Press Room
Letter to the New York Times
August 16, 2007
Letters Editor
New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
letters[at]nytimes.com
To the Editor:
Your article on the subpoenas issued to study abroad providers ("Study Abroad Is New Focus of Inquiry Into Perks," August 16) grossly mischaracterizes an important legislative proposal that has nothing to do with the story you were reporting. To call the proposal a "subsidy" for study abroad is like calling the defense bill a subsidy for the military or the Elementary and Secondary Education Act a subsidy for schools. Like any federal program, this legislation is in fact intended to accomplish an important public purpose: to begin to rectify the abysmally low participation in study abroad by American college students, which leaves our country without the international knowledge and understanding, and the foreign language competence, that we require for our security and competitiveness. If this legislation is enacted, it will create an open, transparent process by which students can access federal support for study abroad.
As study abroad has grown, important management issues have emerged that deserve our careful consideration. The task force NAFSA is establishing is charged not with the narrow mandate that you report, but with broadly examining issues involved in universities’ management of study abroad, including the financing of study abroad, portability of financial aid, enrollment and credit-transfer policies, financial relations with third-party providers, and other issues.
It is fair to ask the Times to hold itself to the same standards in its reporting that it expects of the subjects of this story.
Marlene M. Johnson
Executive Director & CEO
NAFSA: Association of International Educators
Letters Editor
New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
letters[at]nytimes.com
To the Editor:
Your article on the subpoenas issued to study abroad providers ("Study Abroad Is New Focus of Inquiry Into Perks," August 16) grossly mischaracterizes an important legislative proposal that has nothing to do with the story you were reporting. To call the proposal a "subsidy" for study abroad is like calling the defense bill a subsidy for the military or the Elementary and Secondary Education Act a subsidy for schools. Like any federal program, this legislation is in fact intended to accomplish an important public purpose: to begin to rectify the abysmally low participation in study abroad by American college students, which leaves our country without the international knowledge and understanding, and the foreign language competence, that we require for our security and competitiveness. If this legislation is enacted, it will create an open, transparent process by which students can access federal support for study abroad.
As study abroad has grown, important management issues have emerged that deserve our careful consideration. The task force NAFSA is establishing is charged not with the narrow mandate that you report, but with broadly examining issues involved in universities’ management of study abroad, including the financing of study abroad, portability of financial aid, enrollment and credit-transfer policies, financial relations with third-party providers, and other issues.
It is fair to ask the Times to hold itself to the same standards in its reporting that it expects of the subjects of this story.
Marlene M. Johnson
Executive Director & CEO
NAFSA: Association of International Educators
