I think that what’s happening is that politicians are realizing that most Americans don’t have passports and are suffering from a comparatively bad public education system. This is scary on many levels. For one thing, the reality is that the US is worried about its place in the future, and if workers and citizens can’t keep up with a globalized world, and a multilingual, cosmpolitan global workplace, then it will simply not be able to compete with other countries in terms of human resources. Do you see what I’m saying? I think this is less about opening up more Micky D’s and more about not losing jobs to China and India.

I’m glad that you’re questioning the motives behind this bill, and I agree that it’s not all bread and roses. I’m rereading the Confessions of an Economic Hitman right now, and it’s good to be reminded of just how nefarious and secretive the US can be in its dealings abroad. But what’s great about that book is how its author is transformed from an amoral, turn-a-blind-eye, fully complicit actor in the exploitation game to an outspoken activist. And what fuels his transformation? Exposure to local people and culture, and a close-up view at poverty and environmental degradation.

My hope is that this bill helps lower-income students get out and see the world. And then become empowered global citizens who want to change it.

Also, I just recently read this article: (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/opinion/11kristof.html) which advocates a Teach for the World type program similar to the Peace Corps in the hopes of better educating American citizens about global poverty and the world at large. I think it would be interesting to look at if you’re wondering about other, possibly warmer/fuzzier motives for funding student travel.

You have taken an extremely cynical stance on the Paul Simon bill. In all honesty, I know absolutely nothing about the bill, having learned about it from your article. Unfortunately, I, along with many of your readers object strongly to your emotional, gut-reaction to reading about the bill. Like the other readers who may have dwelled too much on the wording of your article, you have also concerned yourself too much with the language of the bill.

I completely understand WHY you are cynical: personal travel experiences within Latin America can be very disheartening with the “American” (US) influence visible everywhere you go, with fast food so well accepted – this bothers me more than anything: the exportation of the US fast food culture and the subsequent deterioration of local food traditions.

Excuse my digression, but I just want to let you know that I do relate with you on many levels, especially in regards to international trade issues. However, if we can keep things in perspective, especially our emotional issues, and take a rational look at the Paul Simon Bill, the benefits of such initiatives can truly be appreciated.

As other readers have already stated, the bill is written to sell the benefits of such expenditures to the voters (I might argue other congressmen and the president, more than the general public). Your conclusion that the bill is written to encourage “economic dominance” is 100% cynical.

If you tried to sell the inherent value of traveling and the benefits of greater cultural understanding to the leaders of any influential organization, you would most likely make similar arguments. Increasing the worldly knowledge of the US population will inevitably lead to improved international cooperation, in humanitarian efforts, inter-governmental relations, as well as business. If you were to create a proposal for a more peaceful world, what would you propose we do? The passport statistics in the US alone are enough to justify any programs to encourage international travel.

For better or worse, America is a world leader – politically, culturally, or otherwise. Until the US is usurped by another world power(s), we will remain an influential voice on the world stage. Why do we not embrace initiatives to promote cross-cultural understanding in the best way possible (i.e. encouraging Americans to think beyond their borders)?

You have been labeled cynical for your divisive writing and the pessimistic perspective of your article. Your “best guess” that only one or two of ten US students that study abroad will come back changed or deeply affected by their experience is just as narrow-minded as the politicians and MNCs you detest.

Of course, legislation is one thing – the appropriate allocation of resources and the administration of study abroad and exchange programs is a separate matter. We can only hope that the millions of taxpayer dollars are spent on quality programs. This requires some wishful thinking, but I would much rather have this money spent at increasing the accessibility of study abroad opportunities than countless other government programs or wars, for example.

I think I can speak for both of us when I say that I hope US study abroad programs attempt to integrate students into the local culture, instead of the exportation of ignorant Americans, on the scale of the caribbean cruise industry.

Ultimately, the success of the US will rely on more global insight and we do need American’s to be better ambassadors. Fundamental changes in our culture will require the participation and influence of the government. I hope that this bill, along with future initiatives help to broaden the minds of young Americans and encourage them to better understand the the world outside of the US.

Please excuse my rambling argument… it is a late Sunday night and I felt compelled to respond to your article!

Michael

You seem to be awfully defensive here about being an American and my supposed anti-Americanness. You say:

“Your reasoning that this must be some attempt at economic exploitation is basically, first and foremost, that American students could never earn anything from their experiences, as they are obviously going to be too drunk (especially kids from low-income families like mine, right?) to pay attention or care.”

Actually, this isn’t my “reasoning” at all. You’re reading some broad, deterministic generalizations into my writing here. You take my statement out of context and attribute determiners (“never”) to it that I specifically avoided. I said study abroad “can be” a great excuse to party, and in my experience (having studied abroad for a year in France and lived abroad for the past five years) it often is. However, before I made that assertion I also said:

“Studying abroad is a jarring, lingering lesson in increased awareness for many American students. It can arguably create a paradigm shift in the way they see and understand the world, and the way they see and think about the United States and its government and media, and I certainly think this is a good thing.”

So nowhere am I saying that Americans can never learn anything from study abroad. As far as the stereotype of American study abroad students hanging out together and partying, well, if you have ever studied abroad then you’d know that this is a reality. Not ALL American students do this, of course. SOME do it. That’s why I very specifically made the point that study abroad is an eye-opening and insightful experience for some students, and an excuse to party for others; a distinction you obviously ignored or missed completely.

As for my “stereotypes,” it seems mightily condescending and naive of you to assume that people working for massive American corporations, and landscapes dominated by American chain stores and corporate interests, are “stereotypes.” If you’ve ever traveled through Guatemala or China or a host of other countries (too many to name) you’ll see exactly how American economic “interests” shape the landscape. Calling this a stereotype is just flat wrong. It is the economic and political reality in many countries, and certainly the economic and political reality behind the wealth in the United States.

And as far as being holy, I don’t go claiming Americans or any other people are “my people.” I am an American, which you obviously did not realize, and I am certainly not yours, nor are any of my American friends your people. It is awfully holy to go speaking for an entire nation and an entire generation. You even go so far as to put “MY” in all caps – since when do you speak for and possess your generation? Be careful to distinguish your point of view from that of your fellow Americans.

You seem to have missed the point of this article entirely. You only concede for one sentence that “the wording is a bit off” – actually, that was the point of my whole article. You seem to have interpreted it somehow as a tirade against Americans, when actually it is meant to question the language of a study abroad bill which, instead of being about global understanding, seems to be about economic dominance.

“It can, of course, also be a great way to have a hot fling with a French girl and get wasted every night for a year, but we’ll try to be optimistic here and assume that for every ten kids hanging out with the other Americans getting blasted on cheap wine in the plaza there are one or two who are going to come back changed, and perhaps slightly more compassionate and curious about, other people and cultures.”

and

“Plus, if we follow that competitiveness to a logical end, well, wouldn’t we be shopping at Nike in Sub-Saharan Africa, eating McDonald’s, watching the latest Hollywood flick at a mega-plex in an air conditioned mall in Dakar? Meeting friendly people in Laos and Angola and the Ukraine who work for massive American corporations, wearing American clothes, driving American cars, eating American food?”

I don’t know how you could come up with this reference, or why you assume this is how nine out of ten Americans would spend their times abroad, but you sound downright hateful. I don’t get blasted on cheap wine in plazas of the nations I visit, and I work very hard to travel while there are many European kids who’s parents foot the bill of their trips, and all I see them doing is drinking a load, taking drugs, and sleeping with whomever shows a slight interest.

Your reasoning that this must be some attempt at economic exploitation is basically, first and foremost, that American students could never earn anything from their experiences, as they are obviously going to be too drunk (especially kids from low-income families like mine, right?) to pay attention or care. Hell, they’re American, right? This must all exclusively stink of aspirations of world dominance. It’s got nothing to do with broadening the minds of America’s youth.

Even if the wording is a bit off. Even if it seems like there could be underlying reasons why this bill was passed, I would appreciate it if you would reconsider how you talk about my people. Our government may be really screwed up, but MY generation is not happy about it.

My wonder is where were you sitting, and what were you thinking when you spewed this rhetoric? I assume you are the same sort who blames Bush when your car breaks down or someone steals from you. Believe it or not, the United States isn’t really out to get you, and wherever you’re from, I’m certain there are crooked businessmen sleeping in the same bed with the crooks that run our government. Don’t be so holy.

I think the important fact is being missed here. It does not matter why Congress passes the bill, so long as it is passed, or not, depending on your position. I’m for it being passed. That being said- It’s not possible for Congressman to control every student who studies abroad, it’s not possible for them to use them as a tool for American dominance throughout the rest of the world. The person that matters is the student who does the traveling.

Also, I think we are all being a bit too cynical towards the actions students take while studying abroad. Anyone who has experienced the culture of another country should be able to tell you that it was visiting Tate Modern or Buckingham Palace that gave them their love for England. It was the little things that they did. For me it was the late night runs to curry restaurants or kebab shops. It was Borough Market every morning to get food and getting to know the vendors there. It was talking with people on the tube and in the pub.

If a student chooses to party, they are still experiencing the culture. It’s the culture they want to experience. To say that the only way to experience culture is to sit in a coffee shop and drink coffee and have long discussions over national topics with locals, or to visit all the important heritage sites, or to live in a more local place, in my opinion, is so open minded that it has become narrow minded.
There is culture everywhere. In everything you do, while abroad, you experience culture.

So, as someone who is planning on taking advantage of this bill if it is passed, and still planning to study abroad if it is not passed, it’s the action that matters. I travel for the sake of travel, not for some higher purpose. I travel to experience. I’ll party, I’ll sit in coffee shops and speak with locals about national and world topics, I’ll visit heritage sites, I’ll go to the Louvre, I’ll take a ride in the gondola. We should all take care to not be cynical towards the way someone experiences culture, because it does not fit our standard view.

I hope I didn’t insult anyone, but that’s your choice to be insulted.

Thanks,
Jared

I studied abroad in Poland, England, and Italy (yes, all European countries!) and I definitely returned a more open-minded, culturally aware individual.

Sure there were people in my programs that just wanted to party, but to balance them out, there were also people who took their experiences seriously and attempted to really get a feel for the country and its culture.

Party animals or not, I think everyone came back a changed person (for the better).

If it was up to me, studying abroad should be mandatory for all college-bound students. Even if it is to Western Europe.

““[Senators Durbin and Wicker] understand that the global education of our college students is absolutely essential to strengthening America’s position as a responsible leader on the world stage and ensuring its competitiveness in the global economy.”

From that quote it’s very easy to be cynical…I question, who is the bill really benefiting? The students/citizens? Or America the brand?