common bond brought Fulbrighters into
solidarity across borders. I wonder if there is any other program that has played
the same role as the Fulbright Program.
Future Fulbright Korea Grant Programs

As this book has made clear, Fulbright Korea has over the years developed one of the
largest and most diverse grant programs of any Fulbright Program in the world. The
purpose and composition of the grant programs has changed to adapt to the needs of the
times. Two of the most conspicuous examples of this are the Fulbright ETA program and
the International Education Administrator program.
The English Teaching Assistant Program

Started in the early 1990s, the ETA program has not only matured and strengthened
in Korea but also been benchmarked by Fulbright Programs in many other countries.
Although not the very first ETA grant program in the world, Fulbright Korea’s was
one of the earliest and most successful. As a result, it was benchmarked by many other
countries, including most of the Asian nations that have such programs. As of 2010,
forty-seven countries had ETA programs.11
Several characteristics of Fulbright’s ETA program underscore its strong potential for
the future. First, it helps to make Fulbright Korea’s grant program the most youthful one
in the world in terms of the average age of Fulbright grantees. In recent years, the number
of applicants to the program, the number of grantees accepted, and the number of those
who extend for a second or third year have all been increasing. By 2010, there were a total
of 886 ETA program alumni. In the 2010 program year, Fulbright had a total of 104 ETA
grantees in country, including more than 30 extendees and new grantees. The increasing
210
Taking Stock
The 2010- size of these relatively young cohorts of American Fulbright grantees to Korea creates a
2011 English
great deal of potential for the future.
Teaching Assistant
(ETA) grantees Second, in the fall of 2009 the Foreign Scholarship Board changed its regulations to
at Jungwon
allow recipients of Fulbright ETA grants to later apply for and receive a student research
University.
grant.12 This was a change that the leadership of Fulbright in Korea had fought for over
many years. Prior to this change, an individual could receive only one student grant.
This requirement prevented the ETA program from functioning effectively, as the Peace
Corps had in earlier years, as a feeder program for future Korea specialists in academia,
government, and industry.
The Fulbright International Education Administrator Program

The Fulbright International Education Administrator program also exemplifies this
change and adaptation. It has made a major contribution to the professionalization of
international education administration in both Korea and the United States.
Grant programs will likely be a cornerstone of the Fulbright Program long into the
future. To the extent that the past is a guide, new grant programs will evolve to meet the
challenges faced. In recent years, scholarships offered by Korea’s large Jaebeol groups have
211
increased in both number and in the size of the stipend and benefits they carry. Some
have suggested that this growth in the variety of opportunities takes away some of the
luster of the Fulbright grants.
We suggest at least two characteristics of Fulbright Korea’s grants that should be
kept in mind for the future. First, they carry the prestige of the Fulbright name, built
through exchanges over more than sixty years with well over 150 countries around the
world. Fulbright is the largest, oldest, and arguably most prestigious scholarly grant
program in the world, initially modeled somewhat after the Rhodes Scholarship, of
which J. William Fulbright himself was a recipient. Second, Fulbright alumni can make
special contributions that carry value far beyond the amount of a stipend while doing
graduate study. Over the years, and especially in times of economic difficulty, alumni of
the Fulbright Korea student program have returned to Korea and faced difficulty finding
appropriate employment. This is one concrete area in which the large number of Fulbright
alumni in Korea can be of specific and immediate help as they meet with and advise the
new Korean Fulbright alumni and help them find meaningful employment.
American
International
Education
Administrator
Program (AIEA)
2009 grantees.
212
Taking Stock
Fulbright in the Evolving U.S.-Korea Alliance

Although the number of American Fulbright grantees coming to Korea has
approximately equaled the number of Korean grantees sent to the United States over the
years, the overall pattern in U.S.-Korea educational exchange has been characterized by
a one-way flow. The number of Koreans studying in the U.S. has been far greater than
that of Americans coming to Korea for research and study. Over the next sixty years, that
pattern is likely to change dramatically and may even reverse itself, due to the massive
shift toward Asia in terms of global economic activity, and also due to changes taking
place in tertiary education within the U.S. Within the higher education community in
the U.S., there is a growing recognition of the need to provide more American students
with study abroad opportunities. In a world more closely knit together by modern
communication and travel technologies, it seems probable that a significant portion of
those students would want to study in Asia. This holds the prospect, in keeping with the
binational ideal of the Fulbright Program, of turning the one-way flow in Korea-U.S.
educational exchange into a truly two-way intercultural and educational alliance for the
21st century.
A prescient report written in 1968 by a long-range planning team made up of four U.S.
scholars is still worth reading today. Among their suggestions was the following:
As Korea develops its capabilities still further, there might be good reason to
consider establishing additional programs between groups such as the U.S.
National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, and the U.S.
National Science Foundation and appropriate institutional components in the
Korean universities as well as between such U.S. governmental units and their
ROKG counterparts.13
...Our concept of the future status and role of the binational commission
extends somewhat the traditional role of such bodies. We would hope that the
commission could become more visible, more active, and more effective in several
ways. Its overall impact, we feel, can be substantially increased if it can find ways of
using some of its resources to support high-level seminars involving U.S., Korean,
and other leaders to discuss matters of educational policy as well as operational
problems. The commission could serve an important role, moreover, through
the gathering of facts on educational exchanges, on opportunities (other than
those available. through the use of the commission’s own resources) for study or
scholarly work overseas, and on relevant activities by various groups in Korea. Such
information would obviously be of significance to the commission in connection
213
with its own program design, but it would also assist many other groups having an
interest in the advancement of education in Korea.
In sum, we would hope that the binational commission could take a position of
leadership in the area of the exchange of ideas and materials, while it continues to
serve the function of administering its exchange of persons program.14
The above long-range goals as stated in the late 1960s seem very relevant in 2010
to Fulbright Korea’s future endeavors. Globalization itself, along with the information
revolution, may create a set of conditions that allow Fulbright Korea to exert leadership
in the exchange of ideas and information and in new forms of networking to improve the
quality of those ideas. This is not to suggest that video conferencing or social networking
can replace face-to-face conversations. To the contrary, they may reinforce the need for
personal intercultural exchange and contact, especially of the sort that involves learning a
new language and culture.
Future Advising and Testing Activities

Student advising and educational testing are two major activities that have strongly
complemented Fulbright’s grant activities. Despite the dramatic changes in both of these
areas brought about by technological change and the dramatic growth in study abroad,
they constitute two program areas in which Fulbright Korea has been continuously
involved almost from the very start.
In the field of student advising, social networking, video, and mobile communication,
along with increased involvement by private study abroad institutes, are profoundly
changing the nature of the advising. However, the need for the provision of unbiased,
accurate, and up-to-date information about the full range of educational opportunities
in the United States is as great as ever, if not more so in the new information age. In
the future, Fulbright’s U.S. Education Center will increasingly be called upon to help
prospective students and their parents sort out the credible and useful information from
the flood of data available on the World Wide Web. Also, despite the new information
media, the need for direct human contact in the advising process is likely to continue for
a long, long time.
One of the problems in high-stakes academic testing, that of cheating, is an age-old
one. These days, new miniaturized electronic technology is used in an effort by some to
circumvent the rules and get a higher score on the TOEFL, the SAT, or other high stakes
admissions tests. Fulbright Korea’s mission always has been, and will continue to be, that
of ensuring test security and hence the reliability and credibility of academic testing. The
214
Taking Stock
health of the academic testing systems overall is an important element in academic and
intercultural exchanges between the U.S. and Korea.
Fulbright Korea and Globalization

The information revolution, along with advances in travel and trade, contribute to a
phenomenon widely referred to as globalization. Accompanying this process is a growing
awareness that many of the problems faced by the nations of the world are global in scope.
Global warming, nuclear proliferation, malnutrition, disease, and internet governance
issues are but a few examples.
Globalization and the information revolution have fundamentally changed the
environment in which Fulbright Korea operates. There are several major dimensions to
this change. One is that the private sector today plays a far larger role in education and
international educational exchange than it has historically. This means, among other
things, that travel between the United States and Korea is easier and more frequent,
whether for business or pleasure. Another is that private corporations, including Korea’s
large jaebeol groups, have become major sources of financial support for Korean students
who want to study abroad.
Although the Fulbright Program has an important binational component and has
grown through bilateral agreements between the United States and a majority of the
other nations around the world, its mission is broad enough to encompass the global
challenges faced by the peoples of the world. As we have shown in earlier chapters,
Fulbright Korea benefited over the years from the sharing of experience with other
Fulbright Programs in the Asia region and from cooperative efforts.
Globalization and the global scope of many problems Korea and other nations of the
region face suggest that Fulbright’s future in the 21st century should involve more active
entry into this new, global arena. One sure sign that Korea has recognized the new reality
was the creation, in 2009, of the Global Korea Scholarship Program.
The Global Korea Scholarship Program Benchmarks Fulbright

There is probably no better indicator of the profound impact of the Fulbright Program
in Korea than the fact that the Global Korea Scholarship Program, announced in 2009,
benchmarked the Fulbright Program. The objective of the Global Korea Scholarship
program is to generate deeper mutual understanding between world countries by
facilitating educational exchange and human resource mobility, thereby contributing to
the development of international education and peace. In particular, the government of
215
Ahn Byong Man
As Minister of Education,
Science and Technology,
Dr. Ahn Byong Man, who is
also a Fulbright alumnus,
benchmarked the Fulbright
Program in creating the new
Global Korea Scholarship
Program.
Ahn Byong Man was born on February 8, 1941. In 1964, he received a B.A. in
public administration from Seoul National University, and in 1967 he received an
M.A. in law from the same university. From 1975 through 2006, he held faculty
positions at Myongji University. After earning a Ph.D. in political science from
the University of Florida in 1974, he began a long academic career at Hankuk
University of Foreign Studies, serving as president of that university from 1994 to
1998 and again from 2002 to 2006.
On November 25, 1996, he was elected as the fifth president of the Korea
Fulbright Alumni Association, a position in which he served until September
1998. He was the recipient of two Fulbright awards, one in 1970 for degree study
in public administration, and in 1981 an Asian Scholar in Residence award in
political science at the University of Florida.
On August 6, 2008, he became South Korea’s Minister of Education, Science
and Technology, a position that he held until mid-2010. He served as president of
the Korea-U.S. Education and Culture Foundation and as chair of the Presidential
Council for Future and Vision.
Among his many accomplishments as Minister of Education, Science
and Technology, one of the most significant was that he presided over the
establishment of the Global Korea Scholarship Program. That program represents
by far the most ambitious effort by another country to benchmark the Fulbright
Program. Its establishment surely owes a great deal to the Fulbright experiences of
Minister Ahn and many other Korean Fulbright alumni.
216
Taking Stock
Korea seeks to develop mutual and reciprocal cooperation with developing countries by
providing software-oriented development assistance in education and human resources
development, drawing from the experience Korea holds in both of these fields.15
A paper presented by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology at a Korea
Fulbright Alumni Association meeting in December of 2009 stated, “As Korea is at a
transitional stage, playing a more important role in international society, the shape of
a new Asia foreign policy, resource policy, and propulsion of national strategy, in order
to construct global talent network.... We propose that Korea establish a representative
international scholarship program called the Global Korea Scholarship, similar to the
American Fulbright scholarship program.... University students from all countries [would]
be awarded diverse short- and long-term programs to invite prominent leaders to examine
the affairs of developing countries in such fields as education, science and technology. This
would involve not only teaching them our strategy and knowhow, but also preparing and
building a strong network of human talent for the future.”16
Minister of Education, Science and Technology Ahn Byong Man spoke of the new
scholarship program at the same alumni association meeting. He noted that Korea, in
creating its new scholarship program, had benchmarked the Fulbright Program. Although
the new Global Korea Scholarship Program emphasizes exchanges with developing
countries, it is global in scope and potentially involves all countries. On another occasion,
Minister Ahn said that scholarships focused on developing countries would foster
understanding of things Korean among future leaders of those countries. “It reminds me
of those days when bright Korean students used scholarships to study in the U.S.,” he
said.17
Korea’s adoption of the Fulbright model suggests new directions for the future. One
possibility that deserves exploration is that of joint Fulbright-Korea Global Scholarship
grants to address urgent problems of mutual concern or advanced, cutting-edge research.
Considered in retrospect, there can probably be no more powerful testimony to the
impact of Fulbright exchanges with Korea to date. However, as we have sought to
clearly convey, the need for mutual understanding between Korea and the United States,
as well as among the other countries of the world, is as urgent as ever. This suggests a
future for Fulbright Korea in which the ideals of the program are applied with renewed
commitment to the challenges facing the United States, Korea, and its neighbors in the
region and around the world.
217
218
Epilogue
Observing the 60th Anniversary

of Fulbright Korea
Several events were held during 2009 and 2010 in commemoration of the 60th
anniversary of Fulbright Korea. The following section describes them, with emphasis on
those that were held prior to publication of this book.
Seoul Symposium on Korean Education in the 21st Century 1

A symposium on Korean education policy in the 21st century was held in downtown
Seoul on October 23, 2009, to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Fulbright
Program in Korea. All participants, including those who raised questions from the floor,
contributed to making the event a wonderful platform for debate on a new direction
for the Korean public education system. The key issue discussed was how to reform the
system, which has made preparing students for university entrance exams the top priority
at almost every school.
Among the participants, there seemed to be a fairly strong consensus that the race to
gain admissions to a limited number of prestigious universities has impeded schools from
adequately preparing students for the challenges of the 21st century. Many expressed
concern that the traditional public education system is incapable of providing human
capital that meets the demands of an expanding global economy. Professor Moon Yong-
Lin, the former Korean Minister of Education, addressed this issue as the first speaker
of the symposium. He stressed that human capabilities cannot be measured by a one-
dimensional university entrance examination. In order to properly measure a student’s
219
creative potential, he argued, multiple standards of evaluation should be introduced into

the education system, while also giving students more freedom to chart the course of
their own educational path.
The second speaker, Professor Lee Seung Hoon from Seoul National University,
provided a stimulating counterpoint. According to his view, market competition is
actually highly beneficial to the public education system. Therefore, the much lamented
race for admission to prestigious universities should actually be encouraged and expanded.
To achieve this objective, he proposed that Korea focus its resources on expanding the
number of premier academic institutions to as many as twenty.
After the two thought-provoking presentations, those invited to sit in on a discussion
panel presented their opinions. Professor Kim Young Hwa from Hongik University
expressed her concerns about Lee’s provocative policy proposal, while. Kim Sun-
Duk, a columnist from Dong-A Ilbo, was more favorable toward the economy-based
stance. Also during the discussion, Kim In Whoe, an emeritus professor from Yonsei
University, explicated the new demand for creative human capital, and Shin Do-Chul
from Sookmyung Women’s University emphasized the need to circumscribe the influence
of the central government on public education in order to give more control to local
authorities.
Following the first panel discussion, faculty from distinguished schools shared how
they had helped students achieve exemplary success along multiple dimensions, including
admission into top universities. Do Jaewon from Geochang High School spoke forcefully
about the importance of respecting the individual differences in student personalities.
In contrast, Kim Jong Mo, principal of Hanil High School, illustrated the benefits of
incorporating traditional elements into the public school curriculum. Yun Chung-il,
principal of the Korean Minjok Leadership Academy, ardently defended his school’s strict
academic emphasis, while Lee Wondeuk of Sangsan High School presented evidence
to show that improving the quality of public school education could quell the feverish
demand for private tutoring. Lastly, Park Jin-chae of Yongjeong Middle School explained
his school’s efforts to nurture creativity and excellence, while never losing sight of the
need to prepare students to be better citizens.
Audience members at the symposium listened attentively during the discussion, and
many jumped at the opportunity to express their own views on how to improve public
education. The positive, upbeat atmosphere left observers feeling confident about the
future success of the Korean public education system in the 21st century.
220
Epilogue
Observing the 60th Anniversary of Fulbright Korea
Toward Peace in Korea and the World:

60th Anniversary of Fulbright in Korea
On July 23, the Korean ambassador to the United States, Han Duk-Soo, hosted
a celebration of Fulbright Korea’s 60th anniversary at his residence in northwest
Washington, D.C. It was attended by over 170 dignitaries, including former ambassadors
to Korea, university presidents from the Washington area, Korean and American
Fulbright alumni, and both current and former executive directors of the Fulbright
Commission. Senior executives from the College Board, ETS, and other organizations
that have worked closely with Fulbright Korea also attended.
Most of those attending the Washington event had some Korean background or
experience. The Korean motif in the architecture of the ambassador’s residence added to
the atmosphere of the event, as did the excellent Korean food, which was prepared under
the supervision of the ambassador’s wife. The national anthems of the United States and
the Republic of Korea were sung by vocalists at the start of the reception.
The keynote address, on the topic of “The Importance of Citizen Diplomacy,” was
delivered by James Leach, chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities. He
said, in part:
Ambassador Han Duk-Soo, Secretary

Stock, Ambassador Hill, Ambassador
Hubbard, friends of the people of Korea:
We gather this evening to celebrate the
60th anniversary of the Fulbright Program
in Korea.
In so doing, we honor distinguished
program participants, but, more profoundly,
we underscore the vital role of exchanges
Korean Ambassador
to the United States and cultural diplomacy itself.
Han Duk-Soo hosted Perspective is difficult to apply to events
a reception at his
residence on July under way and just past. But the evidence
23, 2010, in honor of is in that exchanges make a difference
the 60th anniversary
of the Fulbright in the lives of individuals and the social
Korea program. structure of societies. The speed of travel
and the virtually instantaneous capacity to transfer thought great distances have
made neighbors of every individual on the planet. But being neighbors is not the
same thing as respectfully sharing space on the Earth. Mutual understanding is
221
not as easily uplifted as technology is upgraded.

Technology provides ever more sophisticated means to communicate, but it
does not create the inevitability that the images and messages transferred will lead
to better relations. Rubbing up against neighbors who have different manners and
different ways of speaking can sometimes spark friction. That is why exchange
programs that involve learning and living in the shoes, shirts, and dresses of others
make such a difference.
One of the myths of our times is that relations between countries are principally
a function of government policy and that diplomacy is exclusively a government-
to-government dialogue. Actually, it is businessmen and women, unelected people
of good will—be they artists or scientists, athletes, students, or scholars—who are
more central to defining the tone of relations between states than public officials.
Cultural diplomacy generally precedes and increasingly supersedes government-
to-government relations.
Shim Jai Ok, executive director of the Fulbright Commission, also delivered short
remarks at the gathering, which included the following expression of hope that the
Fulbright Program could help with Korean unification:
Ambassador
Christopher R. Hill
congratulates the
Fulbright Korea
Commission.
222
Epilogue
Korea’s Fulbright Commission has grown to be one of the largest and most
active worldwide, standing out among the 190 countries currently reached by the
international Fulbright Program. Conspicuously absent from this list of countries,
however, is our neighbor directly to the north. It is my sincere hope that one day
the entire Korean Peninsula will be able to benefit from the Fulbright mission.
The central goal of the Fulbright Program is the promotion of world peace
through mutual understanding. In light of current events, I believe that it is
essential that international academic and cultural exchange be allowed in North
Korea.
Let us hope that it will not take another sixty years for North Koreans to have
the opportunity to benefit from this prestigious program and, through it, learn the
meaning of peace and the importance of international understanding.
The events commemorating Fulbright Korea’s 60th anniversary during 2010 also
included a traveling art exhibition entitled “Cross-Cultural Visions” that took place in
New York, Washington, D.C., and Seoul. The venues and dates were Gallery Korea in
New York, July 7-July 16; KORUS House in Washington, D.C., July 23-August 6; and
the Seoul Arts Center, October 8-October 15.
As noted in the book printed for the exhibition, “Korea’s Fulbright program boasts
of more grantees with contributions to the global artistic community than any other
Fulbright commission worldwide. To convey their gratitude to the program that allowed
them the unique opportunity to study and do research abroad, 22 Korean and 13
American artists will come together in the commemorative exhibition entitled ‘Cross-
Cultural Visions’ to celebrate the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Fulbright
program in Korea.”2
Cross-Cultural
Visions was
hosted by the
KORUS House in
Washington, DC.
223
List of Artists
U.S. Artists
Heather Bayless Harris Deller Ronald duBois

Richard W. Franklin Barbara Grinell Adrienne Walker Hoard
Benjamin Kaplan Aimee Lee Bruce Metcalf
Komelia Hongja Okim Carla Stansifer Richard D. Weis
Allen Zaruba
Korean Artists
Choi Ah Young Choe Young Hoon Chung Kyoung Yeon

Ha Dong Chul Ha Joon Soo Han Un Sung
Hong Jung Hee Im Sangbin Jahng Soo Hong
Jin Youngsun Kim Seung Hee Kim Young Ock
Lee Chunghie Lee Jung Sook Lee In Gyong
Lee Sung Soon Lim Mi Kang Lim Young Kyun
Park Keun Ja Song Burn Soo Suh Dong Hee
Yoo Lizzy
A reception by the U.S. ambassador to Korea, Kathleen Stephens, was scheduled for
October 8. On that same date, a symposium on the topic of “Improving the Quality of
Higher Education in Korea” was scheduled for the Korea Press Center. On October 9,
a conference and gala banquet on the theme of “Toward Peace in Korea and the World”
were scheduled to take place at the Shilla Hotel in Seoul. The conference included
keynote speeches by former ambassador to Korea Christopher Hill and former Minister
of Education, Science and Technology Ahn Byong Man.
224
Epilogue
From left: Artists Im Sang Bin, Allen

Zaruba, Lee Chunghie, Youngsun Jin,
Richard D. Weis, and Komelia Okim at the
opening reception of the Cross-Cultural
Visions exhibition in New York City.
On the occasion of the 60th anniversary

of the Fulbright program in Korea, 13
American and 22 Korean Fulbright
alumni came together to exhibit their
work in a traveling art exhibit entitled
Cross-Cultural Visions
225
Endnotes
A Biographical Note on Senator J. William Fulbright

1 Brower, Brock. “The Roots of the Arkansas Questioner,” Life, Vol. 60, No. 19, May 13, 1966, pp.
92-117.
2 Brower, p. 100.
3 http: //www.cies.org/Fulbright/Senator_Fulbright.htm
4 Brower, p. 96.
Preface
1 Frederick F. Carriere wrote most of Chapter 1 and also spent two weeks in Seoul for intensive
consultations on the entire book with Shim and Larson during the spring of 2010. Horace H.
Underwood authored most of Chapter 6, as well as helping to frame the broad themes of the
book early in the writing process. Chapter 8 was based largely on contributions from the Korea
Fulbright Alumni Association. Initial drafts of the remaining chapters were prepared by Shim
Jai Ok and James F. Larson. In short, by virtue of numerous discussions among the authors,
their common background as Fulbright Commission administrators, and the above division of
labor, this was a co-authored history in the true sense of the word.
Chapter 1
1 The guide for the excursion to Ganghwa Island was Frederick F. Carriere, who at that time was
the executive director of the Korea Fulbright program.
2 Korea Fulbright Alumni Association Newsletter, No. 4, November 1990, p. 3.
3 In July 1988, President Roh Tae Woo called for new efforts to promote North-South exchanges,
family reunification, inter-Korean trade, and contact in international forums. The first of
eight prime minister-level meetings between the two Koreas occurred in September 1990,
the same month in which he received a visit by Senator Fulbright. Only a little over a year
later, in December 1991, two major agreements were signed: the Agreement on Reconciliation,
Nonaggression, Exchanges, and Cooperation (a.k.a. the Basic Agreement) and the Declaration on
the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula (a.k.a. the Joint Declaration). These agreements
marked the first breakthrough on the road to reconciliation on the Korean Peninsula.
4 For these and other details, see http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjido.
227
5 This popular uprising in April 1960, in which students played a pivotal role, overthrew the
dictatorial and corrupt Syngman Rhee regime. The resultant political transformation was not
linear, however, as dictatorial rule returned just a little over a year later when General Park
Chung Hee seized control of the government in an impeccably executed coup d’état. The
transition to full democracy was delayed until 1987.
6 For recent reminisces by Harriet Fulbright of her visits to Korea, see the interview by Joy Stocke
in Wild River Review, August 2010, http: //www.wildriverreview.com/interview/harriet-mayor-
fulbright/world-peace-through-education/stocke. This quotation and the quotation in the
preceding paragraph are taken from this interview.
7 Fulbright, J. William with Seth P. Tillman. The Price of Empire. New York, New York: Pantheon
Books, New York, 1989, pp. 192-3.
8 Ibid., p. 192.
9 Ibid., p. 194.
10 Beinart, Peter. The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris. New York, NY: HarperCollins,
2010, pp. 172-75.
11 This is a personal reminiscence by Frederick F. Carriere.
12 This is a box containing gifts for the bride, such as silk fabrics or jewelry, which traditionally
was delivered to the bride by the groom’s family. It should be given prior to the marriage. Our
gift was belated.
13 Cassandra Pyle died suddenly on November 5, 2000, after a lifetime of work in international
education.
14 Fulbright, pp. 218-19.
15 Remarks by Senator J. William Fulbright on “The 25th Anniversary of The Fulbright Act,”
Congressional Record-Senate, August 2, 1971, S12864.
16 Ibid.
18 Strout, Richard L. “Changing Cannons to Cultural Currency: An Intimate Message from
Washington.” The Christian Science Monitor, March 2, 1946. Newspaper clipping, J. William
Fulbright Papers, University of Arkansas Libraries.
19 “Perspectives on International Scholarly Exchange,” report of a conference held at the National
Academy of Sciences Summer Studies Center, Houston House, Woods Hole, Massachusetts,
August 24-25, 1972, Washington, D.C.: Council for International Exchange of Scholars, pp.
17-8.
20 Ibid., p. 5.
21 The 45th Annual Report, 2008-2009. J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board, United
States Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, p. 68.
228
Endnotes
24 The 45th Annual Report, 2008-2009, J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board, United
States Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, p. 66.
25 Ibid., p. 60.
26 “Stewards for International Exchange: The Role of the National Research Council in the
Senior Fulbright-Hays Program, 1947-1975,” Commission on Human Resources, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C.: The National Science Foundation, April 30, 1976, p. 16.
17-8.
28 Scarfo, Richard D. “The History of Title VI and Fulbright-Hays,” http: //www.isop.ucla.edu/
pacrim/title6/Over2-Scarfo.pdf.
17-8.
31 Arndt, Richard T. and David Lee Rubin, eds. The Fulbright Difference. New Brunswick, New
Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1993, p. 13.
32 Report of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Fiscal Year 1950-51,
United States Government Printing Office, p. 38. Text can be accessed at http: //books.google.
com.
33 Collection of Treaties: Bilateral Treaties, Volume 1 (1948-1961). Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Official National Record, pp. 357-363.
34 History of the Exchange Program with Korea, n.d., p. 8. Document provided by University of
Arkansas Libraries, J. William Fulbright Papers.
35 From Summary Statement, Foreign Service Despatch No. 124, “EDUCATIONAL
EXCHANGE, Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1957,” from AmEmbassy, Seoul to Washington,
D.C., August 22.
36 Foreign Service Despatch No. 65, “EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE, Annual Report, Fiscal
Year 1958,” from AmEmbassy, Seoul to Washington, D.C., August 8, 1958, p. 1.
37 Ibid., p. 2.
38 Ibid., p. 2.
229
39 Department of State Report, marked “ONLY COPY Reports Branch” (in handwriting), from
Ambassador Samuel D. Berger, PAO G. Huntington Damon, CAO Gregory Henderson, U. of
Arkansas Libraries Archives.
40 Ibid.
41 Arndt, Richard T. and David Lee Rubin, eds. The Fulbright Difference. New Brunswick, New
Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1993, p. 14.
42 History of the Exchange Program with Korea, p. 8. Document provided by University of Arkansas
BEA and J. William Fulbright archivist.
43 Ibid.
44 Department of State Report, marked “ONLY COPY Reports Branch” (in handwriting), from
Ambassador Samuel D. Berger, PAO G. Huntington Damon, CAO Gregory Henderson, U. of
Arkansas Libraries Archives.
45 Annual Report of the United States Educational Commission in Korea for the Program Year
1960-61. Approved by the executive committee November 8, 1961, p. 28.
46 Possibly link to video of remarks by Ahn Byong Man, Minister of Education, Science and
Technology, December 3, 2009, Annual Meeting of Korea Fulbright Alumni Association,
Korea Press Center.
Chapter 2
1 “Educational and Cultural Exchange: Annual Report on the Educational Exchange Program,
July 1960 through June 1961,” Foreign Service Despatch No. 64, from AmEmbassy, Seoul to
Department of State, Washington, August 14, 1961, p. 1.
2 Ibid., p. 1.
3 Ibid., p. 3.
4 Ibid, p. 1.
5 http: //www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/50th/history.html.
6 Republic of Korea Government Document. Collection of Treaties: Bilateral Treaties, Volume 1
(1948-1961). , Ministry of Foreign Affairs Official National Record, p. 565.
7 United States Educational Commission in Korea. Annual Report of the United States
Educational Commission in Korea for the Program Year 1960-61, p. 28.
8 “Educational and Cultural Exchange: Annual Report on the Educational Exchange Program,
July 1960 through June 1961,” p. 13.
230
Endnotes
Educational Commission in Korea for the Program Year 1960-61, pp. 4-5.
11 At the beginning of the U.S. Educational Commission in Korea’s operations, its executive
director was in fact referred to as the executive secretary. In Korea, as in Japan, use of this
terminology would tend to convey that the individual was assisting or working for a higher
level person. Therefore, at some point the title was changed to executive director. Shim Jai Ok,
personal communication with James F. Larson, May 14, 2010.
12 “Educational and Cultural Exchange: Final Report of the Exchange Program for the Period 1
July 1961 to 30 June 1962,” Department of State Airgram No. A-515 from AmEmbassy, Seoul,
January 16, 1963, p. 7.
July 1961 to 30 June 1962,” p. 7.
July 1961 to 30 June 1962,” p. 8.
15 Stewards for International Exchange: The Role of the National Research Council in the Senior
Fulbright-Hays Program, 1947-1975. Commission on Human Resources, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C.: The National Science Foundation, April 30, 1976, p. 17.
16 Fulbright-Hays Act. Copy in PDF format available for download at http://www2.ed.gov/
about/offices/list/ope/iegps/fulbrighthaysact.pdf.
17 Scarfo, Richard D. “The History of Title VI and Fulbright-Hays,” http: //www.isop.ucla.edu/
pacrim/title6/Over2-Scarfo.pdf.
18 http://faroutliers.blogspot.com/2007_11_01_archive.html. Blog post containing this obituary
for Marshall Pihl, which was posted to a Korean studies listserve in July 1995.
19 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Executive Director’s Report. March 1967,
pp. 24-25.
20 Ibid., p. 25.
21 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Seventieth Meeting. April
11, 1967.
22 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Seventy-First Meeting.
May 19-20, 1967.
23 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Executive Director’s Report. March 1967, p.
13.
24 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Eighty-Third Meeting. July
3, 1968.
25 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Ninety-First Meeting.
October 30, 1969.
26 Lee, Sang-Dawn. Big Brother, Little Brother: The American Influence on Korean Culture. Boston
and Oxford: Lexington Books, 2002, p. 31.
231
27 “Educational and Cultural Exchange: Annual Report for Korea for the Fiscal Year July 1,
1967-June 30, 1968,” Department of State Airgram No. A-764, p. 4.
28 Lee, Sang-Dawn, p. 34.
29 Ibid., p. 34.
30 Ibid., p. 35.
31 Ginsburg, Thomas. “The Warren Court in East Asia: An Essay in Comparative Law,” Chapter
10 in Harry N. Scheiber, ed., Earl Warren and the Warren Court: The Legacy in American and
Foreign Law. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2007, p. 266.
35 “Educational and Cultural Exchange: Annual Report July 1966 to June 1967,” Department of
State Airgram No. 180 from AmEmbassy, Seoul, October 6, 1967, p. 9.
36 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Annual Report of the United States
July 1961 to 30 June 1962,” p. 14.
38 “Educational and Cultural Exchange: Annual Report on Educational and Cultural Exchange
Program for FY 1964 ( July 1963 to June 1964),” Department of State Airgram No. A-261,
Dec. 1, 1964, p. 7.
3.
40 The United States Educational Commission in Korea, Executive Director’s Report. May 1967, p.
28.
41 “Education and Cultural Exchange: Exchange Program Report FY 1963,” Department of
State Airgram from AmEmbassy, Seoul to the Department of State, Washington, D.C., April
22, 1964, p. 14.
42 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Executive Director’s Report. May 1967, p.
21.
15.
44 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Executive Director’s Report. May 1967, p.
22.
45 The State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs was referred to by the
acronym CU before its merger with USIA in 1977 to form the U.S. ICA.
232
Endnotes
46 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. “Appendix I: EDUCATIONAL AND

CULTURAL EXCHANGE, Report on Trip to the United States,” Executive Director’s Report.
March 1967, pp. 2-3.
47 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Seventieth Meeting. April
11, 1967.
48 Ibid.
49 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Seventy-First Meeting.
May 19-20, 1967.
15.
52 Ibid., p. 16.
55 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Sixty-Ninth Meeting.
March 17, 1967
56 Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the United States Educational Commission/Japan and the United
States Educational Commission/Korea, Seoul, June 6-8, 1969.
57 Lee, Sang-Dawn, p. 28
58 Ibid., p. 28
July 1961 to 30 June 1962,” p. 11.
60 Lee, Sang-Dawn. Big Brother, Little Brother: The American Influence on Korean Culture
61 Ibid., p. 32.
62 Ibid., p. 31.
63 Ibid., p. 14.
64 Ibid., p. 55.
65 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Sixty-Ninth Meeting.
March 17, 1967.
66 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Eighty-First Meeting. May
10-12, 1968.
67 Ibid.
233
68 Beckmann, George M., Bowen C. Dees, Walter H.C. Laves and Edward W. Wagner. “The
Fulbright Program in Korea,” report to the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs,
Washington, D.C.: Department of State, September 1968, p. 3.
69 Ibid, p. 6.
70 Ibid, pp. 6-7.
71 Ibid., pp. 7-8.
72 Ibid, pp. 9-10.
73 Ibid., p. 9.
74 “Educational and Cultural Exchange: Exchange Program Report FY 1963,” Department of
State Airgram No. A-733 from AmEmbassy, Seoul, April 22, 1964, p. 21.
77 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Executive Director’s Report. March 1967,
pp. 2-3.
78 “The Future of U.S. Technical Cooperation with Korea,” report to the Agency for International
Development by a panel of the Board on Science and Technology for International
Development, Office of the Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Sciences, November 1969,
p. 9.
79 Ibid., p. 38.
13.
81 At that time, the in-country program consisted of a separate budget category to fund seminars,
workshops, English language classes, certain in-country grants, and other non-grant program
activities inside Korea.
18.
83 Ibid., p. 18.
84 Ibid, pp. 18-19.
86 Ibid., pp. 8-9.
87 Ibid., p. 6.
88 Ibid, p. 7.
89 Ibid., p. 9-10.
234
Endnotes
90 Ibid., p. 8.
91 “Educational and Cultural Exchange: Annual Report on Educational and Cultural Exchange
Program for FY 1964 ( July 1963 to June 1964),” Department of State Airgram No. A-261,
December 1, 1964, p. 7.
92 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Seventy-Fourth Meeting.
September 19, 1967, pp. 2-3.
93 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Seventy-Fifth Meeting.
October 17, 1967
94 Annual Report of the Korean-American Educational Commission for the Program Year 1972
(Covering Exchanges for the Year from July 1, 1972 to June 30, 1973), p. 14.
95 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Seventy-Eighth Meeting.
February 15, 1968.
96 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Eightieth Meeting. April
10, 1968
97 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Eighty-Fourth Meeting.
September 18, 1968.
98 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Eighty-Second Meeting.
June 5, 1968.
Chapter 3
1 Lee, Hyung-Koo. The Korean Economy: Perspectives for the Twenty-First Century. Albany: State
University of New York Press, 1996, p. 20-2.
2 Excerpt from Edward Schultz’s reminiscence in Alumni Reminiscences: Reflections on 60 Years of
The Fulbright Program in Korea. Seoul: Korean-American Educational Commission, 2010, pp.
18-9.
3 Annual Report of the Korean-American Educational Commission for the Program Year 1972
4 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Fifty-Second
Meeting. November 14, 1977, p. 2.
5 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Fifty-Fourth
Meeting. January 20, 1978, p. 2.
6 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Sixtieth Meeting.
November 10-12, 1978, p. 8.
7 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Ninety-Second Meeting.
February 18, 1970, draft copy.
235
8 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Ninety-Eighth Meeting.
October 2-4, 1970.
9 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Twenty-Sixth
Meeting. October 25-26, 1974, p. 3.
10 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Thirty-Sixth
11 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Thirty-Ninth
Meeting. March 10, 1976, pp. 2-3.
12 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Forty-Second
Meeting. October 15-17, 1976, pp. 4-7.
13 Wright, Edward. Changes in KAEC Program Focus and Activity Over a Ten Year Period,
September 1977.
14 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Fifty-First
Meeting. September 30-October 2, 1977, p. 3.
October 2-4, 1970, p. 2.
17 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Hundred and Third
Meeting. June 28, 1971, pp. 2-3.
18 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Ninety-Ninth Meeting.
January 19, 1971, pp. 2-4.
19 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Twentieth
Meeting. December 3, 1973, pp. 3-4.
20 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Ninety-Fourth Meeting.
April 28, 1970, p. 2, draft copy.
21 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Hundred and Fifth
Meeting. Songnisan, November 13, 1971.
October 2-4, 1970, p. 2.
23 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Fifteenth Meeting.
April 9, 1973, p. 3.
24 Translation of Minister’s letter included with attachments distributed for the commission
meeting of April 9, 1973.
25 Riggs, Fred W. “Item II of Agenda: Social Science Information System: U.S.A., Notes on
Infrastructure and Information Policy,” report from UNESCO meeting of experts on the
problems and strategies of incorporating the social sciences into the World Science Information
System (UNISIST), p. 9, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0001/000104/010498EB.pdf.
236
Endnotes
26 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Nineteenth

Meeting. November 10-11, 1973, pp. 6-7.
27 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Forty-Ninth
Meeting. August 29, 1977, p. 2.
28 From internal “Historical Highlights” timeline provided by Mrs. Im Pu Hui.
29 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Hundredth Meeting.
February 26, 1971, p. 3.
30 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Hundred and Eleventh
31 “Fulbright Center Opens to Further ROK-U.S. Studies,” The Korea Herald, November 13,
1974.
32 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Forty-Ninth
November 10-12, 1978, p. 8.
34 “Increase in Counseling Center Use,” Attachment 10 for Commission meeting of February 27,
1979.
35 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Sixty-Fourth
Meeting. July 11, 1979, pp. 2-3.
36 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Twentieth
Meeting. December 3, 1973, pp. 3-4.
37 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Twenty-Eighth
Meeting. January 9, 1975, p. 3-4.
38 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Sixty-Second
Meeting. February 27, 1979, p. 2.
39 “Fulbright Program in Financial Havoc,” The Korea Times, February 11, 1970.
40 Ibid.
42 Ibid.
October 2-4, 1970.
44 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Ninety-Ninth Meeting.
January 19, 1971, p. 5.
45 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Thirty-Third
Meeting. July 15, 1975, p. 3-4.
237
46 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Fifty-Third

Meeting. December 19, 1977, p. 4.
47 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Fifty-Eighth
Meeting. July 5, 1978, p. 2.
48 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Fifty-Ninth
Meeting. September 20, 1978, pp. 1-6.
November 10-12, 1978, p. 9.
50 Annual Report of the United States Educational Commission in Korea for the Program Year 1970
51 The United States Educational Commission in Korea. Minutes of the Ninety-Fourth Meeting.
April 28, 1970, p. 3, draft copy.
52 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Fourteenth
Meeting. January 31, 1973, pp. 3-4.
53 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Nineteenth
Meeting. November 10-11, 1973, p. 4.
54 Shim, Jai Ok. Personal communication James F. Larson, May 3, 2010, Seoul, Fulbright
Building, Mapo.
55 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Forty-Sixth
Meeting. March 29, 1977, p. 4.
56 Excerpts f rom Clark, Donald N., “Remembering Life in Fulbright House,” Alumni
Reminiscences: Reflections on 60 Years of the Fulbright Program in Korea. Seoul: Korean-American
Educational Commission, July 2010, pp. 21-24.
57 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Fiftieth Meeting.
September 20, 1977, p. 3.
November 10-12, 1978, p. 11.
59 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Sixty-Fifth
Meeting. October 9, 1979, p. 3.
60 “Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government
of the Republic of Korea for Financing Certain Educational Exchange Programs,” signed at
Seoul, June 18, 1963; entered into force June 18, 1963, Treaties and Other International Acts
Series (TIAS 5366). U.S. Department of State, p. 851.
61 http: //mofaweb.mofat.go.kr/inter_treaty_real.nsf.
62 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Thirty-Seventh
238
Endnotes
Chapter 4
1 Peace Corps Congressional submission, “Budget Justification, Fiscal Year 1982,” Appendix F, p.
45.
2 Excerpt from Carter Eckert’s reminiscence in Alumni Reminiscences: Reflections on 60 Years of The
Fulbright Program in Korea. Seoul: Korean-American Educational Commission, 2010, pp. 91-
92.
3 Peterson, Mark. Letter to William Maurer on July 19, 1983, KAEC file copy.
4 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Eighty-Eighth
5 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and First Meeting.
March 11, 1986, p. 1.
6 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Seventy-Ninth
7 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Eightieth Meeting.
December 15, 1982, p. 1.
8 Lavin, Bernard. Memo to KAEC board members, January 13, 1984, KAEC file copy.
9 Underwood, Horace G. Letter to Bernard Lavin, January 17, 1984, KAEC file copy.
10 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Nineteenth
Meeting. November 21, 1989.
11 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Thirteenth
Meeting. September 15, 1988.
12 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Ninety-Eighth
Meeting. July 11, 1985, p. 1.
13 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Seventy-Fifth
Meeting. February 19, 1982, p. 1.
14 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Eighty-Second
Meeting. May 12, 1983, p. 1.
15 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Third
16 “What Is Overseas Educational Advising?,” NAFSA Resource Library, http://www.nafsa.org/
resourcelibrary/default.aspx?id=8868.
17 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Seventieth
Meeting. June 27, 1980, p. 2.
18 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Seventy-Fourth
239
19 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Seventy-Seventh

Meeting. May 6, 1982, p. 2.
20 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Seventy-Ninth
21 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Ninety-Second
Meeting. April 18, 1984, p. 1.
22 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Ninety-Sixth
Meeting. April 25, 1985, p. 1.
23 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Eighth
24 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Eleventh
Meeting. February 16, 1988.
25 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Fourteenth
Meeting. December 1, 1988.
26The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Eighty-Eighth
27The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Ninety-Third
28 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Fourth
29 Lavin, Bernard J,. public affairs officer. Letter to James Hoyt, chairman, Korean-American
Educational Commission, June 23, 1982.
30 Ibid.
31 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Seventy-Eighth
Meeting. June 24, 1982, p. 2.
32 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Eighty-Ninth
Meeting. January 9, 1984, p. 1.
33 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Hundred and Ninety-First
Meeting. March 13, 1984, p. 1.
34 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Sixth
Meeting. May 18, 1987.
35 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Fifteenth
Meeting. January 26, 1989.
36 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Eighteenth
240
Endnotes
Chapter 5
1 Pollack, Andrew. “2 Ex-Dictators Leave Korean Jails, Pardoned After 2 Years,” The New York
Times, December 23, 1997. Article archived at http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/23/world/2-
ex-dictators-leave-korea-jails-pardoned-after-2-years.html.
2 This and other excerpts from his speech are taken from an English translation of Korea Fulbright
Alumni Association Newsletter, No. 4, November 1990.
3 English translation of Korea Fulbright Alumni Association Newsletter, No. 4, November 1990,
bottom of last page.
4 “Shim Jai Ok Yeosa Cheot Budanjang (Mrs. Shim Jai Ok Named First Deputy Director),” Korea
Fulbright Alumni Newsletter, No. 4, Nov. 1990, p. 3.
5 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Thirty-Eighth
Meeting. January 20, 1993.
6 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Thirty-Ninth
7 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Fortieth
Meeting. April 20, 1993
8 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Forty-First
Meeting. June 3, 1993
9 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Forty-Second
Meeting. June 23, 1993.
10 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Forty-Third
Meeting. July 2, 1993.
11 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Forty-Fourth
12 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Forty-Ninth
Meeting. October 6, 1994.
13 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Sixty-
Seventh Meeting. March 4, 1998.
14 The Korean-American Educational Commission, executive session, March 30, 1998.
15 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Twenty-
Sixth Meeting. February 1, 1991.
16 Carriere, Frederick F. “Special Program ‘Fulbright Graduate Interns’ to Teach English in
Korean Schools,” memo to commission members, February 4, 1991.
17 Carriere, Frederick F. “Special Program ‘Fulbright Graduate Interns’ to Teach English in
Korean Schools,” memo to commission members, February 4, 1991.
241
18 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Thirtieth
19 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Thirty-
Seventh Meeting. December 15, 1992.
20 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Thirty-Ninth
21 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes. February 24, 1994.
22 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Forty-Eighth
23 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes. May 25, 1995.
24 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Sixty-Ninth
25 Baker, Donald L. “Twice Fortunate, Twice Grateful,” Alumni Reminiscences: Reflections on 60
Years of the Fulbright Program in Korea. Seoul: Korean-American Educational Commission,
2010, pp. 43-44.
26 Minutes of KAEC board meeting, October 6, 1994.
27 “International Education Administrators Program, Proposed by KAEC for Summer 1995,”
Attachment 2, board meeting, January 17, 1995.
28 Minutes of KAEC board meeting, January 17, 1995.
29 Minutes of KAEC board meeting, December 18, 1996.
30 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Sixty-
Seventh Meeting. March 4, 1998.
31 “Draft for Selection Process of MOE Scholarship Candidate,” English-language text
accompanying official Korean-language proposal from the Ministry of Education, September
15, 1992.
32 Kim Wang-bok, director, International Cooperation Division, Ministry of Education. Letter to
William Maurer, chairman, Fulbright Commission, May 31, 1994.
33 Ibid.
34 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Eighty-Third
35 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Seventy-
Second Meeting. December 7, 1999.
36 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Fifty-Eighth
Meeting. March 7, 1996.
37 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Sixty-Fourth
242
Endnotes
38 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Sixty-Sixth
39 Ibid.
40 “Addressing the Deficit: Budgetary Implications of Selected GAO Work for Fiscal Year 1998,”
United States General Accounting Office report to Congress, March 1997, p. 117.
41 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Sixty-Fourth
43 “ETS Program Activities of the Korean-American Educational Commission,” quarterly
summary report, July-September 2000, p. 2.
44 Ko, Su-Suk. “TOEFL Applicants Rush to Apply for Last PBTs,” JoongAng Daily, May 4,
2000. Article archived at http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=1876822.
45 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Fiftieth
46 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Twentieth
47 The Korean American Educational Commission. “The Fulbright Program in Korea,”
Development of Electronic Communications: A Review of the Korean-American Educational
Commission. Seoul, November 1997, p. 5.
48 Ibid., pp. 7-8.
49 Ibid., pp. 9-10.
50 Ibid., p. 10.
52 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred and Seventieth
Chapter 6
1 The first portion of this chapter on the Fulbright Building was written by Dr. Horace H.
Underwood.
2 Text of e-mail message from Patricia Garon, branch chief, East Asia Fulbright Exchanges,
United States Information Agency, February 4, 1999.
243
3 “World Peace and the Fulbright Program,” presented at Fulbright Conference and Banquet for
the 50th Anniversary of the Fulbright Program in Korea, October 20, 2000, Radisson Seoul
Plaza Hotel, Conference Program, p. 11.
4 Ibid., p. 11.
5 Ibid., p. 12.
6 Ibid., p. 12.
7 Ibid., p. 9.
8 Shim, Jai Ok. Personal communication with James F. Larson, Fulbright Building, Mapo, Seoul,
May 20, 2010.
9 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred Ninety-Ninth
May 25, 2010.
11 Ibid.
12 Lee, Su-Hyun “High Demand Causes ‘TOEFL Crisis’ in South Korea,” The New York Times,
May 14, 2007.
13 Ibid.
14 Lee, Sang-eon. “All of a Sudden, TOEFL Isn’t Such a Hot Ticket,” Joongang Daily, April 24,
2007. Article archived at http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2874787.
15 Jeong, Seon-eon and Lee Min-yong. “Police Say They Busted Scam to Beat TOEIC Exam,”
JoongAng Daily, June 24, 2009. Article archived at http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.
asp?aid=2906519.
16 http://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/4838.htm.
17 Ibid
18 From electronic file copy of the technology miniconference web site.
19 http://workshop.educationusa.or.kr/.
Chapter 7
1 http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_Hubert_Humphrey.htm.
2 Ibid.
3 http://exchanges.state.gov/globalexchanges/humphrey-fellowship.html.
4 http://www.humphreyfellowship.org/page/106208/;jsessionid=sq976ln5shz.
244
Endnotes
5 http://www.humphreyfellowship.org/page/Components/;jsessionid=sq976ln5shz.
6 Item 9, KAEC board meeting, February 27, 1979.
7 http://www.eastwestcenter.org/about-ewc/origins/.
8 Ibid.
9 The Korean-American Educational Commission. Minutes of the Two Hundred Seventy-Second
Chapter 8
1 Kim, Doo Hyun. “The First Korea Fulbright Alumni Association,” remarks for publication, May
1988, English translation by Hong Sah Myong.
2 Ibid., pp. 5-6.
3 Gurtov, Mel, James F. Larson and Robert R. Swartout, Jr. (Ray Weisenborn, ed.) Korea’s Amazing
Century: From Kings to Satellites. Fulbright 50th anniversary commemoration project, Seoul:
Korea Fulbright Foundation and the Korean-American Educational Commission, November
1996, p. iii. Text available at http://books.google.com/books?q=Korea’s+Amazing+Century&bt
nG=Search+Books.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Kang, Sung Hack. “Reaching Out Beyond Borders Korea,” presentation as part of Fulbright
Association Panel on Serving Grantees, Alumni and the Community, posted on Fulbright
Association web page with “Best Practices from Around the World” for the Fulbright Alumni
Community, p. 7, http://www.fulbright.org/ifad/manual/Best%20Practices.htm.
May 19, 2010.
8 Yoon Bokcha, Korean-language version of Chapter 8.
January 21, 2010.
10 Kang, Sung Hack.
11 Ibid., pp. 3-4.
12 Ibid., p. 5.
13 Ibid., pp. 6-7.
14 Letter from Shim Jai Ok, executive director, Korean-American Educational Commission, and
Jane L. Anderson, executive director, Fulbright Association, October 13, 2005.
15 Kang, Sung Hack, p. 8.
245
January 21, 2010.
Chapter 9
1 Adapted from Underwood, Horace G. “Merits and Demerits of Korean Education,” Koreana 5:2.
1991, pp. 63-68.
2 http://www.pisa.oecd.org.
3 Underwood, Horace G. “Merits and Demerits of Korean Education.”
4 Dahlman, Carl and Thomas Andersson, eds. Korea and the Knowledge-based Economy: Making the
Transition. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank and
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2000, pp. 14-16.
5 Hong, Sah-Myung. “All About Koreans Studying Overseas: They Once Formed Corps D’Elite,”
Koreana 5:2. 1991, pp. 80-85.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 The 50-Year History of the Korea Fulbright Program (1950-2010), draft, p. 3.
9 J. William Fulbright. The Price of Empire. New York: Pantheon Books, 1989, p. xi.
10 “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” Federal Communications Commission,
Washington, D.C., April 2010.
11 Shim Jai Ok. Personal communication with James F. Larson, Fulbright Building, Mapo, Seoul,
April 16, 2010.
12 Ibid.
13 Beckmann, George M., Bowen C. Dees, Walter H.C. Laves, and Edward W. Wagner. “The
Fulbright Program in Korea,” report to the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs,
Washington, D.C.: Department of State, September 1968, p. 8.
14 Ibid., p. 14.
15 “Global Korea Scholarship,” Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Republic of
Korea, nine-page English document, downloaded from http://english.mest.go.kr.
16 “The Direction and Themes of Educational Strategy,” paper presented by the Ministry of
Education, Science and Technology at the regular general meeting of the Korea Fulbright
Alumni Association, December 3, 2009, Korea Press Center, Seoul.
17 Oh, Young-Jin and Kang Shin-who. “Korea to Replace TOEFL with State Tests,” The Korea
Times, November 1, 2009. Article archived at http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/
nation/2009/12/117_54652.html.
246
Endnotes
Epilogue
1 This section was written by Jung Sung-Wook as published in the Fulbright Korea Quarterly,
Winter 2010, p. 12.
2 “Cross-Cultural Visions: 1950-2010,” exhibition by Fulbright alumni honoring the 60th
anniversary of the Fulbright Program in Korea, Seoul: Korean-American Educational
Commission, 2010, p. 7.
247
Appendix I
“The Importance of Cultural Diplomacy”
James A. Leach
Chairman, the National Endowment for the Humanities
Embassy of the Republic of Korea
Washington, D.C.
July 23, 2010
Ambassador Han Duk-Soo, Secretary Stock, Ambassador Hill, Ambassador Hubbard,

friends of the people of Korea:
We gather this evening to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Fulbright program in
Korea.
In so doing, we honor distinguished program participants, but, more profoundly, we
underscore the vital role of exchanges and cultural diplomacy itself.
Perspective is difficult to apply to events under way and just past. But the evidence is
in that exchanges make a difference in the lives of individuals and the social structure
of societies. The speed of travel and the virtually instantaneous capacity to transfer
thought great distances have made neighbors of every individual on the planet. But
being neighbors is not the same thing as respectfully sharing space on the Earth. Mutual
understanding is not as easily uplifted as technology is upgraded.
Technology provides ever more sophisticated means to communicate, but it does
not create the inevitability that the images and messages transferred will lead to better
relations. Rubbing up against neighbors who have different manners and different ways
of speaking can sometimes spark friction. That is why exchange programs that involve
learning and living in the shoes, shirts, and dresses of others make such a difference.
One of the myths of our times is that relations between countries are principally
248
Appendix I
a function of government policy and that diplomacy is exclusively a government-to-

government dialogue. Actually, it is businessmen and women, unelected people of good
will—be they artists or scientists, athletes, students, or scholars—who are more central to
defining the tone of relations between states than public officials.
Cultural diplomacy generally precedes and increasingly supersedes government-to-
government relations.
Governmental relations understandably have power and security dimensions, especially
in a fractured world. Cultural diplomacy, on the other hand, is about expanding and
embellishing mutual understanding. It is about the power of values, the power of the
human spirit.
Since there will always be disagreements between people and countries, the challenge is
to see that disputes, big and small, are resolved in civil rather than violent ways.
Whether violence is an integral part of the human condition or a learned response
is a matter of conjecture. But non-violence is almost certainly a practice that must be
learned. And the most effective form of social education is human contact where greater
understanding is mutually sought.
It is the humanization rather than the demonization of individuals from different
societies, particularly those who are culturally most different or politically and economically
most challenging, that is so critical if non-violent approaches to problem solving are to be
institutionalized. Without humanization—handshakes of understanding—there can be
no trust and hence no family or national security.
Governments may embody national values. But if people are to develop mutual respect,
values must be brought to bear on a human scale. And those values frequently are best
understood and reflected outside of political norms.
The great 19th century American poet of the common man, Walt Whitman, was
idealistically intoxicated with the notion that poetry could be an antidote to violence.
He once wrote that his greatest dream was for “an internationality of poems and poets
binding the lands of the earth closer than all treaties and diplomacy....”
A third of the way around the world from our nation’s capitol, Dostoevsky affirmed
something similar: “Beauty,” he said, “will save the world.”
A third of the way around the world in the opposite direction, Confucius suggested
249
that “when music and courtesy are better understood and appreciated, there will be no
war.”
All of this sounds rather naïve, but there are few people who have lived on the planet
that understood human nature better than Whitman, Dostoevsky, and Confucius.
I mention these pioneers of literature and philosophy because the most profound
political observation of our age probably comes from a scientist. Splitting the atom,
Einstein once observed, has changed everything except our way of thinking.
In a world where science and technology have conjoined to produce weapons of mass
destruction and where terrorism has become globalized, the thinking of man must change.
Words and thought patterns matter. When pieced together in the logic of works like
Mein Kampf, they may be used to instill hate, or they may, as in the poetry of Whitman,
the novels of Dostoevsky, the wisdom of Confucius, be used to uplift the human spirit.
These are our choices.
In making these choices, care has to be taken to recognize that there is no single, proper
path determinable by one individual or one country.
Whether a person knows a great deal or very little, caution must be taken about being
certain of very much. To know a lot is a preferable condition to knowing little, but
the best and the brightest are not immune from great mistakes. Imperfect judgment
characterizes the human condition. That is why humility is a valued character trait, and
why shared learning and shared cultural perspectives are of such importance to a civilized
world polity.
Half a century ago, the British author Lawrence Durrell wrote a set of books called
The Alexandria Quartet. Each one was a first person narrative covering a minor cluster of
social interactions that took place in Alexandria, Egypt, between the First and Second
World Wars. An individual may wonder, Why read about the same set of happenings
four different times? The surprise is that while the events are the same, the stories are not.
A single narrator could only provide a snapshot of reality. Each subsequent book added to
the whys and wherefores of people and their times by the way each new narrator and the
people he or she touched came to travel the same ground in a different way. The reader
could only conclude that it is impossible to piece together a valid picture of even small
events without looking through the lens of a multiplicity of eyes and experiences.
250
Appendix I
If such is the case in one town in one time frame, the logic of the human condition is
that it takes many eyes and many perspectives to develop an inkling of understanding of a
kaleidoscope of events.
What the Fulbright program allows is for participants to advance scholarly
undertakings while living and working with people who see the same or different
things from eyes trained from nurture, and perhaps nature, to see in different ways.
This experience, coupled with the reciprocal exchanges of scholars from host countries,
represents for individuals and global society the nascent beginning of a change in our
individual and collective ways of thinking—the leap Einstein implies must be taken.
It will be many generations before we learn if Whitman, Dostoevsky, and Confucius
were correct in their beliefs that appreciation of music and poetry and courtesy can
help deter war. But implicit in all Fulbright programs is inquiry into this metaphorical
possibility. It is the pioneering search for beauty in the peoples and cultures of different
societies that is the program’s signal legacy.
Thank you.
251
252
Appendix II: The Fulbright Song
253
254
Appendix II: The Fulbright Song
255
Fulbright Korea Executive Directors
1960–Present
Mr. Kwang Man Ko September 1960–Spring 1962
Dr. William L. Strauss July 1963–June 1966
Dr. Donald H. Frantz July 1966–July 1967
Dr. Edward R. Wright August 1967–April 1978
Mr. Mark Peterson 1978–December 1983
Mr. Frederick F. Carriere March 1984–July 1993
Dr. Ray Weisenborn December 1993–November 1997
Dr. Horace H. Underwood May 1998–August 2004
Mrs. Jai Ok Shim October 2004–Present

Appendix III
Fulbright Grant Awards by

Academic Field from 1950 to 2010
FIELD I. HUMANITIES II. ARTS III. SOCIAL SCIENCES IV. SCIENCES
V. ENGINEERING VI. OTHER Total
YEAR History Literature Linguistics/TESL Philosophy Humanities-Other Fine Arts Music Dance Arts-Other Business Admin Communication Economics Education Law Political Science Public Admin. SS-Other Biology Chemistry Physics Health Science Sciences-Other
1950 1 13 2 1 1 2 5 1 1 4 1 1 33
1951 0
1952 2 2 7 3 2 2 1 19
1953 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 2 2 2 1 2 24
1954 4 3 1 1 2 3 4 3 5 2 2 1 31
1955 3 6 1 1 1 2 1 3 11 2 17 19 10 14 4 3 2 1 4 2 107
1956 2 7 1 2 2 1 9 1 9 8 5 1 1 1 2 52
1957 3 1 4 2 3 12 4 9 12 10 10 8 1 2 3 2 86
1958 3 1 4 1 10 3 10 1 3 1 4 41
1959 4 1 1 3 2 5 6 2 7 31
1960 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 12
1961 2 3 5 3 2 1 1 1 7 2 1 2 1 2 4 1 38
1962 2 3 2 1 1 1 4 3 4 2 4 2 3 2 5 39
1963 3 7 3 1 5 2 6 1 8 1 4 6 1 2 50
1964 3 12 4 2 6 1 1 3 2 3 1 2 5 6 51
1965 1 1 8 6 3 4 4 1 2 4 1 8 2 4 49
1966 1 1 6 1 1 3 2 11 1 4 2 8 4 4 2 51
1967 2 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 4 4 4 1 5 46
1968 3 2 6 1 2 1 1 6 3 2 3 2 1 1 2 36
1969 2 2 1 3 2 4 4 2 2 1 2 25
1970 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 3 2 4 1 3 1 1 1 28
1971 1 2 1 3 2 6 3 2 2 3 1 1 4 1 2 34
1972 4 3 4 4 3 1 1 5 1 1 3 3 3 2 38
1973 4 2 4 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 31
1974 3 7 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 6 1 6 1 1 1 2 44
1975 4 5 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 1 1 3 31
1976 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 9 1 2 1 29
1977 3 5 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 29
1978 2 4 5 1 2 6 3 1 2 4 1 1 2 34
1979 2 5 4 2 2 4 1 1 2 6 2 2 6 39
1980 2 7 5 1 6 2 1 4 3 1 3 1 9 1 3 1 1 3 1 55
1981 2 7 3 2 3 1 1 8 1 2 5 3 3 5 4 2 52
1982 6 11 5 1 1 4 1 5 4 4 5 1 12 9 2 71
1983 2 2 7 1 3 2 3 3 4 2 5 1 2 1 1 5 5 49
1984 2 4 5 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 3 4 1 2 1 2 34
1985 3 2 6 1 1 4 1 5 2 4 1 3 4 1 3 1 2 44
1986 2 7 4 1 2 2 1 5 1 6 5 1 5 1 1 2 46
1987 2 4 2 1 1 3 5 5 10 4 1 10 1 1 1 4 55
1988 1 10 3 2 1 3 3 4 8 3 3 4 1 3 3 52
1989 3 9 3 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 4 4 2 1 38
1990 2 8 4 1 2 2 3 2 2 8 1 9 4 2 1 51
1991 7 5 6 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 2 5 3 7 1 1 1 50
1992 7 7 4 1 2 5 13 11 6 6 5 1 1 69
1993 5 8 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 15 2 4 4 9 1 3 2 65
1994 5 8 3 1 1 5 1 5 28 6 7 2 5 1 1 2 81
1995 3 5 3 2 1 1 1 1 7 3 41 2 4 4 6 1 1 86
1996 1 5 5 3 1 1 2 1 1 3 43 2 4 3 7 82
1997 5 8 7 2 2 1 6 35 2 9 4 6 2 89
1998 2 6 3 1 2 1 4 3 26 1 6 2 7 1 1 1 1 68
1999 3 4 3 1 3 9 4 41 2 2 4 7 3 86
2000 7 3 1 2 2 1 2 8 4 54 1 7 1 6 99
2001 3 12 2 1 2 1 3 5 1 3 60 2 5 2 10 1 1 114
2002 6 7 6 2 2 3 4 3 5 87 4 3 3 10 1 1 147
2003 5 4 4 1 5 2 1 1 7 5 3 6 114 3 5 0 8 2 176
2004 5 5 3 3 1 3 3 3 6 128 2 6 3 4 3 4 182
2005 4 5 2 1 1 2 1 2 5 4 118 3 10 2 10 2 1 1 4 178
2006 3 4 5 1 4 6 4 4 118 3 7 2 14 2 1 178
2007 9 7 1 1 1 1 3 1 6 120 2 6 4 14 2 1 4 183
2008 8 2 3 6 4 2 1 6 4 134 4 4 2 6 2 1 4 193
2009 7 5 6 1 4 4 1 1 2 1 10 148 2 7 1 12 3 2 217
2010 5 6 6 2 9 6 1 1 1 5 4 5 164 5 2 3 14 2 2 2 3 2 250
Total 167 274 228 42 64 50 58 12 95 127 106 168 1635 211 221 119 330 22 57 28 59 102 68 55 4298
Appendix IV
KAEC Budget and Awards by Grant Program from 1978 to 2010

I. BUDGET
SOURCE OF FUNDS FY/PY-1978 FY/PY-1979 FY/PY-1980 FY/PY-1981 FY/PY-1982 FY/PY-1983 FY/PY-1984 FY/PY-1985 FY/PY-1986 FY/PY-1987 FY/PY-1988 FY/PY-1989 FY/PY-1990 FY/PY-1991 FY/PY-1992 FY/PY-1993 FY/PY-1994
US Allocation $370,827 $330,722 $410,550 $445,000 $624,871 $508,350 $550,522 $665,122 $596,000 $596,000 $635,702 $580,000 $611,670 $626,000 $620,000 $714,000 $663,000
ROKG Contribution $33,817 - $293,141 $316,908 $365,786 $359,291 $294,650 $302,778 $316,399 $351,477 $393,987 $439,570 $458,526 $507,714 $540,163 $648,068 $744,640
ROKG Contribution in KRW (Thousand Won) ₩16,367 - ₩183,213 ₩214,688 ₩271,742 ₩255,834 ₩233,849 ₩259,832 ₩279,819 ₩288,389 ₩286,243 ₩294,518 ₩329,082 ₩378,247 ₩424,892 ₩523,315 ₩597,574
Funding Support from Local Government & ETA School - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Other $30,518 $195,514 $71,109 $78,492 $99,043 $85,085 $214,153 $92,788 $162,039 $178,847 $212,755 $265,600 $386,486 $417,386 $450,146 $492,608 $590,841
US Education Dept.(1992) & General Electric (1993-2009) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $110,629 $43,000 $73,650
TOTAL $435,162 $526,236 $774,800 $840,400 $1,089,700 $952,726 $1,059,325 $1,060,688 $1,074,438 $1,126,324 $1,242,444 $1,285,170 $1,456,682 $1,551,100 $1,720,938 $1,897,676 $2,072,131
Official Exchange Rates: KRW to 1.00 USD 484.00 484.00 625.00 685.50 742.90 789.30 815.20 891.70 877.00 805.80 719.00 670.00 712.90 741.50 786.60 808.80 802.50
II. NUMBER OF GRANTS
A. GRANTS TO KOREANS
Lecturer 1 T/O 1 T/O 1 T/O 1 T/O - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Lec/Res - Senior - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- Mid-Career - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Researcher - Senior 3 & 2 T/O 3 10 11 & 1 T/O 10 & 2 T/O 6 3 & 2 T/O 7 & 1 T/O 6 & 1 T/O 7 & 1 T/O 10 10 & 1 T/O 13 10 10 & 1 T/O 11 11
- Mid-Career - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 6 4 3
Professional 2 3 2 - 1 1 - 1 1 1 2 - 1 - 1 - 2
Degree Student 9 8 & 1 T/O 17 16 23 & 2 T/O 13 & 2 T/O 7 & 4 T/O 8 & 3 T/O 8 & 3 T/O 6 & 4 T/O 7 6 & 3 T/O 8 6 5 6 7 & 1 T/O
Non-Degree Student 2 2 2 1 3 3 - 5 5 3 & 1 T/O 5 5 5 5 6 & 1 T/O 6 4
Student-Renewal 29 27 28 37 42 48 47 36 23 20 23 20 15 17 15 14 10
Fulbright Alumni Fellow - - - - - - - - - - 1 2 - - - - -
American Studies Institute-TIEC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
American Studies Institute - - - - - - - - - - 2 1 - 1 - - -
MOE Fellow (New or Renewal) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 1
IEA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Korean Government Funded
Humphrey ** - 1 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 - 2 1 2 5 3
US Government Funded
FLTA ** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
US Dept. of State Science and Technology ** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Scholar In Residence ** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
New Century Scholar ** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TOTAL KOREAN GRANTS 45 & 3 T/O 44 & 2 T/O 63 & 1 T/O 69 & 2 T/O 82 & 4 T/O 74 & 2 T/O 59 & 6 T/O 59 & 4 T/O 45 & 4 T/O 38 & 6 T/O 52 44 & 4 T/O 44 46 46 & 2 T/O 47 41 & 1 T/O
B. GRANTS TO AMERICANS
Distinguished Lecturer (Roving 99 only) - - - - - - - - - 2 1 1 - - - - 1
Lecturer 11 & 1 T/O 14 14 & 1 T/O 16 & 1 T/O 16 12 9 2 5 4 1 - 7 5 4 2 3
Lecturer/Researcher 2 3 & 1 T/O 10 & 1 T/O 3 & 1 T/O 5 2 2 4 4 4 6 4 4 4 2 7 6&1P
Researcher 1 1 T/O 1 3 - 2 1 2 - 3 2 2 4 6 1 3 -
Professional - - - - - - - - - 3 2 2 - 1 2 1 -
Student - 2 3 3 2 2 2 4 5 & 1 T/O 5 6 5 8 9 9 9 & 1 T/O 8&1P
ETA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 14 25
ETA Renewal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
IEA - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 6 6 5
Senior Specialist ** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TOTAL AMERICAN GRANTS 14 & 1 T/O 19 & 2 T/O 28 & 2 T/O 22 & 2 T/O 23 18 14 12 14 & 1 T/O 21 18 14 23 31 32 42 & 1 T/O 49 & 2 P
TOTAL GRANTS 59 & 4 T/O 63 & 4 T/O 91 & 3 T/O 91 & 4 T/O 105 & 4 T/O 92 & 2 T/O 73 & 6 T/O 71 & 4 T/O 59 & 5 T/O 59 & 6 T/O 70 58 & 4 T/O 67 77 78 & 2 T/O 89 & 1 T/O 90 & 3 P
** Non-Fulbright Grant Program
III. BUDGET ALLOCATION
Korean Grant Program $113,287 $136,182 $311,611 $422,172 $604,919 $562,006 $529,407 $607,788 $584,999 $491,550 $608,618 $576,750 $548,420 $595,405 $626,945 $594,760 $626,208
American Grant Program $197,884 $267,316 $294,554 $268,120 $312,715 $179,181 $202,384 $220,170 $208,713 $364,357 $293,996 $345,734 $414,520 $457,207 $489,848 $551,229 $461,612
Non-Grant Program $8,624 $8,875 $7,248 $3,388 $9,343 $9,709 $9,352 $9,187 $12,779 $18,576 $22,158 $19,400 $29,066 $32,930 $45,247 $73,556 $132,191
Student Advisory Service $16,196 $17,863 $21,387 $30,399 $30,723 $46,830 $58,219 $63,093 $59,781 $59,841 $86,900 $104,486 $145,000 $146,723 $159,990 $313,163 $366,147
Administration $100,171 $96,000 $140,000 $116,321 $132,000 $155,000 $278,406 $160,000 $182,360 $192,000 $230,772 $238,800 $319,676 $318,835 $290,031 $364,968 $355,868
TOTAL $436,162 $526,236 $774,800 $840,400 $1,089,700 $952,726 $1,077,768 $1,060,238 $1,048,632 $1,126,324 $1,242,444 $1,285,170 $1,456,682 $1,551,100 $1,612,061 $1,897,676 $1,942,026
Appendix IV
KAEC Budget and Awards by Grant Program from 1978 to 2010

I. BUDGET
SOURCE OF FUNDS FY/PY-1995 FY/PY-1996 FY/PY-1997 FY/PY-1998 FY/PY-1999 FY/PY-2000 FY/PY-2001 FY/PY-2002 FY/PY-2003 FY/PY-2004 FY/PY-2005 FY/PY-2006 FY/PY-2007 FY/PY-2008 FY/PY-2009 FY/PY-2010*
US Allocation $666,800 $683,000 $683,000 $804,000 $983,000 $993,600 $1,021,500 $1,012,900 $1,030,000 $1,009,000 $1,000,000 $1,520,000 $1,542,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000
ROKG Contribution $780,750 $792,575 $759,000 $520,078 $734,257 $656,342 $584,860 $777,252 $771,722 $779,334 $854,294 $1,904,359 $2,172,260 $1,882,630 $2,554,050 $2,773,257
ROKG Contribution in KRW (Thousand Won) ₩601,022 ₩650,863 ₩694,258 ₩717,552 ₩889,552 ₩731,559 ₩764,120 ₩952,522 ₩887,635 ₩894,598 ₩886,757 ₩1,800,000 ₩2,000,000 ₩2,236,000 ₩3,036,000 ₩3,136,000
Funding Support from Local Government & ETA School - - - - - - - - - - - $148,117 $198,762 $169,487 $188,441 $226,388
Other $777,035 $930,825 $1,456,619 $451,164 $2,662,506 $1,368,283 $1,969,370 $1,474,320 $1,889,241 $856,623 $982,415 $2,048,977 $218,685 $910,212 $936,824 $675,966
US Education Dept.(1992) & General Electric (1993-2009) $48,555 $52,617 $54,450 $52,000 $44,783 $46,409 $23,180 $58,108 $74,184 $89,500 $99,980 $144,300 $144,300 $144,300 $90,400 -
TOTAL $2,273,140 $2,459,017 $2,953,069 $1,827,242 $4,424,546 $3,064,634 $3,598,910 $3,322,580 $3,765,147 $2,734,457 $2,936,689 $5,765,753 $4,276,007 $4,706,629 $5,369,715 $5,275,611
Official Exchange Rates: KRW to 1.00 USD 769.80 821.20 914.70 1,379.70 1211.50 1114.60 1306.50 1225.50 1150.20 1147.90 1038.00 945.20 920.70 1187.70 1188.70 1130.80
II. NUMBER OF GRANTS
A. GRANTS TO KOREANS
Lecturer - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Lec/Res - Senior - - - - 2 1 1 1 1 1 - - - - - -
- Mid-Career - - - 2 1 1 4 2 3 1 1 2 3 - 1 2
Researcher - Senior 9 9 5 4 6 6 7 6 8 6 6 7 8 9 11 8
- Mid-Career 6 3 6 3 3 4 7 6 10 13 10 10 8 11 11 10
Professional 3 1 1 1 - - - 1 2 3 3 2 2 1 - -
Degree Student 8&1P 7&3P 5&5P 5&3P 13 12 8 13 13 14 10 15 11 14 9 28
Non-Degree Student 4 4 9 8 - 1 1 1 2 - - - 1 - - -
Student-Renewal 10 14 13 11 6 9 12 7 13 12 13 9 13 11 12 9
Fulbright Alumni Fellow - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
American Studies Institute-TIEC - - - - - - - 21 32 42 35 36 25 27 38 30
American Studies Institute - - - - 1 2 4 - - 2 1 - - 1 - -
MOE Fellow (New or Renewal) 1 1 2 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
IEA 4 3 4 - 6 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8
Korean Government Funded
Humphrey ** - - 2 2 3 2 3 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5
FLTA ** - - - - - - - - - - 1 6 2 5 7 12
US Dept. of State Science and Technology ** - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - 2 2
Scholar In Residence ** - - - - - - - 1 - 1 - - - 1 - -
New Century Scholar ** - - - - - - 1 - - - - - 1 - - -
TOTAL KOREAN GRANTS 45 & 1 T/O 42 & 3 P 47 & 5 P 36 & 3 P 42 43 54 69 94 105 90 95 84 90 99 113
B. GRANTS TO AMERICANS
Distinguished Lecturer (Roving 99 only) - - - - 1 - - - - 1 1 1 2 2 - 2
Lecturer 3 3 4 2 3 3 1 - 2 3 3 3 4 4 2 1
Lecturer/Researcher 5 2 2 3 - 2 4 4 5 2 5 2 2 3 3 1
Researcher - 2&2P 2 1 1 - 1 2 1 3 2 6 4 1 3 4
Professional - - - - - - 1 2 1 1 - - - 1 - -
Student 7&2P 9 13 & 1 P 10 10 12 10 12 13 9 14 15 14 14 14 21
ETA 27 30 24 18 26 42 44 47 59 69 70 63 70 73 70 73
ETA Renewal 3 1 2 1 3 3 4 7 8 10 5 7 12 14 21 34
IEA 4 4 4 - 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 8
Senior Specialist ** - - - - - - - - - 2 1 2 1 2 2 1
TOTAL AMERICAN GRANTS 49 & 2 P 51 & 2 P 51 & 1 P 35 48 66 69 79 93 104 105 103 114 118 119 145
TOTAL GRANTS 94 & 3 P 93 & 5 P 98 & 6 P 71 & 3 P 90 109 123 148 187 209 195 198 198 208 219 258
** Non-Fulbright Grant Program
III. BUDGET ALLOCATION
Korean Grant Program $737,610 $790,115 $832,270 $703,342 $654,025 $727,546 $936,347 $1,130,169 $1,555,525 $1,567,201 $1,386,157 $1,410,082 $1,612,819 $1,539,537 $1,533,923 $2,546,202
American Grant Program $563,561 $499,792 $606,417 $501,187 $680,107 $810,424 $888,150 $1,059,025 $1,020,325 $1,313,049 $1,279,888 $1,259,205 $1,463,757 $1,303,566 $1,575,108 $1,600,478
Non-Grant Program $74,497 $87,295 $124,975 $196,092 $2,680,924 $940,863 $375,621 $186,547 $838,871 $174,214 $63,617 $91,201 $169,902 $144,269 $112,489 $379,447
Student Advisory Service $274,403 $187,924 $300,383 $126,317 $133,483 $279,644 $120,178 $136,159 $188,245 $174,276 $174,498 $239,297 $222,995 $201,519 $275,121 $256,797
Administration $383,278 $328,587 $287,390 $264,982 $276,007 $312,723 $297,640 $319,155 $373,821 $467,753 $352,878 $414,907 $428,199 $396,335 $608,266 $470,752
TOTAL $2,033,349 $1,893,713 $2,151,435 $1,791,920 $4,424,546 $3,071,200 $2,617,936 $2,831,055 $3,976,787 $3,696,493 $3,257,038 $3,414,692 $3,897,672 $3,585,226 $4,104,907 $5,253,676
This book chronicles the evolution of Fulbright Korea, from its humble
Fulbright in
beginnings in 1950, through its contributions to Korea in the aftermath of
the Korean War and through rapid industrialization, to its development into
one of the most active Fulbright Commissions worldwide today. In these
Korea’s Future
pages you will find more than a mere history of Fulbright; this book is a
direct reflection, in many ways, of the history of modern Korea. It offers a
decade-by-decade account of changes in the political and social climate of
Korea, documenting how Fulbright Korea has progressed and expanded
in response to these changes, always striving toward the fulfillment of the A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History
mission of the Fulbright Program.
From the Preface
The Korean-American Educational Commission (KAEC) – J. William Fulbright
The agreement to form a binational Fulbright Commission
J. William Fulbright was born on April 9, 1905, in Sumner,
was signed in Seoul on April 28, 1950, and the United
Missouri. He grew up in Arkansas and played football at
States Educational Commission in Korea (USEC/K) was
established in 1960 and renamed as the KAEC in 1972.
... we Fulbrighters proclaim the following three points: the University of Arkansas. Upon graduation, he won a
Rhodes Scholarship in 1924 and studied in England from
1. Human beings are born with the inalienable rights to pursue happiness, free 1925 to 1928.
The Fulbright Korea Alumni Association (FKAA) was from fear, poverty, ignorance, and tyranny. Prior to his departure for England, he had traveled very
formed in 1987. By that time, there were about 700 little outside of Arkansas. As a Life magazine report put it,
2. Conflicts among nations and countries, part of which are related to the Cold the best of Europe was opened up to the roaming hill boy
Korean alumni of the Fulbright program, and local alumni
War legacy, must be resolved through mutual understanding and respect. within him, and he came away from this grand tour and his
chapters had been set up in each of the provinces. In
May 1987, chairmen of the eight provincial chapters met 3. Countries must exert efforts to communicate and understand each other reading of modern history and political science at Oxford
in Seoul to establish the FKAA. through educational and cultural exchanges. with a wide-eyed internationalist outlook.
On returning from his Oxford years, he worked briefly
in Washington as a Justice Department lawyer, but then
The Korea Fulbright Foundation – The Korea Fulbright We Fulbrighters believe that realizing these ideals will lead to the peaceful
Frederick F. Carriere | Horace H. Underwood

Jai Ok Shim | James F. Larson
returned to Arkansas. He loved teaching and the life of
Alumni Association set up a committee in 1989 to look and sustainable coexistence of the peoples and countries in the world.
the university. When the board of trustees of the University
into the formation of a foundation, and in January 1991 We reaffirm our cherished hope, as expressed in the 2000 Seoul Statement, of Arkansas made him its youngest president at the tender
the Korea Fulbright Foundation was established. to extend the Fulbright program to the entire Korean Peninsula.... age of 34, he considered himself pretty well settled.
Fulbright was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives
From the Seoul Statement 2010 in 1942 and to the Senate in 1944. His political career of
more than thirty years in the U.S. Congress was marked by
his unequaled contribution to international affairs and his
tenure as the longest-serving chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee.
The Senator is particularly well remembered for his
opposition to the Vietnam War. In the 1960s, he led
US$ 35.00 25,000 won
Senate hearings into the conduct of that war. Today, of
course, Senator Fulbright is also widely known as the
founder of the intercultural and educational exchange
program that bears his name. The Fulbright program
is recognized around the world as the largest and most
prestigious such program.
Korean-American Educational Commission On February 9, 1995, Senator J. William Fulbright died
http://www.fulbright.or.kr 한미교육위원단 in Washington, DC, at the age of 89.
Dust jacket artwork by Youngsun Jin

Fulbright in Korea's Future

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Fulbright in Korea's Future

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

A 60th Anniversary Commemorative History

Fulbright in Korea’s Future

Frederick F. Carriere | Horace H. Underwood

Jai Ok Shim, James F. Larson,

Copyright © 2010 by The Korean-American Educational Commission

All Rights Reserved

Korean-American Educational Commission

Published by Seoul Selection

ISBN: 978-89-91913-73-8 03330

Printed in the Republic of Korea

Changing Cannons to Cultural Currency 1

The 1990s 119

The Fulbright Building 147

The Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program, 173

History of the Korea Fulbright Alumni Association 183

Taking Stock 199

Observing the 60th Anniversary of Fulbright Korea 219

Appendix I: “The Importance of Cultural Diplomacy” 248

I extend my heartfelt congratulations on the 60th anniversary of the Fulbright

한 국풀브라이트 60주년을 진심으로 축하드립니다.

풀브라이트 프로그램은 한국민이 그와 같은 의지를 실현하게 도와준 고마운 친구입니다.

한국풀브라이트 프로그램이 배출한 2,000명 가까운 인재들은, 한국 사회의 핵심 리더로

‘어려울 때 돕는 친구가 진짜 친구’라는 말이 있습니다. 미국은 늘 우리의 진짜 친구였습니

풀브라이트 프로그램은 한·미 우호협력과 상호 이해증진에 크게 공헌했습니다. 풀브라

오늘날에는 한국풀브라이트 전체 예산의 40% 정도를 한국 정부가 맡고 있습니다. 한국과

예컨대 한국 정부는 국제적인 장학 프로젝트로 ‘글로벌 코리아 스칼라십(Global Korea

미래를 책임질 청년 학생들의 교류는 세계 평화를 위한 가장 효과적인 투자입니다. 한국

한국풀브라이트 60주년을 다시 한 번 축하하며, 앞으로 더욱 의미 있게 발전하리라 믿어

I congratulate the Fulbright Program on its 60th anniversary in Korea.

With best regards,

T he Korean-American Educational Commission would like to gratefully

J. William Fulbright was born on April 9, 1905, in Sumner, Missouri.

Making the Korea Connection

around seven hundred guests in attendance, including many high-level government

the baCK story oF the inVitation11

Korea, due to the overwhelming impression Senator Fulbright’s unpretentious

Establishment of the Fulbright Program

country jointly involved in the planning process.19

Consolidation under the Fulbright-Hays Act

Launching the Fulbright Program in Korea

delayed the full-blown implementation of educational exchanges under its auspices by

accomplished so much economically, socially, and politically in such a short span of

Exchanges Prior to the Establishment of a Binational Commission

During 1949, the Department of the Army transferred to the Department

A 1958 post dispatch to Washington, carrying Gregory Henderson’s signature and

Establishment of the Binational Commission (USEC/K)

Recurrent Themes in the History of Fulbright Korea

The post report went on to say:

The Creation of USEC/K and Its First Years of Operation

Dr. Belle Boone

“You Must Be Full Bright!”

The Fulbright-Hays Act, 1961

First Korean Student Fulbright Grantee

Choi Jin Young was the only female and

the University of North Carolina. I had no difficulty understanding lectures. The

W hen my husband Grafton

Marshall R. Pihl (1933-1995) 18

on East Asian Studies in 1994.

Leadership and Secretariat Staffing

- designated representatives of private organizations, all of which groups operate

In addition, Frantz outlined the duties and responsibilities of an East-West Center

Program Priorities in the Early Years:

Prominent Americans Visit Korea