<%BANNER%>

Through an Open Door? International Students at the University of Florida, 1946-1958

University of Florida Institutional Repository
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101123_AAAACB INGEST_TIME 2010-11-23T11:04:46Z PACKAGE UFE0011655_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 2112 DFID F20101123_AABCJK ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH osborne_l_Page_047.txt GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
b44ab07f4522b9e526c893f0cb35b3a4
SHA-1
26784a72d5a12c78bb0d3d4da4b98b971157c51d
2277 F20101123_AABCIV osborne_l_Page_028.txt
32d80a6ff571c30e1060a6ed90678e61
f54abe73de70bb2779ecaa580f77ee30f9a23be4
2370 F20101123_AABCJL osborne_l_Page_049.txt
c0f43a96dd56f088ec6fda8fc027ef6c
0270825a0c14edc4cc9b2fbef7833f9f357b397f
1723 F20101123_AABCIW osborne_l_Page_031.txt
896aa07f94d190d9b1ea2c9689696552
f2778ff68528b7df39426ab0edcaa00f72f50fad
2036 F20101123_AABCKA osborne_l_Page_071.txt
7aa62ab67edc1a480c0f74f2a28babd9
e3c8f341335224de8a856f8663c0787bdbb39eee
2177 F20101123_AABCJM osborne_l_Page_050.txt
8e38082f3bd7055896d68ca438e61564
7814cccf7fb8e659f733d1c76268bc336d617935
2116 F20101123_AABCIX osborne_l_Page_032.txt
b5f4fb3376b8f72970ab82a4ecbf329c
53662865d995396fb75d2cd433f0262845a124ac
2002 F20101123_AABCKB osborne_l_Page_072.txt
84f0674b4af2636785dcc137355df2d9
ba4d1aca35134b76902610aee95b72fd03520b6d
1848 F20101123_AABCIY osborne_l_Page_033.txt
ca74c96a114f485ec147bcf7425ee4dd
866f59e92d4515104ac390f3bc5416e23daa6aea
1956 F20101123_AABCKC osborne_l_Page_074.txt
19edb1417ebd5dba163e176c5ee2ca5c
c7b3733e4e2e09f2923bfb046e1fa2b177348b36
2139 F20101123_AABCJN osborne_l_Page_052.txt
8459ebba40d083abb1d22d8a88dd127c
991b4846e148a0df58ab358efead11d40c945cf3
2065 F20101123_AABCIZ osborne_l_Page_034.txt
abbae6b1dfaa2cedf82a09bd7a5d8286
98800f404ef4fd30ad5e46d32b408d48c6b97c89
1881 F20101123_AABCKD osborne_l_Page_075.txt
da3582c314fdaa0c70830f1bbea601c2
616eb1523fd093538b90401301842193ac8073dd
2037 F20101123_AABCJO osborne_l_Page_053.txt
02fd847b7f31243357200c87793130f7
cdecb60b77f9ce2e8812f0989c6956377005f5f6
1927 F20101123_AABCKE osborne_l_Page_076.txt
de8285c3f71ad04e1cee39ef4715d674
796ab047cdd32f38c220e9a8627774072b90e8e6
2318 F20101123_AABCJP osborne_l_Page_055.txt
a91ebac3de74ff692b1c5b6efcd63fc3
23442cf70ac7fa74201529746aa8d68433093b8b
2224 F20101123_AABCKF osborne_l_Page_077.txt
5c25f8832a091362dfb702127bc149ca
7a4cd1e91bd5949d6b6a74720d5a4d810ff12012
2047 F20101123_AABCJQ osborne_l_Page_056.txt
77baa7c1f212e0315e6334548f7cc684
82c32e7f237657024ab87f8d3884346d2daa177d
2067 F20101123_AABCKG osborne_l_Page_078.txt
ece8decffb7245b5a16c8b99fb5f5283
ba8e33947767e45a9f4ab7dfd2cbb0355f239a5f
2358 F20101123_AABCJR osborne_l_Page_057.txt
eb619a006814cf62bf335a1613e3bb59
1c51789aecc36519d4c0e3dc95ff146e444b2828
1976 F20101123_AABCKH osborne_l_Page_079.txt
670ca4d93152fa54340b7432e16775b7
1fb011a5f952c38ff0faf54aec9a40bea9b75e22
2157 F20101123_AABCJS osborne_l_Page_059.txt
13a0ca8b86eb3087928a913c2a686e34
89d626fe11adb85460c52f7e7780856e5ed192b6
2189 F20101123_AABCKI osborne_l_Page_080.txt
54241842d00b1dda8e933686cd4540ec
3b43676ac056beb765c8099a9e65c0b1532ab416
2051 F20101123_AABCJT osborne_l_Page_060.txt
3784de0029b47369929b1f937a5215bb
86eeb9dc11ccdd5192e0c797f8ff6433d7194db7
2283 F20101123_AABCKJ osborne_l_Page_081.txt
0b42a42444414ce7317494a04f3d7c8a
bce5d52ad21d447a797e1489d71faf913e8ca15a
1987 F20101123_AABCJU osborne_l_Page_063.txt
f769c89c1f22e66fbc06d7e250bce036
86dcce27afb61fb52d845927acbef628c99eecbf
2144 F20101123_AABCKK osborne_l_Page_083.txt
e459282ec895e42df3c8ac03b075780c
99afea995afd5eebc45a3c236f50578c3cf8e129
2031 F20101123_AABCJV osborne_l_Page_064.txt
cec6480a20e1b9eeddf04f04afa9a7c6
1f7b9ed6ad5245c8ec800d7338d402e2ca8530d0
1873 F20101123_AABCKL osborne_l_Page_085.txt
d9164f827dc45e969b104820e1621bc0
2b9c657d9ce6fbb3d14bccdd0cf119016f699136
2402 F20101123_AABCJW osborne_l_Page_065.txt
b5e9774af7e92aaadb083c6ce19554d7
9474c30efdac76dfb51ae0e8af80ab6bffaba928
2030 F20101123_AABCKM osborne_l_Page_086.txt
ffdfb105c3e068a30a99eb0647f06861
c9b837b0583a5e840f25aed3846f17c98c8fa1c9
1857 F20101123_AABCJX osborne_l_Page_066.txt
6fd2bc207e411b49dc00a223a0e82f2a
dcd2113be91646c6f07633816c7263591d2c1ecb
3974 F20101123_AABCLA osborne_l_Page_004thm.jpg
f2b5bc5f11caed847f9e53b7ab21dbdc
9836f6670226f5eb2346d4fcea44d3b16a14afde
2248 F20101123_AABCKN osborne_l_Page_088.txt
d8db20bf758e3d8eabe0d1647995303d
ccb611a7d433d04d43ac6e90c57c76655ba0c2ad
2146 F20101123_AABCJY osborne_l_Page_068.txt
9a82ffcc736c5f6e191a7fce1e3adad7
4ff0d14bf874f2cc09852825131c29aa9a2dba05
5109 F20101123_AABCLB osborne_l_Page_005thm.jpg
87e6b8140148989a5fc825ea01f5ddc3
86fa041755b1d0620027d88c6d8e29de2a64e896
2080 F20101123_AABCJZ osborne_l_Page_069.txt
627691098996e01af2de171c6d0d1b44
fbc9493eebca7b64dbe91d4829ff74998ada368e
5345 F20101123_AABCLC osborne_l_Page_006.QC.jpg
3b4e995aedb7c682e323bff5fd06b738
0656ceef7bf834018a2dbdd5554f72c04e732a15
2066 F20101123_AABCKO osborne_l_Page_090.txt
8d69574241161b5435b32669d4b226e6
69626a99ce3a49d9206d3e80c1c7256da3412c38
1996 F20101123_AABCLD osborne_l_Page_006thm.jpg
6e8f015b4679e08c324e85e44d7947ce
77add1f6ec5a1024c64d2d03431657c63c3cc4ad
581 F20101123_AABCKP osborne_l_Page_092.txt
2f0f590fb0ecec2c56bbc04ea33406e2
855cb04ed22ea7b6a7f4c12bcccf0cd924c414e1
1876 F20101123_AABCLE osborne_l_Page_007thm.jpg
cc9b7ac1eab93510cbb7b169e340d96c
53ffc5ade923368edf23c7f66abafef035a45c84
467 F20101123_AABCKQ osborne_l_Page_093.txt
a25f1bdd12a2316d39d2e24b47b2eca3
39dbbd4d3dde93cbfc5144fcd908c95f0b03cac5
21023 F20101123_AABCLF osborne_l_Page_009.QC.jpg
308acd10f8eb75c43e8b3441e61fa894
144c4cc966a5abfeac7e22307c985f092c619e07
2314 F20101123_AABCKR osborne_l_Page_095.txt
2cbdcef25d483f23aee383699ef8365c
3708c192380a463032f78e178a00300cf4ffaa49
6005 F20101123_AABCLG osborne_l_Page_009thm.jpg
1559dcdaa73d0d7082cc73f69ca96f14
807c08fa94e6f90364e3e5827979f46306d9c89a
587 F20101123_AABCKS osborne_l_Page_100.txt
17d09e338e6cd10f488898c1c4f396d6
caf19a8e26b28ba64e2207fad765923fe35db41a
23053 F20101123_AABCLH osborne_l_Page_010.QC.jpg
00a922df4b3edb23dcb790c30718bcc2
a900dc6084a3ad3350763a9e6376befbca3f8eaf
7707 F20101123_AABCKT osborne_l_Page_001.QC.jpg
3c39d92fae1eef3c2d9f2185350d56ca
272cd7cbb592182f35dcc0207009a8814ddc67b7
6366 F20101123_AABCLI osborne_l_Page_010thm.jpg
d85fa2fefa1b5ec46e3f028d8cfc052f
2d5587249d2352d16cf261eb05008e88f1e43ceb
2470 F20101123_AABCKU osborne_l_Page_001thm.jpg
b9d4c0b57b33d0d94cf4676e83313215
d1d8854a94f4b6a9331f3a6a1199b794360800a1
23884 F20101123_AABCLJ osborne_l_Page_011.QC.jpg
65afe9a3cf8a2aa98586df42d06832a3
495a5d214b2ce75fbe34040580329f81ffe8764c
3382 F20101123_AABCKV osborne_l_Page_002.QC.jpg
9ba1af4a9912e2632f8504cc0c6e2599
55316f5d4a2781b792fa2d2d7b69c59012cfe4ba
23312 F20101123_AABCLK osborne_l_Page_013.QC.jpg
695e1cad6689777c7d9cc35a0e737d8c
f7c55fed40d7c6f2fac1e1dac20ad265a234700d
1413 F20101123_AABCKW osborne_l_Page_002thm.jpg
39fc9f8b5de2e14cd01d7331a238d1bc
b51d55aa7784770a9d6e62240991f07292963d78
6663 F20101123_AABCLL osborne_l_Page_013thm.jpg
8c6b3cad46573102cd3a4b898fc26622
c2c13fba671c868a8763fb41b3548cde5abab69f
4125 F20101123_AABCKX osborne_l_Page_003.QC.jpg
e28784d1c56b0e7d88c16799bb9b6382
132f9fd8a4d21e4b74c3871d39528877b8785548
22239 F20101123_AABCMA osborne_l_Page_027.QC.jpg
7c3444dbaa003e0522937f5ae7c5c272
3d15d45704c6b1443559a390094757c2b2b2575c
4344 F20101123_AABCLM osborne_l_Page_014thm.jpg
59a37a721fa34b08eac21593ea31c9c2
dc5caa1b61ecdcaef46637c07804d6ebd7831246
1728 F20101123_AABCKY osborne_l_Page_003thm.jpg
4d188fbf2552fe34caa0cc6161d73841
3d947a53405030549747691fd0156c21fccbfbef
6206 F20101123_AABCMB osborne_l_Page_027thm.jpg
9b1a19cab49fd690f002cfaa439221b9
0a3fb67509c3756c122963da5fd16542288ed66f
21054 F20101123_AABCLN osborne_l_Page_015.QC.jpg
ecfb973fa26f8c2c16ca3364cc3d6193
8ef5694ff6d31f664f6aa4cbb84b2c0bd2e0188a
13422 F20101123_AABCKZ osborne_l_Page_004.QC.jpg
3c4988e15bf306ca05e4afe0edf3b3de
958b0ad6ad174d8535aee0e8999b2cf208ef2f4c
23281 F20101123_AABCMC osborne_l_Page_029.QC.jpg
2621cfcac365cb9f98ea27008a93fc27
da2fb45279c9bee0aba9b6c8b79c1108d473efdf
23791 F20101123_AABCLO osborne_l_Page_016.QC.jpg
28bd25115ce7abc0f6d2144144468e9f
c6dec99704b3a91ed9875fa3be09ee763e1cfaf7
23382 F20101123_AABCMD osborne_l_Page_030.QC.jpg
ca5b4546c685e2e9ea97c4e6bb8ad42e
c76f536650e7a034b803b7babafe8b06a01de172
6494 F20101123_AABCME osborne_l_Page_030thm.jpg
d0a995a05776af1650d0de82f54cd3cc
c4624ad6d45cf623f87a51d80e713e3159e75c6e
6616 F20101123_AABCLP osborne_l_Page_016thm.jpg
d2d5e629fac2addbc4e551c7bc251d44
4006a6081027747e681fb7c93e7a069f296427e3
5727 F20101123_AABCMF osborne_l_Page_031thm.jpg
1902009d1e7e69679ecbe3e8af7abf89
600c8175bb2eb49f22a427fae4510b19a588c967
22288 F20101123_AABCLQ osborne_l_Page_018.QC.jpg
2fa325bcfdcaba25ec44f4e3479921b9
933688cb966f4068cb7fb62240b2244c2c6bef45
22370 F20101123_AABCMG osborne_l_Page_032.QC.jpg
0d50620d2465077dadd0c0081a6d3a71
c9c1b4507318573bed7b781419be7465c3662938
6068 F20101123_AABCLR osborne_l_Page_018thm.jpg
b3830ba4b275e17c36c2f7eeee20febe
b89ca06ba2169b22de6630d7bc34bd2583f9723a
5994 F20101123_AABCMH osborne_l_Page_033thm.jpg
a6f0ffe37a3b0345b6b6fa92f69f1160
931a580817d36e9798b3eb22aa77dc6ddaacc87c
6854 F20101123_AABCLS osborne_l_Page_019thm.jpg
3342ecbd68e253eebda1ab80ea9d2c85
5fb62ba2b465c53826c69e33e6acfa907ca3db76
6830 F20101123_AABCMI osborne_l_Page_034thm.jpg
278c42b3d1e7d5fb41fd94f94bf108da
dfb68eb79f97d9153db60c1dfa65468577f633bc
21909 F20101123_AABCLT osborne_l_Page_020.QC.jpg
35da33146d044f3a35d2f001bc48464b
2c3a2888c80163e48389a221771a10826362e49e
21806 F20101123_AABCMJ osborne_l_Page_035.QC.jpg
d900f17368336fcbe12b76da75bbb22b
705decc31ab984d7e0181796d4c69cd9fc229da0
6664 F20101123_AABCLU osborne_l_Page_021thm.jpg
bcd12a5e62abacf9438d17d0a0505f53
6e07cfc5dcd5c73118b9b5547f8a59f3e900a616
21519 F20101123_AABCMK osborne_l_Page_036.QC.jpg
e06bb06d602f4250f8f967544885ab14
ae2ebacde0dd7699eddd2abe50a7303c89ad6a78
6135 F20101123_AABCLV osborne_l_Page_023thm.jpg
13a212bebbe6835602cd74abc836ecc1
013a3e6c599a60e5e28288d1fcd4cc5d5b9d7a99
6030 F20101123_AABCML osborne_l_Page_036thm.jpg
b9f67d61dcfdf08080275d6f7d726985
8968ad5b0eb63c0a0e681079e092c3acecc77f96
23668 F20101123_AABCLW osborne_l_Page_024.QC.jpg
73f048b7379f0f375c3fb637a8edd08f
1ae6369fb3b6625dff8e2b54f5869ba24b7b77a4
6421 F20101123_AABCNA osborne_l_Page_047thm.jpg
aad70470b647cbb1a31374dc386514a0
b2c4a768ed4fecbc9eabcd8a07c10780cb499f40
21858 F20101123_AABCMM osborne_l_Page_037.QC.jpg
5a6b88f0959dda70e45138574f4e4576
5c35510224414ac3da8203ab65aee32ac62cba23
6400 F20101123_AABCLX osborne_l_Page_024thm.jpg
f39521717d1e8d56326a98ef46d72820
fbfbf7cfb65cec60dcc8668e4361ed74222f82df
6625 F20101123_AABCNB osborne_l_Page_048thm.jpg
75ad912fa54b9cb6d91f363847702a38
281c6753524ac94c0cf8e791d19ef7ce41324b24
6310 F20101123_AABCMN osborne_l_Page_037thm.jpg
cb04a4a8052f30348eca387718ce3628
1e8be7bc34b134fffdcb31ab2aaf8fca786ca9fa
21993 F20101123_AABCLY osborne_l_Page_026.QC.jpg
48843540660b87e058d021029d1080c0
2e8aaea0cab7d95c594e3270327258eba9415cc8
24739 F20101123_AABCNC osborne_l_Page_049.QC.jpg
422be2860e4d76a9c62870f7d42e339b
f17dbc1acfe1016f75b460f10cc9810c47f2e9fc
20945 F20101123_AABCMO osborne_l_Page_038.QC.jpg
3b656abfc735dd37c33ec096d3e79a58
32eb81f78c87e783e71d452cfb6a8a9f78fb1ac0
6215 F20101123_AABCLZ osborne_l_Page_026thm.jpg
b9844841a9af4f9b7f518d4725e52758
b61375f4fafec35e6578b9af99b6276fe8a1121c
23500 F20101123_AABCND osborne_l_Page_050.QC.jpg
6b84bd5c015b56be45b36aac63de1a16
fc52f2ea0614803bab50ba9e19948cd3a9247786
23915 F20101123_AABCMP osborne_l_Page_041.QC.jpg
f75b482f3522fee7d8fe000f573989ed
551c38322d432040b7b53b613de4e804b74c364e
6651 F20101123_AABCNE osborne_l_Page_050thm.jpg
754ab1810ca5680879f072e2abe54050
91614d6025ca036743ba2349896f767fc629c13b
22365 F20101123_AABCNF osborne_l_Page_051.QC.jpg
5399f0134e6ad4dba7069db7425f2944
40361cfcbb05dd8fd9f7feb1e5b48143cb289499
6450 F20101123_AABCMQ osborne_l_Page_041thm.jpg
5b131d2aa3f043b3b2444cb9911f680b
a77ec3b26bde6552012f7ef88484d22e60a47877
21209 F20101123_AABCMR osborne_l_Page_042.QC.jpg
69377c39044a22e5ceadd5e8ba523f25
03b9f568b1d1eae5776bef9c4908a90d70b205aa
21861 F20101123_AABCNG osborne_l_Page_053.QC.jpg
7325f26581e2795a60ba094c5641986b
698686d6693c0dafd3dabc8dac9e75aec31ac222
6020 F20101123_AABCMS osborne_l_Page_042thm.jpg
9b9f2551beddefc5325e5d356a110705
b203882b664c3a2833573aeaf71830c0cd6bdb3f
6305 F20101123_AABCNH osborne_l_Page_054thm.jpg
f84dcd241638107dbb76a41b033a8b3e
7414093269897572e2b1b7af2be436c133cb15fd
21527 F20101123_AABCMT osborne_l_Page_043.QC.jpg
3126edbd50e16f0731b4cf2279deaa49
a400d1cf092b4bfa46a52ec84d43e3d5ef96b688
23927 F20101123_AABCNI osborne_l_Page_055.QC.jpg
06f8725c58f0fb61f4547e93a39dd397
7e21752f194304c3ddc927b72925129c1b39a5da
6259 F20101123_AABCMU osborne_l_Page_043thm.jpg
0c16827a8e0239d8fe9a83ad1231abca
cc8d6a95eff32c4d0f8698b0fbd94505bee46c1e
23183 F20101123_AABCNJ osborne_l_Page_056.QC.jpg
f5449ca46958772cb5fa56acaa73e37b
d7e24251177c84413e0d641bb07e77e684dd2dee
23937 F20101123_AABCMV osborne_l_Page_044.QC.jpg
8935ab4cc47c5995f030d1c189c956e3
ae47c398e5325ab1b359732bca377cd8a42090fa
24056 F20101123_AABCNK osborne_l_Page_057.QC.jpg
0ef952014d1bacb04ac8096d1c4feed6
7ecd50f04e56808a550846f8c6f63d00dfd838ce
6834 F20101123_AABCMW osborne_l_Page_044thm.jpg
b1a0844f8ef194fcf7d7589168984deb
a7c7a42bc43c2633fec26227467b48e79571fcec
6694 F20101123_AABCNL osborne_l_Page_057thm.jpg
62aa5ec8b963dc14dc95aefabde8fe9e
e3da266ec7cb5e259c65d225c0e0975d9fa4307a
6671 F20101123_AABCMX osborne_l_Page_045thm.jpg
d0d26091862f6278f40e17730a46ae74
03c1a4b27ce0b1b2a8c24a16788c174fd37fa6ba
22320 F20101123_AABCOA osborne_l_Page_071.QC.jpg
b50586ca2cdda77cb94d359c43c86ad5
9550b338af84318bdbce7e382b3780c38d4256fc
6562 F20101123_AABCNM osborne_l_Page_060thm.jpg
2eaf479574513f99fdeda407ef83a4e6
58d1e34fce68902e561187de0894d2a21ef236a6
6354 F20101123_AABCMY osborne_l_Page_046thm.jpg
c2dd7327e228e55cf4ace08335f5743f
dc74069e7d8ea9fd19798fbe865df8064ff82a83
23119 F20101123_AABCOB osborne_l_Page_072.QC.jpg
01e9411d49ff416ef2becacd70f1332a
364c0c9540e09facd8f3a57b0a61d36aa15a3301
6228 F20101123_AABCNN osborne_l_Page_062thm.jpg
876f2bb11a4d29855d5eaf97a67d9235
cbd10737a3fa3ba32db3bae6bfd8c6a8ad82acd5
22730 F20101123_AABCMZ osborne_l_Page_047.QC.jpg
b300616d718a176a9319fc59b69e88fb
f3d5de4f08441229370e64e8fd0baccb48c0e1bc
20725 F20101123_AABCOC osborne_l_Page_073.QC.jpg
3c7b08ca646737b145096985dfdc8c00
a784b3d9f94c79a44fc4b0ba781385ecb62ce256
21736 F20101123_AABCNO osborne_l_Page_063.QC.jpg
f5154f4430c8b995879b9688489f789f
58ba4e94ea6514b629ecbe8d7e62d1e17f44d843
22517 F20101123_AABCOD osborne_l_Page_074.QC.jpg
fcb4d24887892883ef8f1028f7b8851d
5c762ba7dc2501b9a8c9a842f011c73f62bf0f99
6130 F20101123_AABCNP osborne_l_Page_063thm.jpg
6094707f5b164631be2a87da09964ad7
cfc29b882d9f72ff3932f9c1b7a34ec77aa9fb1f
21794 F20101123_AABCOE osborne_l_Page_075.QC.jpg
6d91eada7998ae419fe4f901445ab4a1
f7d313c02c02057e02e6c39fa16b4901952e2297
21325 F20101123_AABCNQ osborne_l_Page_064.QC.jpg
eb722a5f0771a11f008a400c074d6d1a
66f2b7ae8256d4e61853ce63ae9c85efe202fdd1
6257 F20101123_AABCOF osborne_l_Page_075thm.jpg
5b6d14ad70c445b5b5ae330aa19c5ada
bbf26755ba2bbe08c476e1b58f8ea405c0324a12
21187 F20101123_AABCOG osborne_l_Page_076.QC.jpg
c53b7cfa6197ea960d69b211de0e3b87
56b81943371fe63359ef33ebf5c733b589392f70
5785 F20101123_AABCNR osborne_l_Page_064thm.jpg
55ddbdfcc9d638094e6e8343748d51a5
67a8c809e7840fe14a119e2ba04bb87be78bae06
26605 F20101123_AABCOH osborne_l_Page_077.QC.jpg
c4ef4703de5df6cfaad01fd954f556c8
0e3b9d5e486f4e4a5848b7c39b171c781fa8a5c2
23940 F20101123_AABCNS osborne_l_Page_065.QC.jpg
c82100d63b3604a9e55506f2169977dd
8721b6bea58443c5782ae14668cb25701784f9a9
7266 F20101123_AABCOI osborne_l_Page_077thm.jpg
caf0b9e6bb356f350a5eb125cac92534
af4bbd9f545a190af4dd889a3da595d45564e5fd
6626 F20101123_AABCNT osborne_l_Page_065thm.jpg
f3b9a9e490ae9cfe7185744689269673
6aaf480c3a5e48797ab7fc09e50ccb85dad5765d
22346 F20101123_AABCOJ osborne_l_Page_078.QC.jpg
45fe42fd47c53e0c7aa7d5edcede23e6
04604fca2537fbd062795f200f69957768a7505b
20804 F20101123_AABCNU osborne_l_Page_066.QC.jpg
2354221b8d713d32ee7482b18f5fb780
57488d91e1c79a19c095130b7586f0829363237b
6169 F20101123_AABCOK osborne_l_Page_078thm.jpg
5112dc37a56385d20255c9af93abb7e9
519143d6711205e21add2b116cdc53736b1bb972
6021 F20101123_AABCNV osborne_l_Page_066thm.jpg
1b55e247b3888899961c5326a1585d9b
fb13a88377d1bf331cab062eb7371e38dd8c40ce
22541 F20101123_AABCOL osborne_l_Page_079.QC.jpg
c79087804bfc71fa03c96171fa7bda95
81deabd45fb340f9287539c1ff242714f0edbaf0
23951 F20101123_AABCNW osborne_l_Page_067.QC.jpg
068a6da86dd8b358ea7f9eae17f2e1db
cf8c5bcf86e0c7c5375e9fd7073ddcad9d6dd57b
22799 F20101123_AABCPA osborne_l_Page_089.QC.jpg
21c4a9b4a91b1e1aa48b40a42fa2d929
1565d5c39a1751c4c010928095ecd0cf63b685b4
6487 F20101123_AABCOM osborne_l_Page_080thm.jpg
a90fae32ae2117a781b2c453d35f5cef
0bb9fd780827c00868506d510c106510ce825e1f
23775 F20101123_AABCNX osborne_l_Page_068.QC.jpg
84131a4bb704c5279bc520e1f9329162
9a2fb3e453b799742167889ed1a4f5f521c48da7
23169 F20101123_AABCPB osborne_l_Page_090.QC.jpg
08daee65df8718fb80981d2abdbb47a0
19a8ca7cf1e76211ca1f19464f8847ca42dc7a0b
24340 F20101123_AABCON osborne_l_Page_081.QC.jpg
dedb5dc298c93744401404976d1a6139
811cf33148045099f8f5f1fe31a4d26e23b6d84a
6275 F20101123_AABCNY osborne_l_Page_069thm.jpg
f68b0f1ad8c5f780cdb140038e89ee34
15bf47c54facad93d70f5965fa10f61d8f9e0f71
4656 F20101123_AABCPC osborne_l_Page_091thm.jpg
a469dc554176a17f5b2fec66e16e6e51
4036b0fc1aba850bc12adf397f0cae6e354c69d4
6683 F20101123_AABCOO osborne_l_Page_081thm.jpg
c95f5097b206441018e0c4f49c950b29
01dfe3ab49ebeecd016e4e68d4f5387f22a6ac75
23985 F20101123_AABCNZ osborne_l_Page_070.QC.jpg
4abd224f6734912f26b27808f3eaed8b
742a3f624debe3e5f6035da39419b3cabfc4706f
3433 F20101123_AABCPD osborne_l_Page_092thm.jpg
096a4304962bfc424bdb3eb04f201169
89cbf5cf245f0f43e99b4506aa865c34eb57a51f
22444 F20101123_AABCOP osborne_l_Page_082.QC.jpg
c0989f76bbefbcdd371d0db3bcbb8db9
b6f0f5a1658158d23bf9bc3b23b281ca383ed344
11351 F20101123_AABCPE osborne_l_Page_093.QC.jpg
22a59d9fb65dd7035d1f7f76d498a2c0
3cfbcf4095f18d1a58d0f8b041f0aa4c6bb2f273
6432 F20101123_AABCOQ osborne_l_Page_083thm.jpg
e98dddfe7e0dd3389e2cb922fce84e1d
f79e979116166d9dda6d0629df7367c845290059
5897 F20101123_AABCPF osborne_l_Page_094thm.jpg
227ac5a2dda5493df0943acd17bf6a13
d4c82434ca19de22384c224c75b8350c0daca593
21409 F20101123_AABCOR osborne_l_Page_084.QC.jpg
1bc750d5b9ade4b6fe4106dabe2dbbf8
ea9ae52b22ceb2e0e2a2cba69bb1d6d8b385841b
24616 F20101123_AABCPG osborne_l_Page_096.QC.jpg
9c2033daaf54aed4664cce8ac3a0ac80
046c680d5b52d0988fb31e24c839a069f3fb3c57
22771 F20101123_AABCPH osborne_l_Page_097.QC.jpg
e0f97d19461a0c256aa71e9b7e5f91c2
be9007c8f4e89b00a1432dc18e999de3473ad329
6139 F20101123_AABCOS osborne_l_Page_084thm.jpg
aeec6d92dfe4c08b014272f984dc4ecb
b6ddf3308a2625e543e1261190389c92ab42213f
F20101123_AABCPI osborne_l_Page_097thm.jpg
4421b029abbe32c24863d69a75f68318
23ca0940063fcc5f0c1257d84931fa3649623092
21565 F20101123_AABCOT osborne_l_Page_085.QC.jpg
de07045d211c86de054c8ffc2fb8a484
1e41e2bb4d2e36d80cd739762e6fc0fc677cdccc
6733 F20101123_AABCPJ osborne_l_Page_098thm.jpg
774303855d87478ae54a10cb9c6c6ea9
350bd20408be074bceada8cd0d80aaac1538e15b
6008 F20101123_AABCOU osborne_l_Page_085thm.jpg
e25c7a56f14914e38f5536e11e634861
37e9bf3ec1c6900afdd2326569f41e68893d0ce7
6661 F20101123_AABCPK osborne_l_Page_099.QC.jpg
6148690334302353ef036ca9b92c0bcd
2dbabafcbf1f2dc18f54d3a51eb1859c7c318afc
22856 F20101123_AABCOV osborne_l_Page_086.QC.jpg
08262b1bdb4061f3b3af4f04c915d15d
e4da739096729e7f20959f5fbef8dc36767009cb
2196 F20101123_AABCPL osborne_l_Page_099thm.jpg
861b42d490c13faaafa0a26371fe5cfa
c437cdde2614c371b8336aa2f76d476cc2e15d7f
6391 F20101123_AABCOW osborne_l_Page_086thm.jpg
5eadbf95b35a72de9873fdabb274125f
2a6ddb91a92d5fd4b70f762a22ce0719a8fd1c8a
2700 F20101123_AABCPM osborne_l_Page_100thm.jpg
9606bf82ecf7359f3a8e3fb68338d1c8
aa21e7debf0f2e450406ccbfc0ce4f9c0adc6125
26475 F20101123_AABCOX osborne_l_Page_087.QC.jpg
1e447d8ed45920a7038b8c8c375d6876
987b30101b56385c81026e0731fbaa2cc4c35d71
116817 F20101123_AABCPN UFE0011655_00001.mets FULL
bef00790ee8e0b3ca5b455a92e4ee3cc
451678c6ee4969d6b38fa510995279644fe57cd4
7396 F20101123_AABCOY osborne_l_Page_087thm.jpg
06cd8bb1ac7bc06fee172c713b4fbb6e
ea916c65318a49305fe795b5291f5f3ed8520231
6707 F20101123_AABCOZ osborne_l_Page_088thm.jpg
6e3446ac02f0a3edb6a1326b10dad9cc
453ae27a21fa61691b88e0879cae88a66b681834
52994 F20101123_AABBOL osborne_l_Page_047.pro
25b82e69412286083fd6330a42446804
4b58d5381f55de50783117b7441e8ab6eadbc266
75126 F20101123_AABBOM osborne_l_Page_060.jpg
aa180b49a951f8836b540d1121b3c69d
0bbd829e772646170b2ba7c28512cbf5fe55a1ef
3968 F20101123_AABBPA osborne_l_Page_040.QC.jpg
8d0eedd2175adafe6152b40850ed49f7
e840cf44799358418978ddafeb5fd05a6ec3470f
6274 F20101123_AABBON osborne_l_Page_022thm.jpg
8fb0c5109f2baee42da4c793ae18615d
32abe9e3f0c21a4b1638ee21a2ee2702b90b9fb6
21587 F20101123_AABBPB osborne_l_Page_025.QC.jpg
7e71211a85edf2730f34822b9824ebd0
b60ab90778a0a2711cfa7412aca630264d184301
49706 F20101123_AABBOO osborne_l_Page_074.pro
2aa5637436338be53b743c809c0b2e22
abccd549df9ec852643682b8adb0f57c72e89c98
6516 F20101123_AABBPC osborne_l_Page_067thm.jpg
456196b7e400cea07ab7a976afb5aad5
bc31ad0a057a4ef4deb40c6e0fa116d4d5f0a4d3
50584 F20101123_AABBOP osborne_l_Page_036.pro
ccd05eb758771161dd54eb73438d9d0c
e61fa64790ebb8d626f5185450b0dd124f06d96d
65017 F20101123_AABBPD osborne_l_Page_048.pro
a7b8145e0bde3daedb07582ea8ffce84
544a53f7d0c3db0a9b1108af52de8c77816df05c
25271604 F20101123_AABBOQ osborne_l_Page_006.tif
ab92665dc53c72b1d8561069ffd9517b
84b767bf375c9751879e798db6524745d12c825c
47602 F20101123_AABBPE osborne_l_Page_084.pro
8f2562f1f1cab2aedd32a3c4366efeed
05b1f4a9cfb6b4e942c45a5c5168c38d3e9da3de
1053954 F20101123_AABBOR osborne_l_Page_036.tif
2d40f00e36205bc76e1875758327e3c6
16c244194e3cd2301ca2564fc52b8baa257e7bb2
F20101123_AABBPF osborne_l_Page_007.tif
7d2e5079fcba5be808e036b70393c32d
b3f73ea18a1207e9db2ee36704e18ee883160d94
15172 F20101123_AABBOS osborne_l_Page_007.jpg
4497d27be83d2d0fda9c6087e1bd21a8
17d4590eaa4f66d38659b8fa0b2ae7f40641b1f7
1051985 F20101123_AABBPG osborne_l_Page_045.jp2
5ff328d4aa6024ad6b3e1065881c9f20
217e45656c8f44510da1a00710b2f2f3eba06218
6680 F20101123_AABBPH osborne_l_Page_055thm.jpg
c3108737da28078505d4a7c54575dd96
bd80733da8aed9e8b584d52ba068a52e05e4fb01
2354 F20101123_AABBOT osborne_l_Page_087.txt
78c1908d61628dc91df0b3a93a523177
8958d0e4cbb7693b151326a6f4c9eeed608c2945
74562 F20101123_AABBPI osborne_l_Page_020.jpg
41f7082ad8f0ef2c21bb625ff39acfac
7ed9b687581c39649dbaaaec55a89ead82a9ca1d
6650 F20101123_AABBOU osborne_l_Page_070thm.jpg
837a0efe069c04b35c47c7b1556bbda3
6f0bf176e3a124d96809925ea8a65fa4002fcb1f
2401 F20101123_AABBPJ osborne_l_Page_010.txt
af921fed962e301f6ea18b5f92d76326
f2e14e1489ad3919a6f01a28683f20b10d43f19c
6288 F20101123_AABBOV osborne_l_Page_074thm.jpg
432c780ba0d6168306bccab2c063de8a
7a9201bc5465284889276f1c5dc56962b935e103
6499 F20101123_AABBPK osborne_l_Page_049thm.jpg
1e2ee2519fbb95c29eb2e66851109448
1ba89921c8bbcfedb839c2d3d2e860d4a96df337
67354 F20101123_AABBOW osborne_l_Page_075.jpg
c20330a740a5a03fd7671d3e156479da
2f04f4f7d86ac5e2b5f565fe5b3cfcf95d4afe5d
1051972 F20101123_AABBPL osborne_l_Page_098.jp2
31e2121fe41c4c81e55981c70ed536d8
d68daf8f7544004c74d63e381a6b45ba8d8cb8b4
6607 F20101123_AABBOX osborne_l_Page_056thm.jpg
dec27c71915fed6884b2d5fed62ad13e
7d91aea047d3970b94d42eaea13c11497ec993c1
68825 F20101123_AABBQA osborne_l_Page_022.jpg
a3af755200a1a5585598e95765c37e61
73c87a13ebcceee63e1b262acd369d2f1cd68072
21702 F20101123_AABBPM osborne_l_Page_062.QC.jpg
3cdc52da0bf8138e835e9d797c27cc84
2b7ab3f3554bd9c39ebf46508f30d249570f0933
632764 F20101123_AABBOY osborne_l.pdf
1dbe7e2e1e44f54b815e8294d788673d
14da6679bd0c97ea08d3329ce263b8b0f6d69d61
2688 F20101123_AABBQB osborne_l_Page_005.txt
d5a9b7d3ea715b2d9e3d92cefc208dd6
b32e721887b60ab83d6d2e21af32f8fc7eba2b91
19892 F20101123_AABBPN osborne_l_Page_005.QC.jpg
e46f8007848fbe2f5ce79a72a59c281f
aecd1da9102ae25630e6a4de9fa153b1435a4b25
101746 F20101123_AABBOZ osborne_l_Page_033.jp2
41a71c993734581c006c9972dfe0af57
eb784be86161ba2d0ff861999c27d1757b0030ad
1738 F20101123_AABBQC osborne_l_Page_073.txt
34b51993c1a2c55204ff9afc3182eabe
29385b96e257b0d0c6c862f4c4cac1bdee383eb9
78373 F20101123_AABBPO osborne_l_Page_045.jpg
aca3133538c3c50f57c5818d7fa8ec8e
2de4f956fc52238fa9bcc789359a8e7b56521f4a
8700 F20101123_AABBQD osborne_l_Page_100.QC.jpg
fc8b8318ef5a5f06353bfd8e0c3a348c
d2cf4cca979e993996b7ae37f05e07492431d48f
73459 F20101123_AABBPP osborne_l_Page_017.jpg
ee50eb53194aa9cb1ab0e1b479b0a2b9
e2ae68f125080f7db9cbe6e14572532ebcf5ae4d
F20101123_AABBQE osborne_l_Page_065.tif
aeae8c5a1325dde0942589f9c2e7b055
908afad4bfa8ec7c00446378e66f1147eefd3c04
21353 F20101123_AABBPQ osborne_l_Page_033.QC.jpg
bbcecc47f707e0894ad1d540f2d166d5
7396fbf40409448138372d6f4eacb8ce5760c212
23864 F20101123_AABBQF osborne_l_Page_061.QC.jpg
7af916b580933e43f4541c3694e3a5ab
66274bb01790ded2fb0a0eae87e190e7c0866ea0
108982 F20101123_AABBPR osborne_l_Page_086.jp2
0ba19efbe5ed43dfd8c2590513ca18fb
3ea11ab4dc5ecf675bdce75e4a478fbd7b6e82e1
1051973 F20101123_AABBQG osborne_l_Page_077.jp2
a2a7f5c106ed157e1c2b2030d9dce0d7
7ce21132ee541a62afcbb3ecf29404aebc38f3a5
6439 F20101123_AABBPS osborne_l_Page_051thm.jpg
67761bd53da8e7a4bdff6ec33e237234
945f8dbc1c5568919d901e75acbae97949d762d1
34740 F20101123_AABBQH osborne_l_Page_092.jpg
31ef1e9d332cda20c501c36d8e8e459d
f8d74daa7eaf34daf3d2a99bca1d5af4acd61eba
47174 F20101123_AABBPT osborne_l_Page_066.pro
9b9fc5f64547e8f6e8ca7ba29f92306e
0912227e438f7a9138507de57ffd4ac0de6cb342
475 F20101123_AABBQI osborne_l_Page_001.txt
5b491e433dcb6cad9e6e3d4cf7280864
6bc626c1bffef88c0447259939d9a9d195c49600
16756 F20101123_AABBQJ osborne_l_Page_006.jpg
e3b3b9af9fd15a6d169c924dec216cd3
857427a8ad0c37f6cbd8f6f5b466a0f00a438d1f
1554 F20101123_AABBPU osborne_l_Page_040thm.jpg
04f883820b52d7e18b978d61c32c267e
4b89811c3b7ec83acb255631366ce0287743c73d
313944 F20101123_AABBQK osborne_l_Page_006.jp2
f06ee1ae16a2382cb71b4cf4dec62556
229df0a4a678bb47c509d70c0a53a23141275b22
F20101123_AABBPV osborne_l_Page_042.tif
2c4fbd1e1bdffeed48f4c2f475788db6
f4d40f1741eb4a09db65d444d44e1e723fe833b5
52498 F20101123_AABBQL osborne_l_Page_051.pro
20d1efec2c93729fe8d05d5c52f7429f
c5af8ba39630b0da2a2327c18af7d5303c19ba84
52229 F20101123_AABBPW osborne_l_Page_097.pro
b35051a9c97692d91c181f5bb1acba69
94cece789b94cd672f4dc9feec6fccdb3b6448a3
63403 F20101123_AABBRA osborne_l_Page_023.jpg
bc6ac86345721c2278ec7ceeb5a4fe02
96cddb76651de7d913a7d71d729896d3afc3b486
F20101123_AABBQM osborne_l_Page_018.tif
117304a63b6757fab6e8a3708a053a02
8337066efa3e2633b760eae334c1c11ec38c2dee
6667 F20101123_AABBPX osborne_l_Page_011thm.jpg
1ea5ed48355779320b0a681a082d9648
be7357f2b0978706ce6e2551b68c47b5a162dced
5920 F20101123_AABBRB osborne_l_Page_073thm.jpg
25f9417b66d88377a028f35b903b7f34
08d0cb8d4cbfd1378b736fd5979b3df325e5f85f
6584 F20101123_AABBQN osborne_l_Page_029thm.jpg
9cbd7c7b8c73526b762a5788aff02f7e
b51b3d3b708b8f3e542115259598f04976cea226
1051 F20101123_AABBPY osborne_l_Page_004.txt
8a5d11adcaaa8c7b76f1a43bb2a49e9e
691a827fabaade5766c379cfa588cf05df104b28
1051923 F20101123_AABBRC osborne_l_Page_044.jp2
6b72226bdd569ffb72b6c2d573fa41dd
bde17d566c88ae31fae67a6b258f08a4989034b4
6858 F20101123_AABBQO osborne_l_Page_096thm.jpg
51132efa5f20b1637f1c4db81011d795
63f4e53c8a385d55612b723a0f0f2ee3f3cb91fe
107768 F20101123_AABBPZ osborne_l_Page_094.jp2
5d66da57b875eaad56dfd3b4b12b4b91
f45275dbb6b61a6006346df11711c324690f0940
47504 F20101123_AABBRD osborne_l_Page_075.pro
0f5b9001c21c96d75ce103816e3b1481
fdc5129de8c14051b7655c2625bb1f26a52ce5f8
3368 F20101123_AABBQP osborne_l_Page_093thm.jpg
86ca96f3ba651d8d92f06b9b93672014
e35f8e4a0957e5f6db8db43b76034085c92ba81f
89661 F20101123_AABBRE osborne_l_Page_096.jpg
ae0a22592765a74d3b043a0432389e26
eb23cda6f5ce5615b8d46f563cd790aca729d92c
24855 F20101123_AABBQQ osborne_l_Page_012.QC.jpg
966ee19624531630496175245df6a871
1a98ee07210a01ed58063e5c176955e69326c550
5044 F20101123_AABBRF osborne_l_Page_008thm.jpg
0abdfa8df975005ad3b60fc681ef99f1
9f470656538f7a7c20aa537ca1ed936347d7f9ac
44864 F20101123_AABBQR osborne_l_Page_009.pro
2cc7bd8833d473ab698cb9241a51f2bb
5eb9c33eb0aed1e3c6f323c116df0f0380734d88
2119 F20101123_AABBRG osborne_l_Page_061.txt
64ef1f8d74a0288b4600b5a0d32d494b
7535bc0de492247ff50df806a1847dfa879fd5af
24812 F20101123_AABBQS osborne_l_Page_019.QC.jpg
8735ede47dd54cc26d182ef8fccd3dd4
67d1201681ebebc90c4dab1db414a577d0571e2d
77217 F20101123_AABBRH osborne_l_Page_097.jpg
224abb8ccfac38a054cf3edc5987c05a
94ac900dffc350a99e1115f07414ac6c557902ed
72174 F20101123_AABBQT osborne_l_Page_056.jpg
d560e52caaca21e5b3f7178f99dd16e3
c6079ac8e75edf5b01f8e3fceb89fb7f6475ef46
23804 F20101123_AABBRI osborne_l_Page_034.QC.jpg
e6a4b220f3f12d3a06ba6523e18aad2d
6275af047e071a3a5555410af4101020fe89f506
5791 F20101123_AABBQU osborne_l_Page_076thm.jpg
c6fec5fa4e7b0b590f5d4f0329fcbafc
678719c83536c51a69345d0915704732e95c9355
2109 F20101123_AABBRJ osborne_l_Page_029.txt
45813e1183ff3c747df1f448220927cf
b027e39f449c90f0fe047e2deb5639be1000f547
65143 F20101123_AABBRK osborne_l_Page_005.pro
d0c74f9ac309024877b3176a7ff656fe
746fe314f20811d63f57d5e77c6dcf66a06c50c2
F20101123_AABBQV osborne_l_Page_077.tif
57a629328935d7a2acdd58d379b3a4d0
5d4089f25e70153877e609b1abe3c2cb2413d130
2181 F20101123_AABBRL osborne_l_Page_067.txt
812a0b65d56be31d4e5c7b99471c9602
3eb7a9c88650b16b71dae2bc42e1b2d2f2d1b101
17951 F20101123_AABBQW osborne_l_Page_008.QC.jpg
22e99ba59b23163d53b3692193e46ce7
91e230e77f48868b945d8cc8809b35c62018a1fc
F20101123_AABBRM osborne_l_Page_082thm.jpg
e129910fde9e7d9009a4275e2ad5a581
5086fa90e7143fba35646112974aa8c3b9357bbc
2058 F20101123_AABBQX osborne_l_Page_082.txt
53420452fbbda644dc913e17e8efa4e0
381ef3c3031fd09d7538d04396cde2305476d86e
114011 F20101123_AABBSA osborne_l_Page_068.jp2
94e6e30cf859c506e9456b04c93e106a
68e207bebbb1cac5e91acfcc335012b41f9d05ed
F20101123_AABBRN osborne_l_Page_025.tif
a8694b6f36819278e12854659f775005
b87a817af1cfa15430160f659d979434846d6b38
F20101123_AABBQY osborne_l_Page_022.tif
639193a6dc7a970407a4238571e31a29
f9933f779672feef9dbe2366555a5d6a8788d588
23472 F20101123_AABBSB osborne_l_Page_054.QC.jpg
e307b7412ac8f487f0b0eb5841d274e9
313eba0cb9e2c728d9f9678d562c298f91fe3d00
F20101123_AABBRO osborne_l_Page_003.pro
c151aca7baeab22f5f12b6b59252042e
605e869e088b077a8770c677371d182ad28d3411
49576 F20101123_AABBQZ osborne_l_Page_089.pro
66096e317e2bcfbafb7e6ed57b963b0a
74b8c0d962f96b69163c4e067529b6e387877255
20049 F20101123_AABBSC osborne_l_Page_031.QC.jpg
4d222d9b15e22b4168fa8e84d4dece33
bd84c1d0c6feea5edfca68ca8442595abe610650
2159 F20101123_AABBRP osborne_l_Page_054.txt
4518a4fdc963be475ce0346f4d733ccb
f0be5c8d2458e1f295b8c70b23751a88d16de5c6
2538 F20101123_AABBSD osborne_l_Page_048.txt
3bd61f5004052a4443cdc3bb4ca36f1e
dd7bb1a95a564d908efe8d4c6b9ba416cf54cdda
23074 F20101123_AABBRQ osborne_l_Page_083.QC.jpg
9be1beb54ddf354b006041e7deac71b0
368b0f1db85b971e3b2a8093d01002e997c3a367
52003 F20101123_AABBSE osborne_l_Page_016.pro
7a0fbc871a140fb6928cd243524e1edb
732f2461f60ebf5cd2a701984537a4d10ed0b531
51244 F20101123_AABBSF osborne_l_Page_026.pro
0d423d62c4b94dffccd5922cdb8f65b9
b8cfbd6f96e58b17a3bf34948dacf34a9c8fa524
23608 F20101123_AABBRR osborne_l_Page_045.QC.jpg
785e619b289bc841148b0e0a4f9bee69
441b4ada89da1db6661b8ee59baf15b208da7432
1985 F20101123_AABBSG osborne_l_Page_037.txt
01c4146af9c4fc3b603ff3bb4ef83aa9
eb0b91faa53b6c359002df4fa1903c486873c8bc
104039 F20101123_AABBRS osborne_l_Page_022.jp2
0b41935bb3bcb3ea8b5cb7769775813b
663c7893715a6edf5ac3bdac9b8bad914f7b0e34
11154 F20101123_AABBSH osborne_l_Page_092.QC.jpg
3d6fac80633a6a00facab9b95e2d60c6
04e2acda62e57fefb47d071c438d857c01a1c31f
75059 F20101123_AABBRT osborne_l_Page_041.jpg
e6a65fd7ca5e11163946acb68ca767b4
c0213763e51fa2f7acf2c82402bf7232e6edbf25
F20101123_AABBSI osborne_l_Page_028.tif
a0b0587b32ee3d3e9634a2ba157fc646
5941b18dc2017d9fe307a4b1379b2a6fc34b5412
67741 F20101123_AABBRU osborne_l_Page_063.jpg
0768c350f651500af1953c914fe899ba
06df1eb5719d06683e9690a5fcdae1ee7cf95a0e
1051983 F20101123_AABBSJ osborne_l_Page_005.jp2
e09a99ad867de7ed4e9589d8e2ff6999
f312a2eedc970752bed6bdb9d3fd009118544d9e
65482 F20101123_AABBRV osborne_l_Page_025.jpg
f29cd65668cb7c6a495dee305eeb53b0
2efcd5594ec78117f311f33c0fec9d9a57342f26
22491 F20101123_AABBSK osborne_l_Page_017.QC.jpg
a3eaa6d3aee52fbd17f27e6809dbeaed
1c65965b367f71e3b806d4d46126e5d75f7f2ca8
37138 F20101123_AABBSL osborne_l_Page_008.pro
96d6a54efdbd2eead95ef3061cae5d58
a5c7573acf5ee69dc3cd4dac4bc421883639c1ac
6304 F20101123_AABBRW osborne_l_Page_032thm.jpg
9c214052e8b6c5227ad5514968b84cfc
38ea4401e79df4293f1c585b80965bf95cfe352f
2162 F20101123_AABBTA osborne_l_Page_097.txt
5bd6c036b4bfbc2de4c5a6208c0bee48
bc6568e26fc621ec957a76c83f631c07ef357af4
1749 F20101123_AABBSM osborne_l_Page_038.txt
2520c63b16cf375f86c7eeb4b55841d8
24b0a2f049f9f8d6af5919355596e806813525e1
78841 F20101123_AABBRX osborne_l_Page_081.jpg
348d0f173efea1cb85f2532a25f4c2d1
2a6fa51bf5ac680098f1b4d441fbe336f07ec8c6
F20101123_AABBTB osborne_l_Page_037.tif
c0675874f221dd591d2733a94e4a5aee
85c885819f06518e0986e8618cd5791b18cb4809
6373 F20101123_AABBSN osborne_l_Page_079thm.jpg
c149a67c219c36bbbe65540479c89f84
0284672859549c77f92842b1fdb303babe0e40c1
F20101123_AABBRY osborne_l_Page_050.tif
8227dba894e06089888563842d2049c2
c1f62e26f0ca36d8cc60d4689f93d6b99628aab3
F20101123_AABBTC osborne_l_Page_094.txt
d5ae94e90d1a51ce5542af6e9798c9b1
6b0ce7fe96fa9b6c20ae8264a28ed1f0c75cd9a3
23876 F20101123_AABBSO osborne_l_Page_021.QC.jpg
1cd13dae47d986447df9a06243a7c127
f40c7f03b7c9731688c8b3dc3415820d3309436b
F20101123_AABBRZ osborne_l_Page_100.tif
2bd0ba733ccd593e32582cbefa4bf1ca
61fab1b61ad6aabee0bb9e81620bca293d5479b3
7374 F20101123_AABBTD osborne_l_Page_095thm.jpg
4dc0615cad52635b4d88d1e65a52fa5d
f76d5c0b7d0e2910b951ec7e2006f3486c10a923
78435 F20101123_AABBSP osborne_l_Page_065.jpg
842907a752ac39b8e6293a57d97fea5e
f0d1d8544f4ea30db0ee64c9e8b38ac543d052b0
4898 F20101123_AABBTE osborne_l_Page_007.QC.jpg
20a6ed5eec5ce561ba07a691d1d7bad3
f874aa74694c500e549ce8f6fdbf6caa8ba30d9e
21555 F20101123_AABBSQ osborne_l_Page_023.QC.jpg
6bbda5f8a0260d2c79b00457502f1993
e26055c8a88ba8ab70f9376266b81a86501bc660
47648 F20101123_AABBTF osborne_l_Page_076.pro
43a0f1bdf3cf3c3e894e335fd00c3411
f61a7b2745f1082f0a250a8cb1cb17c80d36812f
F20101123_AABBSR osborne_l_Page_067.tif
1ad71ef278c01bb4a61ecb73fdfb555c
3173956ead7301c0d4761e2afe25defbfc53f5c4
47994 F20101123_AABBTG osborne_l_Page_042.pro
f04c24f78242c8c6bcbbd473d8555d19
34c5364ffad0056ef3929bc2b2c253c1100d0c13
F20101123_AABBSS osborne_l_Page_066.tif
5b9359a705cdfe699b48dc20cc9a9668
6b94e9f314450e92e3d79f55e424ad00221fc6eb
72530 F20101123_AABBTH osborne_l_Page_059.jpg
1428aea60c447c111d6b9a3fde891ffe
190f5f722a6b87f6b4eb66d3a721d7bc25cc6ff3
F20101123_AABBST osborne_l_Page_035.tif
fc5f13ad3de578ec43c03967fea2a0f3
df65fe82a465d28e0f171bf32a2bd68b8ffd3c88
6081 F20101123_AABBTI osborne_l_Page_053thm.jpg
b3543c1bbe256be2b71d1fea9ec3ab03
e1a43415b2654eb2a0e23bd2493eb5f57c6f091c
79445 F20101123_AABBSU osborne_l_Page_057.jpg
98926886ec9d4915ad801e82c06c3041
626c3e8120b85a4fe9ccecaa849fa2c732f35023
109278 F20101123_AABBTJ osborne_l_Page_047.jp2
c31bdeb0cb728032ce5c045e5238ef14
d83b33bbe720c3a1f55753fbcea0a2809623efc7
2069 F20101123_AABBSV osborne_l_Page_051.txt
324176ab2a3a6f914c6bd0e3d28a0bba
ee307a2d1cf914d5db96a5308f68fd8a7619868a
6220 F20101123_AABBTK osborne_l_Page_025thm.jpg
c503f2b3f7c08d8a4e6efd642929b329
f44675e8ba5d17b4f164641a12f317d8eb39c575
F20101123_AABBSW osborne_l_Page_038.tif
dfa6540bcd07c191b46b210a7a0b9a32
c00cb0ba1afb9a4a7375b5a8d1de6770c40d2540
6840 F20101123_AABBTL osborne_l_Page_061thm.jpg
375bbc95412a76f1872b8e8487a946df
2e8d0ed0caa46fd3cd570e61d526c646f57445bf
21731 F20101123_AABBTM osborne_l_Page_022.QC.jpg
b676b8cb28c1da7da5711c0a69dc319a
238d359b263c59971f2b964649feb5f67a27d269
44098 F20101123_AABBSX osborne_l_Page_038.pro
b4fbc9c2f9f82e2a09daea1a6dba0084
44fffa904530fb704c89a56a6246e0dfddf9780d
24333 F20101123_AABBUA osborne_l_Page_088.QC.jpg
976e8b619a55000b1d3b0099d264694f
06e6fec2347ee9f21f94c8493e3d551bbfe0bd18
F20101123_AABBTN osborne_l_Page_029.tif
fdf299083cc1efc0d0c0632f859408e3
1d1cf3f2aa115275201521e4e6e6099d4e2b2c5a
F20101123_AABBSY osborne_l_Page_045.tif
7e208338e09a8f01e2a69b25cad5b131
7dac2b363ae6588c6ce76b394b82025a2b51ad75
77292 F20101123_AABBUB osborne_l_Page_088.jpg
996fc1595b86863ce8a0a531b43e964f
64af8fb5a87c1c95ee72e3e71276908f3712ef39
F20101123_AABBTO osborne_l_Page_091.tif
dcfaf1c9f7125fd1e120d35077c558d9
c2feef0ea44ec81e2ec5c2c2ba40631e8c1ed1ca
23300 F20101123_AABBSZ osborne_l_Page_080.QC.jpg
108fc3606da3c61e4e22eecdb67f4ded
7425087288fbe7ebf740f48d3c17b4e1a558afc1
6243 F20101123_AABBUC osborne_l_Page_017thm.jpg
c9e10602df566a465917a3e179c047b7
908bb7f10a7a7a6f680f9b8522601fc00470d3b5
46348 F20101123_AABBTP osborne_l_Page_033.pro
ae1153a58481a691c7f37d901674c301
b3243719b16a2d7736fd5a1037dc4953f6365058
6674 F20101123_AABBUD osborne_l_Page_052thm.jpg
b8212a3c87f3df2cd5325a9ab85c3f3b
9d6c831b8bb4c11c89226e017d21f97d90010a4b
69778 F20101123_AABBTQ osborne_l_Page_053.jpg
2540017103d2ab62d4d60524d311787b
d48eb3beb857a531aa3dda1424caca4cebb7118a
6402 F20101123_AABBUE osborne_l_Page_089thm.jpg
2dbcc5c8a616cbbe8a097376a72f1555
08e2a8ea52a8bcdbd407708284b4cec84773ded7
53161 F20101123_AABBTR osborne_l_Page_069.pro
44b7869f9d06bd230d5a3786ae9686b2
f34c8b9e6326edb05fb77ec9b9a3dc89cab5ae02
74803 F20101123_AABCAA osborne_l_Page_083.jpg
42607fa8db83f85185bbb4c5d0bb7c37
4b690d4b0772770e0bc34e6a9103e346bee7a525
79789 F20101123_AABBUF osborne_l_Page_044.jpg
1277d10cf50de5723f423ee52d0d0e3f
9a277898e466b76accb0c713ecfa25df523092e9
94271 F20101123_AABBTS osborne_l_Page_073.jp2
5e7c486934beed5d2ee1235d7538d38b
43b77bdfb6b9bd8efa52c7914196ae3871e1fc2e
66747 F20101123_AABCAB osborne_l_Page_084.jpg
ee8b1917ef63845f583f2162908a7a8b
25dc52903baed974ea793d69e676706206105a63
52080 F20101123_AABBUG osborne_l_Page_056.pro
bbb3b341198582c87b900e9c482f6ee9
960bfa791a7dbaf5188c142bdc444d1ec242d9a5
24615 F20101123_AABBTT osborne_l_Page_048.QC.jpg
05df3d208213416d01e35c9c2d7db361
8348e590463b01335982a2168f4c0b89d97abd45
65646 F20101123_AABCAC osborne_l_Page_085.jpg
3a294703c2b6aaa8f176dc5c36877638
9b276d09be6f3adac94cc57908fc8536b399af98
2085 F20101123_AABBUH osborne_l_Page_070.txt
e15ab9463c9feec6bd3310ff4e4b510f
4e38ea12328d3043eb77ec9a91689fd224e9c9c7
6363 F20101123_AABBTU osborne_l_Page_071thm.jpg
5408eb611d1b6a08c38b728a0e6e363d
5436c534266defc431b421b3dc386bb5ff41d107
70660 F20101123_AABCAD osborne_l_Page_089.jpg
56598982341a43d7ddf0b0c43d053277
61f799d6951d0f75ebd64386d1627fdcca8e40ff
87070 F20101123_AABBUI osborne_l_Page_077.jpg
a4db869fd35e03629b16ba8438416750
a20357593fce7cc349712e8d36e461ba2bc3cf41
6596 F20101123_AABBTV osborne_l_Page_068thm.jpg
e9cd25ab2197852a7de06e261f01e941
d83398184592f4ece514b575c12b12096f871a44
2073 F20101123_AABBUJ osborne_l_Page_017.txt
492018b6d3a0a710652a55cab8a40832
13a68f97b72135e44c89bee5dd58a8b7f93baca6
73747 F20101123_AABBTW osborne_l_Page_070.jpg
1872abead35c1975d1cae7c57141fa84
91cc33d997a790ac45a3278039d017238ea2f924
73208 F20101123_AABCAE osborne_l_Page_090.jpg
1ab23141b7431a4373e2715f5427bc50
279505f2f6d750381d84cf8cf81a6117c2c23bad
F20101123_AABBUK osborne_l_Page_016.tif
2f2046389e97b11d3d61494567fe2b7e
01f4907af05d88135b5c9cf558e8b6bfeb2f5758
23151 F20101123_AABBTX osborne_l_Page_028.QC.jpg
8640db7efb815ec8250e3ab6b3417ea4
a31328fc0526bbb551cfe2b4c96061610dc49c4f
34269 F20101123_AABCAF osborne_l_Page_093.jpg
a6e6c0a1c77b3026fc345cf9ff96e92e
eefe65b3c5ff95c94d7d56e5b10517dada62dd84
15508 F20101123_AABBUL osborne_l_Page_091.QC.jpg
856e9b4cd285e564eefcc5871afb3a6f
85930c5334a1c5d357199aca7cdfd2b5b1edb809
71605 F20101123_AABCAG osborne_l_Page_094.jpg
202b1da4b4cb2108047586761d4bda1f
8b9ef41b78e7157b460f5af1201406f9aa18d2cd
82709 F20101123_AABBVA osborne_l_Page_008.jp2
2a597adf731c41c0a1743596fa70e246
136f824138e595c1e729c5ba149698fce095e185
F20101123_AABBUM osborne_l_Page_091.txt
083b86c4d7430670e75dd9d4eee9b7b4
60e27e8e138fdd3f8d184dc509ee93be966c4b82
104388 F20101123_AABBTY osborne_l_Page_064.jp2
cc79702d54b64332f589e93a4a2785e7
6e46914e74b7d60e8cd83c43c4e17ae259a63aa1
79660 F20101123_AABCAH osborne_l_Page_098.jpg
8b434760b584d66955709327f8b25f4d
103417ca455e9f67a271d9e6efda4facc4d7a07c
53682 F20101123_AABBVB osborne_l_Page_045.pro
d52c34f95a70488b055a3943acb3853d
5d293f6064cc2442483966853ce6ba9438a32906
27351 F20101123_AABBUN osborne_l_Page_095.QC.jpg
51a92858f18610db78bb927d43baf374
ee46a6b2430a58cd848d8656d1ad2df7e25dc018
1051975 F20101123_AABBTZ osborne_l_Page_087.jp2
ad31ea156d3bc4ab6dd0f00fed5a579b
126d51345fdcaea2ceb574df70891025ac793bee
26524 F20101123_AABCAI osborne_l_Page_100.jpg
69e7cadd6ef606d257b0a5a96735ad7f
369bccd90aef3ab1d78e58d68f0c11e53ed5ce47
F20101123_AABBVC osborne_l_Page_098.tif
066702e7cde0d9510fa4d36f42c10d53
e13760a30b4c9e0a4719da7935730e22a3555b12
6417 F20101123_AABBUO osborne_l_Page_039thm.jpg
77024faa3600b8ba20979ffd6dfe50a9
0aaa28e1b270a405b3c86f58a6bb0a6a686997a0
25119 F20101123_AABCAJ osborne_l_Page_001.jp2
d9d50981c1bec46f2107c8b713caf884
edf2b519e050cae12f1df525ed785b4c4f992944
F20101123_AABBVD osborne_l_Page_070.tif
6dc5627c7239e4c277f40aeb10b19708
e4e42247f9a9d7fefaa07a37d457a7793c2b33bf
2148 F20101123_AABBUP osborne_l_Page_030.txt
0c03176b9a846923ad179b0cedd9e224
bf77770e6a96528e7f43ec6e44603afd3101a017
11737 F20101123_AABCAK osborne_l_Page_003.jp2
d1d1d61fd6fadfa006ca0cf76d2031c1
89b1bdff9a96a841e2b5ce036fc72383d4928000
20765 F20101123_AABBVE osborne_l_Page_099.jpg
30ad2e18874d5b414adb32f4b67f18f8
efb3debbc5d45d8c3eca7dea4801a5e02c5fc865
2605 F20101123_AABBUQ osborne_l_Page_012.txt
f92a31453176e6c85deabc474a707109
b501af7551b6682698425316134d4f41332403e5
96850 F20101123_AABCAL osborne_l_Page_009.jp2
b3197d7895bd7ecbccd8c2f9290e17d5
2c1de0c1094162082b508d6369d7a78705a9b5de
75261 F20101123_AABBVF osborne_l_Page_054.jpg
981ed902e5f2f00e84daf600552066f7
50b70dbfc6f87849c3cdc1b59587dcb428b07ad5
2303 F20101123_AABBUR osborne_l_Page_058.txt
b44e8c3fc6f4d6bd7028d1c22acf27c0
2c1487aa68c4b29d5c496c021be8c488c21bfe4a
111305 F20101123_AABCBA osborne_l_Page_027.jp2
e7dab32806f249b4fc2e87786d01a876
1f51a2d91a398caea6a81ed85aa4dd8309217edb
1051986 F20101123_AABCAM osborne_l_Page_010.jp2
92967fac53e61d3c2df6e1d4104bc299
742f3f36d240275c9a198b5fed986efd868ac592
71215 F20101123_AABBVG osborne_l_Page_018.jpg
2259cce9415527f7f1800e4bbf573947
73e5c8db3853c6a35c64eb76eaffb4bffbdd1c56
6132 F20101123_AABBUS osborne_l_Page_020thm.jpg
eab9df1b6d9671aaf6c90244063477fb
114057a012bb6b0fc50f260a94f546cc09cb3039
117293 F20101123_AABCBB osborne_l_Page_028.jp2
714edc9b303d7f896636664bab441dfe
c987ffe6ef071bf9f8cda38e3508e854d62a1071
111616 F20101123_AABCAN osborne_l_Page_011.jp2
85277d83724029df54a51e1df0c78563
a5752abd11019d994576944471dc741fb11c6531
F20101123_AABBVH osborne_l_Page_019.tif
db9627c9a91f6bdba27485327b04ef96
48a07dbaaae2817668c7cb30640faa9f961c5440
6949 F20101123_AABBUT osborne_l_Page_012thm.jpg
55c070b5a0b76cb0a2358a2fea0dc88b
fd570d01adc452ba2ef8e7753c6084c85ebcbb3a
115292 F20101123_AABCBC osborne_l_Page_030.jp2
cf8e65090375864c5693a6bc33149dbf
98107cef5468f36b0b985790289112c70d3b4a98
110215 F20101123_AABCAO osborne_l_Page_013.jp2
566b30e2508087517761d97ab2445e79
7cc722737679aeb8b9ec2d4c46dc50dadb0c64a5
6512 F20101123_AABBVI osborne_l_Page_035thm.jpg
7e8a835d7bc891efdbd412ec083ddb63
8876403361cd705d406a9fe4c8b6a650ddfd029b
77520 F20101123_AABBUU osborne_l_Page_019.jpg
07e242de88ee53f05fbd0386ecd57e94
4c3726d10a450bf2d180e2584e1f710b2798c5e5
92919 F20101123_AABCBD osborne_l_Page_031.jp2
c2d2c0fa4dd87be37d0384d2e352386b
2c29dff11150e9082df91f4a5dc2f81036279202
67389 F20101123_AABCAP osborne_l_Page_014.jp2
c2001fec93fc1ba267862aad74d84d5a
38153bf987be957934bdb3bb9387ae77d7894e6e
1992 F20101123_AABBVJ osborne_l_Page_062.txt
ae854c43b79745febcfdd64f1162777f
0a123a9521f35de25597c015ab7ba12fed546f66
76628 F20101123_AABBUV osborne_l_Page_067.jpg
1f74524f43b10a55d8fc18fe936d25d2
dbc18cfc98985f76b6cf31133e6ee5d26491f6f5
110891 F20101123_AABCBE osborne_l_Page_032.jp2
11f94f79f678b94deb127b1901e00595
b45f4c4118792230b8befaa773bff2986d237ea8
94532 F20101123_AABCAQ osborne_l_Page_015.jp2
7c3ece87ba325e71918be8c851b6a1be
de2fa78b0d4cbcf9b45c2f35c07e9c72b49bb000
52622 F20101123_AABBVK osborne_l_Page_035.pro
4c4ce37ea7e13aaec09922890ac68e6e
e672308e07c454a567d06ad1df49a62f7b72e02d
72282 F20101123_AABBUW osborne_l_Page_029.jpg
b0497da76bfd4854ba6ec5a795347c20
d28ea05111df83677777138e59a92eaa23d3a1a5
112094 F20101123_AABCAR osborne_l_Page_016.jp2
d99323e563ae615f5c90f5c7bfb64bd8
9cf8a2f0e018a824a75aaac2a309ab410b40e2c6
F20101123_AABBVL osborne_l_Page_078.tif
863dca34bfc9c94a394377b28ff9b5f6
939d85d7fe44dc4d3076ffcbe4c9e340b012a6c0
F20101123_AABBUX osborne_l_Page_053.tif
2d42b7f571a9d22a95fbd1849057d58f
9ce2cd101e2f55c9427c0531b2c5ec66cbbbed61
1051898 F20101123_AABCBF osborne_l_Page_034.jp2
f3fdc61e2aaafc2b91790541f710a79c
966d838869d4246be29b7fac7fb3152aa457b64f
72499 F20101123_AABBWA osborne_l_Page_086.jpg
e9a8313308a2e3c367c096176f54fe1c
15153d7274618810aca20d482019335a4acec470
110986 F20101123_AABCAS osborne_l_Page_017.jp2
48264c5a2b2fa8d9780919931f7606a1
27a338a07b428ff8ea5bde5d13ba88d24a874280
23443 F20101123_AABBVM osborne_l_Page_058.QC.jpg
b68138e10cec20c0fae77a13c95f6d11
c22f4c00df58fc3f4b36499488d4a8a2d7250001
54262 F20101123_AABBUY osborne_l_Page_032.pro
ee6c57f805c0c9e6fe3885bf6a81890d
66b6aa9cad62c49a4370187aa755f10f25d7feb4
109732 F20101123_AABCBG osborne_l_Page_035.jp2
6fd8f302c087da91aa9cef4529e40265
001b254cd08bb14691d33224b8732df183804bef
89023 F20101123_AABBWB osborne_l_Page_087.jpg
d2e4b3be8b6cdcb435c71ddd892b87b3
7feb00a7523cd370e97de8535006b1e00d06cbf9
108854 F20101123_AABCAT osborne_l_Page_018.jp2
45ab060b76bd1b0bfd3397d8df6514e8
59983e4b9a39bf0f76445bc5545da5ce3177cf15
1885 F20101123_AABBVN osborne_l_Page_084.txt
816d2f16882af3eff52f27145563a146
24f4f3d851f09113bbf11d9a83db0f2ee74d12e2
107248 F20101123_AABCBH osborne_l_Page_036.jp2
9e0b291fcc56000d92211777f987a726
7ba71e4fff1e01c721e14d7072db3136947899e8
83242 F20101123_AABBWC osborne_l_Page_048.jpg
d81e04f119cab1f3a6f9eae89442c3ea
ff8347b50b6e0a036b577d012079529abd138cee
119221 F20101123_AABCAU osborne_l_Page_019.jp2
c1a13e19a1a4e95b8fcd6b3e6c850433
36d0161f96dabec4ec31fc31da23f1f4a5d4a2d8
23001 F20101123_AABBVO osborne_l_Page_039.QC.jpg
164bcdf81eaee43acc13c8dc8d14f75c
919304610949188e2273c4de14d1b787270467e0
6585 F20101123_AABBUZ osborne_l_Page_028thm.jpg
0953e0cff9d816c7bedc09425aeea17a
52ba2091510726e98aa8156ebaa29d148fb71bc4
104990 F20101123_AABCBI osborne_l_Page_037.jp2
41e6a5151e4410d865562592cbecaceb
cba16ff83242a6e1459a17035c8d8a7abe73738e
109723 F20101123_AABBWD osborne_l_Page_029.jp2
8b818a2b8214dfa27192c5c565329a34
cf537f05c7292aa9bdc36cf548b10ed93e2efd94
119337 F20101123_AABCAV osborne_l_Page_021.jp2
0de26729af8bdbec6ab2c9415000f6d4
186eb594a9ed65fd74d49e994e0562fd7a3fe4ff
51526 F20101123_AABBVP osborne_l_Page_060.pro
cdf4255dc95bc1dc795b6f7cf16afdb6
e212a2b58f4a275694619b3dac2c63b12922091e
96386 F20101123_AABCBJ osborne_l_Page_038.jp2
e5a3d9c5708dbfafa189365c04028294
4a52dd21646a6c501252325b5d44f02a945a11e4
63061 F20101123_AABBWE osborne_l_Page_073.jpg
10e52dde2d0050cdd474539d5746c59e
89fd33c802a9703bd037f83937ecad359c02a859
96917 F20101123_AABCAW osborne_l_Page_023.jp2
3dc7d52e8a31e0b204993c3235ad4d31
f8c6e58314f6b9aee6cf2772c7c9fd2836834dcb
70034 F20101123_AABBVQ osborne_l_Page_035.jpg
cd26b3784238ae36fbff4382e2c90456
1b7234ed8660689bdb08fe781ad8d1943a9849f0
F20101123_AABCBK osborne_l_Page_039.jp2
65bc20a48b67420a00fea177b41613cd
7cc5e78ab5a054b055927c1d980124e4c4ad5301
2153 F20101123_AABBWF osborne_l_Page_098.txt
483b3cf8d2abc649898f83ca3e87c711
6a32a3c9d927326c660fe2bed465c11af3f3d6fb
118736 F20101123_AABCAX osborne_l_Page_024.jp2
693b2a755b8931a423fc8b15ae32387c
6e0c75746fc425e5bcde175f5827c69551a50b0c
15008 F20101123_AABBVR osborne_l_Page_014.QC.jpg
17efcdee765264e30065b9cd1ec70421
14fcf2e67487eeea70a7090c06859f78e09aa6a2
116950 F20101123_AABCCA osborne_l_Page_058.jp2
b5539df25836d14a3b4e92c0ad6102f9
075dce48eb5957d19425959811c7582dd7af2bcc
9499 F20101123_AABCBL osborne_l_Page_040.jp2
018bfeb78096378c3f795e067ed16945
9ca858b980007cc611b67be56f704785c9594393
1817 F20101123_AABBWG osborne_l_Page_025.txt
f18adb7599115ad798805ccae2b3e4a2
68a284ce580aeca203e7399f21476586a8edd200
100929 F20101123_AABCAY osborne_l_Page_025.jp2
0926f25ba05222076238a4d49fc0bdea
8ad45429039952892b161d15498cbda4fe8ccacc
54303 F20101123_AABBVS osborne_l_Page_068.pro
4a6316dbe2bfd016c0dfc82d8b3d4263
45eeb0ceff563a0b9b7f7119a2ddf4d80b8ee52c
110849 F20101123_AABCCB osborne_l_Page_059.jp2
582f4bcae3cc1983eb8f2ce60ea6f696
e985c27ab56416c89bf4ee31d08849ac37e8ab6b
1051966 F20101123_AABCBM osborne_l_Page_041.jp2
3d62174e4f1686a4de521019d327ec79
dd8debdf8fc978742db03fe1e2bccc317cd13aa0
6747 F20101123_AABBWH osborne_l_Page_072thm.jpg
9f45d1cd30ed69f8cd65556cddf153b4
5b55ae6288bc86fc2709b2ce20d14e66abd820f1
106713 F20101123_AABCAZ osborne_l_Page_026.jp2
af941d8113c2ce46ba72786cd9a9aa5a
b42cb1c9907811f979753f4c1ac613aa62e68621
F20101123_AABBVT osborne_l_Page_075.tif
e2e8218ef0689e5b69e7383be2f9511e
5f6c34a23daa38932f94729b46810418bc432a5a
108314 F20101123_AABCCC osborne_l_Page_060.jp2
80b04f907104d27cdd7dab02cd39d140
2d8a4b453ff1b38883ab61e2ad8138a1db9864d5
99225 F20101123_AABCBN osborne_l_Page_042.jp2
60046a926142f4f05db9b4a80fc03931
8bf5bf21be8c804de43ead34013f65edbcd2a862
1186 F20101123_AABBWI osborne_l_Page_014.txt
9a9e2b7ce979c0fcabed7b49c9bba252
9be7e7491be122590eb56588c30069d30742194b
6285 F20101123_AABBVU osborne_l_Page_002.jp2
7a4c9277ae44afe33fdca82344df2c6b
413f04ee20f0886b06e23c47e1107b314c00358b
111828 F20101123_AABCCD osborne_l_Page_061.jp2
71a5574ee4ad8db4eae6ae86176ead4b
4d3559f4d43b7f321f72e6d902331691a8cf2c4d
104414 F20101123_AABCBO osborne_l_Page_043.jp2
ea018eac5290edc90d244f9e3d25146e
77293de18c35f9206e807ffb155143b0f3fe3b0e
50731 F20101123_AABBWJ osborne_l_Page_072.pro
91bcb6afdbef021ef832ad5a87decb2d
4db46ebc4a61d0cb3b1ef2b9b1ce648f438db5eb
1051954 F20101123_AABBVV osborne_l_Page_095.jp2
86f29e7c912dd43223fa84409f0617eb
bedf2b9ddf7b4e811b212064941e2d1a9c38ed65
106913 F20101123_AABCCE osborne_l_Page_062.jp2
9c9cfcbf88f91a65fc88d0aa319fff84
b3707f8538f14789c3a3b469d51adfd3982894f8
111248 F20101123_AABCBP osborne_l_Page_046.jp2
213fbce3dcc94bc33c902153375e353c
5c4c9136d3df9ffc63c7493ddb7433ca912dd118
F20101123_AABBWK osborne_l_Page_096.txt
c1fd6c580caa1589120c3318333ae131
5c79a31d8edceab95a78f9f5f8e2f95d094a8176
59924 F20101123_AABBVW osborne_l_Page_049.pro
69396424f63ba3bd8edf8d1794c5760c
b962bab1c9de14209e16f74928f1d09f39ccb486
102865 F20101123_AABCCF osborne_l_Page_063.jp2
0de0abdc9bbaaa86de6e4ee27741860b
40726c88ff351e562b920696540f8a5dba3f9033
126494 F20101123_AABCBQ osborne_l_Page_048.jp2
4f05315e484d02a8b070ba2cfef4f72b
9ab18574c3c268a9dd22a277bec9054e17f40f70
F20101123_AABBWL osborne_l_Page_001.tif
e4e82bab40c98b60ac32f35ab0e00e42
bead2d3f9ca9d607d4aa21652b1ca26cdc5aea52
201211 F20101123_AABBVX osborne_l_Page_007.jp2
83b87b1142f3e48762fd5ff4f7248850
bd72aca9fd76e71b2639c16b558b4f24fd0dcdc4
120727 F20101123_AABCBR osborne_l_Page_049.jp2
e66cac2f6a887b88ab0bd2fe78892c35
be9dda56c9e8eda5fc36069ec0e68d3727f29765
F20101123_AABBWM osborne_l_Page_046.tif
5369670115e287d1bf27b5028c12ac11
ecd26f79fcd11204331db4fed91d6603faa06c11
60798 F20101123_AABBVY osborne_l_Page_087.pro
a44f9ac86ae84d25585a65cadd217d0b
8af19bb353de32666b3d9f7eaa1a703ea020fc08
98910 F20101123_AABCCG osborne_l_Page_066.jp2
884f68a9d2c260f3aa9fe7cbd89f04d2
31fe5e91e6aa219a1a8d698c2140901344684095
9444 F20101123_AABBXA osborne_l_Page_099.pro
fbaa7f7c292778668c15ea0e1e05a875
5b4311e2f0356e5be2b80c0d679c70ef850a5043
112357 F20101123_AABCBS osborne_l_Page_050.jp2
85ee1f00acd549b38d1dddaf955059a9
b286a70b235a1353afe4213baa689baf7ce141c9
74472 F20101123_AABBWN osborne_l_Page_061.jpg
aa491bbc31d2e79e1592d84740b002e0
cfdb0cdb5fc08a268718f446582aba22439f7743
54033 F20101123_AABBVZ osborne_l_Page_091.jpg
d09b17a538b0658f9faf9f941745e60d
d442a745b513a31f57f01d6b10ad29b493207422
115276 F20101123_AABCCH osborne_l_Page_067.jp2
f1551efd7358e9fc5a355c4f54e427d7
c58a768d08204574b577eb999141eed8b6cecbb3
9212 F20101123_AABBXB osborne_l_Page_093.pro
97cd3ba419ad93eaba4aa9d375fd5961
49e130e3082df2baa679eef60ac1457035e1fde4
106752 F20101123_AABCBT osborne_l_Page_051.jp2
d99ac8cb68ac514dbf6989a762ae6f40
2260ce3da0309fcbe8da435e48472b0749f23fa5
108033 F20101123_AABCCI osborne_l_Page_069.jp2
cb2ce0ce13656db7b5ad61a31a3616c7
4f6a78de6bf9dea1c1afa159a2d08ca3de67b769
51807 F20101123_AABBXC osborne_l_Page_082.pro
1c1c332efba285a649b39dc644f83234
9ba486dbe974d77ca2d5dd5fbec913d9a15e2d69
1051926 F20101123_AABCBU osborne_l_Page_052.jp2
998c61dba2f3b85bdcd67b0d426d4800
bbd4c4caead48b7a718bd37a6d37b0a1c1640b34
100603 F20101123_AABBWO osborne_l_Page_076.jp2
12718de8d3540df13e73d8886680f268
7f70cf88e925729a5fd5f4d3b1c401f202aac436
112597 F20101123_AABCCJ osborne_l_Page_070.jp2
468d1c3f8ba9f984ba7c6b3774c3cc62
eff22fd1cd10e09672a22e288d8ff8cbd8b2fb12
1800 F20101123_AABBXD osborne_l_Page_015.txt
842d630aaf6830eca7d9c5a32a2ddad7
3a3cd33beaee31b098c733dae53e6149ada7bab3
105701 F20101123_AABCBV osborne_l_Page_053.jp2
116aa64bf00bd3c3e2a61713d4336e86
c97503a9b31d681da1ed301ef450bba1f5974e32
70706 F20101123_AABBWP osborne_l_Page_039.jpg
f98bbcd20834a90a35c0590c3a3a3286
10251404b0b4b2ff28109c723848577734d75c1e
108057 F20101123_AABCCK osborne_l_Page_071.jp2
e2a661919956c689791fcf863176d815
632fc3d0f432896cef8db70de0118e8f98de5792
67860 F20101123_AABBXE osborne_l_Page_043.jpg
e53fa6e409097545eb756120191f7fe8
6ae3e64a01d2af563b9fe8d862f18b6e08b9218b
111804 F20101123_AABCBW osborne_l_Page_054.jp2
8b09499aceb9da4da0079b12033d4958
9f6ead9fd0fbd86894effb6d9d4fd9f502eaf67d
5928 F20101123_AABBWQ osborne_l_Page_015thm.jpg
fb4171370759c7faed59b3df1b858550
67e2fabe0c2a4f071b40c81cda670eac499da647
331661 F20101123_AABCDA osborne_l_Page_092.jp2
84d4a2cb841456f5b464a32ad2936763
bbf01a0f476f4af06d63f1094c1d83091a92b23e
107474 F20101123_AABCCL osborne_l_Page_072.jp2
786372560f4986af39eecf8ea0bcb920
0203ce0be705f2062d04f8371829ade16520ba3c
74387 F20101123_AABBXF osborne_l_Page_028.jpg
73caaf972af808ae9403bcee501a42ce
6b2b03f63ad5ee58e7daf81620db801867781059
115946 F20101123_AABCBX osborne_l_Page_055.jp2
71aa6283d47b728fdfd4f3fbd617a5d2
be6e24dae23bdaf47daa85b5cac63c95c43d03b4
121030 F20101123_AABBWR osborne_l_Page_065.jp2
a5e2e68b4d9e8ec8914a297614ff8159
c871729df87edce7492f9c7595a87c5c050fc1c3
338915 F20101123_AABCDB osborne_l_Page_093.jp2
38dac814b3146eac108dbd9205bbe182
eb1b4c0bed0a039f7fd8f2620f87c3db1ce11bad
103993 F20101123_AABCCM osborne_l_Page_074.jp2
2244646bce0c742e8d855b7b02634c6b
2e76a8b18256a20446853243ecee5c4231fd9295
21329 F20101123_AABBXG osborne_l_Page_094.QC.jpg
2243a913d66729e73432c7d7f8bf227f
09b40366f42f67ccacde1cb6549d6cc6b5f7572b
109564 F20101123_AABCBY osborne_l_Page_056.jp2
8400458d337580dca91662fbd80d93e2
f2a927704ee6e6fdda368c4a502687a1eb72fbdb
126965 F20101123_AABBWS osborne_l_Page_012.jp2
554c59574077e9540940037297185c0a
1ba3b8f757f3331db4350972302a8a3395d20fdc
1051971 F20101123_AABCDC osborne_l_Page_096.jp2
a288688e390964e81de9edd2bbf1cef1
67d62ef1b5706328e5da2febfe8837d99161b6b9
101089 F20101123_AABCCN osborne_l_Page_075.jp2
a285c50b2bd02c514f62910876ce4723
26224d7c1a4e39a05c14483d8ce22a7c8fcf1d89
F20101123_AABBXH osborne_l_Page_082.tif
709e2dc9819fc627df368b0152f5fbf5
15de3ecde05a9f7c484c5df3934f742a79bcf66e
119013 F20101123_AABCBZ osborne_l_Page_057.jp2
80fc9960865caa14ae20992aa2d0a12f
5a30c044a599bca3871fdf05e956a9f6aad6043e
F20101123_AABBWT osborne_l_Page_005.tif
ebb5bd09e857a49170eb0fd074f3eefd
43919ecf91d0847f673f9cd3cc16a2e8a1e3a661
112797 F20101123_AABCDD osborne_l_Page_097.jp2
44c799c60ee557e80c5b0bded8600046
d4e2662b94281b96ca005ad9c871fea704d2cc84
109540 F20101123_AABCCO osborne_l_Page_078.jp2
ab97a55b8c76c894b14e44738fe15181
bc3917705653613ec4da905073b5d4fff061a065
F20101123_AABBXI osborne_l_Page_058.tif
3b495aaecc2054a58655f33543c7f74c
80221bd61b26c0f7574dec2e55a369e596e482f2
32806 F20101123_AABBWU osborne_l_Page_100.jp2
b0dc6604b8de503e9e6d608c29b28ba2
b798072f9894c6da4e76bbbd6fc08da4b2d2d8eb
24641 F20101123_AABCDE osborne_l_Page_099.jp2
9702e8f37a65c5e85e5853a18ab00b4e
2dc2fcc8f388d1a5c8fbed5c574f045ca72f1cc5
106142 F20101123_AABCCP osborne_l_Page_079.jp2
d7e371dfb242f550edafb0a46e079344
eb7321d2675fa55e346b8ef2a027f82d7177f824
96028 F20101123_AABBXJ osborne_l_Page_095.jpg
cab03c018ca02c699d7b1faa17672c90
44bc62a9cdb7c7d78e5a5097853febf965516397
F20101123_AABBWV osborne_l_Page_074.tif
5e753483ec34a06cdb98e5669ec9cfe9
5d3243552eb324bb5238adba2adb598d931fb8b1
F20101123_AABCDF osborne_l_Page_002.tif
605d9a688483848b9c0a6daeab02d001
f25c9ea3a4f435f8e933ca0f9200c170b253aaa6
112292 F20101123_AABCCQ osborne_l_Page_080.jp2
6be9f18e6411aaa7a34b6e8d3d236aad
d10f0bd3881e5cc33f2a002cc984f63419f803a1
5845 F20101123_AABBXK osborne_l_Page_038thm.jpg
43449bfc3164c7d7d08cff4076fed800
7783308571370ff48dbe991308d796a4775227cd
23135 F20101123_AABBWW osborne_l_Page_098.QC.jpg
22d4ea0e9f85c90f1cf02a655a57d50e
fe4bec81e4911a4c2908c598188115cfe1ecb78d
F20101123_AABCDG osborne_l_Page_003.tif
50ff3c70b37bd1c122ba029f31d738fb
c6559c13fdff6f37ed58b277c4f6f5ce806e561a
114204 F20101123_AABCCR osborne_l_Page_081.jp2
d112633fb88955b53ba10b57b6b60157
b685df925ec85d8b6c5b88d200002edf867f8327
75437 F20101123_AABBXL osborne_l_Page_005.jpg
5c67077f2e80e0c262aac17ce2c45f89
5c0e5ff072bc05114750930963c640805da8c72b
F20101123_AABBWX osborne_l_Page_031.tif
0246ffa79cd53081884e9682ab6c007d
a38a5166cb8cccfb1e1367abfeb38f0aa65b6d52
23708 F20101123_AABBYA osborne_l_Page_052.QC.jpg
11c15743ae9f2c743b717f8a06ef24b4
97756ff871e27c06178baddf60f73db2e2b0d91b
108252 F20101123_AABCCS osborne_l_Page_082.jp2
4b327f040532de337589e8b448aa03a0
e59f2422af912d06b71ce14d611ff6ad5fcb45e9
6658 F20101123_AABBXM osborne_l_Page_059thm.jpg
a9337799de2042f79185a8b49bda0055
de09264c160854415d972d9709758dc599b1c578
56865 F20101123_AABBWY osborne_l_Page_004.jp2
63a912ec72d927a0da78b2a3cd577e5e
310ba8421fff5011224b94dbfe009fa14b70ac0b
F20101123_AABCDH osborne_l_Page_004.tif
4d6562f306ee818f24e6f26b415f484c
021a922299ef0c1ec04256bb504a013496ab600c
23318 F20101123_AABBYB osborne_l_Page_060.QC.jpg
9cba4c63a81c13a01c6276604bb9e350
cf80e794ca76f9d883a99d9e89e18e1e3de24cef
112511 F20101123_AABCCT osborne_l_Page_083.jp2
c6fb80e59a458128a7590786b6b8f033
03d96f7ba878e4db9c2dd69afcbf24131cab73db
65315 F20101123_AABBXN osborne_l_Page_015.jpg
6590ef1f8e3aab1cd15de2b00246a8bd
f209b8f7b9f3e06d37df8995baa2fdb52e59a968
22805 F20101123_AABBWZ osborne_l_Page_046.QC.jpg
49317b76c200b68660a105e625377324
5083852d004583593301844f73713161997370b5
F20101123_AABCDI osborne_l_Page_008.tif
74a05066d90cef80f11dd698eee9a60b
4436b15e951f1722f62a3d40d19809a9cd7bf188
151410 F20101123_AABBYC UFE0011655_00001.xml
99c79d147072f829a6baa4f769173d51
9c97ac2ff8fe4b72ea0eb5d5708fc947df53a770
100546 F20101123_AABCCU osborne_l_Page_084.jp2
d600497698785ceccaaf71a03ce88c7d
8acea2a06fc55624f76ee2b80e017f795086a043
1952 F20101123_AABBXO osborne_l_Page_089.txt
632353e3132f21cde423e6931ca9a2fd
8eb7711be1a2ba7be2e98cbf70bb5108712cf90f
F20101123_AABCDJ osborne_l_Page_009.tif
648fe4948bf67d0ed2e99642225e5697
e34b3ffa4eed16bedb9336db59b5d7715eb94e09
98753 F20101123_AABCCV osborne_l_Page_085.jp2
eed071d256ecc85ee316428dc921e4a8
c21a3e059f550c00b98cdc02bf75bad629566b8d
6486 F20101123_AABBXP osborne_l_Page_090thm.jpg
7c7eb913e5212897aacdfe0c07c9c27e
944a6c6a22f2735bf40468afb387eec01bb7bfaa
F20101123_AABCDK osborne_l_Page_010.tif
a7b83a13711c9a5c1c12f1a3663b24e8
f9f2f72b0e6cde581821891eb4961e2c29dd3e0d
118554 F20101123_AABCCW osborne_l_Page_088.jp2
10da152ee0da657d0b688e829787da11
fa8bff895ff3071926eed5ad7f9a5cbe4ff8a68a
6510 F20101123_AABBXQ osborne_l_Page_058thm.jpg
031cebfae4a4d8c733c14b9f97179718
6b566d04dd7c93cb11c61337b5a8a85aab8c4ad1
24888 F20101123_AABBYF osborne_l_Page_001.jpg
7e46f4d3b1a67346615e83d6f2dce560
a3c336fd168fe0cb6b878a1ed611986dd5422645
105720 F20101123_AABCCX osborne_l_Page_089.jp2
5bedb1a169e6b3a2a42827a7f7d649e8
8805eea797ce3ce91926b55ddfc22e05dbb4b33c
426 F20101123_AABBXR osborne_l_Page_099.txt
7604eaf7e0d377183f100a0510fa98ee
ee088542e42854bb97df170169d8d74e30e26c7c
F20101123_AABCEA osborne_l_Page_039.tif
2321b784c83635f9f8ff8260d91a89eb
8dfd7bf113d2dca51e2318184dc27e2f437d5221
F20101123_AABCDL osborne_l_Page_011.tif
38cac41d9fd8a3ae749145896ffda521
408580adde22d0fe024de3375308912938e6c0cd
10422 F20101123_AABBYG osborne_l_Page_002.jpg
a5529a37de1deaf4aa9a1692362f85d4
3bd5dcdbe666b8b57b35b6d58815dcece021478b
110906 F20101123_AABCCY osborne_l_Page_090.jp2
4e95bf7b8c1a946072177fde1dba3b9a
9ca9ca1412cc31f6241a020e1f92be52c76af43c
50094 F20101123_AABBXS osborne_l_Page_064.pro
443a9a5b0ea802e72b80239146e66c5a
6b10ed025434038efadec5a1e119a615c98b9857
F20101123_AABCEB osborne_l_Page_040.tif
1285b38d70d8b740884fa634be08c7ec
dc11abc79bbaa664b7f24ce9464485d43d2db053
F20101123_AABCDM osborne_l_Page_012.tif
4edbb7c5bc4094a8655c6ed8d368ba25
389d6a2c61e2bb73243fe0b6b595f403e9962cea
14315 F20101123_AABBYH osborne_l_Page_003.jpg
ccbc7cb43d9ae6f627504989f07ca014
f21258b665e098dc3a725fe6e31e4e051f40b139
802906 F20101123_AABCCZ osborne_l_Page_091.jp2
8e7738811338720820f64ccd1b9d2642
82c0e36395b5b051ec337969beeeccff5a6b135a
58004 F20101123_AABBXT osborne_l_Page_058.pro
3aec21e0d1fda4e79ea81ccdaade1f31
429bfc2393c1d2ea1d874a82b40e9bc1b099b2a3
F20101123_AABCEC osborne_l_Page_041.tif
7efdab5f472886045f9db6a03ac9d893
614d9d37ef73d95e0d718482987e8ac234996fca
F20101123_AABCDN osborne_l_Page_013.tif
b32d7711dfb0dad69442f593c51e20a8
64404069a299173efb05995977d266f07804f479
41224 F20101123_AABBYI osborne_l_Page_004.jpg
b13fc39e91d009ad236a00cdef1e60c9
bdcd932cde53c7ede8e0b28e5ba51cfa754b9308
118019 F20101123_AABBXU osborne_l_Page_020.jp2
1cbd98ddebd32eb898c0c5426c138147
5b17a6187ccb534be3218a754e5dacc0e3761921
F20101123_AABCED osborne_l_Page_043.tif
fcdaffc9e9a279803c59511d0fbd84cd
6a5d00386eb156d7bbd3a1f460a8041a48c6fa52
F20101123_AABCDO osborne_l_Page_014.tif
4a296dc5d4bb9d395d2b082f7df5b2b9
db8f4aa6be2ed479cc510edcabe862d4bfd54ef6
57604 F20101123_AABBYJ osborne_l_Page_008.jpg
7223344ff1c4f73f21d5f9e4040da556
02614273b3442ae22897d8d9d150a8e783bf16bd
47016 F20101123_AABBXV osborne_l_Page_041.pro
1b607438f28505624fa5e565cdf1aee5
9dde9bb75e49247a1f2b3cc9249394d9fc793427
F20101123_AABCEE osborne_l_Page_047.tif
634f33728af9941439ec15ece1a0751e
29f12058d9f2e5083279144b30486580f383e8d0
F20101123_AABCDP osborne_l_Page_017.tif
2b09bd7ec46f0327529d91f8def61adf
9ad7d05f94763756c37a03197e74096e7c32b8df
64928 F20101123_AABBYK osborne_l_Page_009.jpg
136ea8f62c9492bbcfca09296cd46b78
000135a5a1a5958ed4df73f4c434bae7cbcf7d29
22865 F20101123_AABBXW osborne_l_Page_069.QC.jpg
e16fbc37fb52243f0f58a119b811a0c1
29a84342482bcc84f3e729a87675bc9263ab4ef8
F20101123_AABCEF osborne_l_Page_048.tif
3cdc0e9e1c240ba66cdc1b8e160aae95
2c24c253a173e9d35acde96dc2b7367b20fac039
F20101123_AABCDQ osborne_l_Page_020.tif
2848c17d963b1ca1ec9a39072bceb10d
56e1ea5cdaec9d538082b7aaf657ff8010aa2942
81895 F20101123_AABBYL osborne_l_Page_010.jpg
0b7115506560daec0d52af94bc85226b
e8f2650d8990af81266c39f316ed951f1aa5d71d
F20101123_AABBXX osborne_l_Page_044.tif
b16238ca656e7c7f0e9f162735f41114
827909ebbb388e7af0bd862b7d8784a265da934e
F20101123_AABCEG osborne_l_Page_049.tif
4475310a23d58d202fdefeedfd4fb5c9
e5f81d85ae9dcc806822028930fdb309eafdc8e2
F20101123_AABCDR osborne_l_Page_021.tif
f03826cee4b0120e617e9389bd181037
c790028108020f00b582c36b55ddcb88222df9f9
74124 F20101123_AABBYM osborne_l_Page_011.jpg
4830ac6d55f2c36db24d5acd2380ebb6
215ed60fb8bee86eb3f49075784cb9d82340b3d0
F20101123_AABBXY osborne_l_Page_059.QC.jpg
57fb686c3bf58d867feb6143d227956a
8569925035aba9ec7f394ec461aad51747b14068
F20101123_AABCEH osborne_l_Page_051.tif
7bad794b3beb19f4e9070c112646f1a8
66c354b0991515ef143f9f004d6c9ac1a9f83894
71392 F20101123_AABBZA osborne_l_Page_036.jpg
5c886b09c2418abcf0277e4bb42eebe6
cb0314608e011eb1a4c4aa7d50deea9338877ec6
F20101123_AABCDS osborne_l_Page_023.tif
bde6dd8572edf7c317baf67834b0754c
5f4d86f96f1021d53b02004425b1786d0798ff5b
81456 F20101123_AABBYN osborne_l_Page_012.jpg
195b49b65057cd789c07e0bc43c6f95b
a0c1bda5ef4caeb96d5513c3e859918a7b07956c
F20101123_AABBXZ osborne_l_Page_015.tif
b790c638c4611745a0a5ec670d248e3e
443fb3284a09f470054dbfbe9a250fa64fe6e8ec
69512 F20101123_AABBZB osborne_l_Page_037.jpg
7a4b9e7d58279b6a08e51e740f6c9059
bb017cce7a27d11105d8c269a3c35af68c076804
F20101123_AABCDT osborne_l_Page_024.tif
1c69b69c21146469ef7a13c59c4cb0c2
6925ac7c1e87c05019511d6fff3bd9ddd4c70a86
73034 F20101123_AABBYO osborne_l_Page_013.jpg
ca870d99f47ad175969464217521fdfe
be0452fea81760c7691de013e5a78262bc094433
F20101123_AABCEI osborne_l_Page_052.tif
c5f707eb11d3096aab5b412c071e218a
9fea284d970f611d2b32144e90dadee60a7fe783
64477 F20101123_AABBZC osborne_l_Page_038.jpg
7a0dbb0a7102cb9b1b2aa3cc5d5e01a5
82d754ca024fecb98ac2b626d1884caaf3a4c8e1
F20101123_AABCDU osborne_l_Page_026.tif
178c4235b681735f26b774ac7c8774d4
6055161f028f3da7a6d1dc8fe9ec2f8d834115b4
46554 F20101123_AABBYP osborne_l_Page_014.jpg
969e8eb0fd336efa269aed1d4dc1cabe
fe987eb2b75a984acedfd530df36f89456e28a2c
F20101123_AABCEJ osborne_l_Page_054.tif
1b9a04b25a70a94538c9dbca9e1b5dd7
8211fe53093579a7724b0b70fb32ed6086e5ccf5
11846 F20101123_AABBZD osborne_l_Page_040.jpg
5e874ca46defd35d66fa9bdfb704614d
3362fd60e97723c20acf423f97460781e2a06303
F20101123_AABCDV osborne_l_Page_027.tif
9730be3b7a32267f5fade8131db56180
717dc634741d008c649ad5436a52109ff6456ffe
73545 F20101123_AABBYQ osborne_l_Page_016.jpg
471e1958a3fc9925742fefc5ebd17b56
88ce3511d530d8032a85c6ec3c5bc7c4fb337771
F20101123_AABCEK osborne_l_Page_055.tif
b111a7a705918b8d17775e9a17066d95
93578e2125ea4f64af4fdf88199084c17812a9b1
66356 F20101123_AABBZE osborne_l_Page_042.jpg
93abda1ddbe93f70f02d28d4a4828d28
ad8c1888c2a1fe1b0e41c3e6562d8a98a44f5cc8
F20101123_AABCDW osborne_l_Page_030.tif
780c5b549395e398f43dc784b17e5e55
e945597c98c6105661962f516ff779f75d34ee16
76096 F20101123_AABBYR osborne_l_Page_021.jpg
d941077617a83a4e1dc8bc45fb00baca
dd75c377d56bcac5681686f0087e3764f144278b
F20101123_AABCFA osborne_l_Page_080.tif
9cd6fd5af42b1c6c707732dbaf454864
ed5b38b8f21ee754d1f109c7a9b8010731cffe81
F20101123_AABCEL osborne_l_Page_056.tif
88c41dc052c311c2d8cb9597edb064d9
97e77c86802cd560ec3cbe76ec85c65e7ab5f55c
73737 F20101123_AABBZF osborne_l_Page_046.jpg
d757020ddd4a26c5eddf33f3d6a8c2ba
a150b76958ad359692205bc4669fe9846556f4da
F20101123_AABCDX osborne_l_Page_032.tif
35c77416ca94df28f885b6df8f830bfe
a142c3647ef09e747b04a36984bde4febc935c88
75719 F20101123_AABBYS osborne_l_Page_024.jpg
c92809b58aecedb31f575ebb1ec668bd
7bec50b0579948bb35787302fd33f8d61fdfdb54
F20101123_AABCFB osborne_l_Page_081.tif
17247c78574bc41cb0d6e6220032871d
6ae24e60e3329fb5d414eb296c40d66ea0a92546
F20101123_AABCEM osborne_l_Page_057.tif
d924b26a1bdcb5a8b7fab7dd75eae0b2
6b1e950e40ac03fc0c645c5a6ac07c0dca42bbda
73222 F20101123_AABBZG osborne_l_Page_047.jpg
024a11907e26f455cb8f2a2aa3210c3c
b162e4229d9066e55fd4696970d872d486bb8ada
F20101123_AABCDY osborne_l_Page_033.tif
9b76eafd42b899c046af158efabe2cfa
8404211b6e8ce662ed249fcc3a2a57649527ee9e
68695 F20101123_AABBYT osborne_l_Page_026.jpg
afc95e81c9597acad1927d018811ee03
be53382081f3fbe08cce0f695fc30348ff1ea551
F20101123_AABCFC osborne_l_Page_083.tif
4340d8f83f3d461f657de2a0ea6806ea
525d2c05cc54e24289d81cfa2b18970389483844
F20101123_AABCEN osborne_l_Page_059.tif
9619dcc8381a05b2bece732f4aafa1ad
649d4361e98214fdf29169d7c8f2ed287c86c9d9
79128 F20101123_AABBZH osborne_l_Page_049.jpg
67daf7efd7f7c98f46723406c801ec07
f8aeba4582e1570f89798dd538e7dc6391d559fe
F20101123_AABCDZ osborne_l_Page_034.tif
5452cb4b988c8ad0b532a58264c4fa63
7251e6caafd0bc811e64883a864981c93ccefce9
70518 F20101123_AABBYU osborne_l_Page_027.jpg
24ec5b7709efe76fa1779c0ea375c8f0
c199ebabd4bf1b18f391ac4905aad21bff709b54
F20101123_AABCFD osborne_l_Page_084.tif
ed906dffcf5f0199cdd58e92f8dbadde
177ad2246284d9bd1c1791dee077cedff642efd0
F20101123_AABCEO osborne_l_Page_060.tif
c00840203f49db4de403694d97634b40
7c44305f4eca2088c1cedf81ad1811a9997e844d
73700 F20101123_AABBZI osborne_l_Page_050.jpg
3f61e786a945c50f9a3691341bc5b3c8
4f37c6f548eaf69d1a22062d0512836a966a859f
75970 F20101123_AABBYV osborne_l_Page_030.jpg
7166ea1e6255ee1f2e6d41cbbe019720
3f5bde58433b5a81d945ba9abdc91761015c7b7e
F20101123_AABCFE osborne_l_Page_085.tif
9a3e4afe984e6b9fb3212abdbeeb2630
0ad52df69aef48e68f31fc327511f2659b1c4104
F20101123_AABCEP osborne_l_Page_061.tif
7a485de564814a22459a1ea649ce3fc4
5cd7291a302053fbbb82d179d0f5cc2f838e2cbd
F20101123_AABBZJ osborne_l_Page_051.jpg
3bbd84839dec299a37bc6623f2776f9d
9bac8d16fabaa97c6c2ed7bfe7b71addc0e149a4
62470 F20101123_AABBYW osborne_l_Page_031.jpg
7b7b5642e66cf19cb3927a010642ec69
681a6a22a1b5c2746a49ce65e80e10995314d204
F20101123_AABCFF osborne_l_Page_086.tif
f5457e90cbdff13415f9c8d7d44a8b7d
5dbe98b7f51b6a15e4899b8be43b894d184df3f2
F20101123_AABCEQ osborne_l_Page_062.tif
898a235d320ef3c9048b4dad101fe138
074ad6df04e4e19b59dfc4a64b958aaa8506d3a2
79415 F20101123_AABBZK osborne_l_Page_052.jpg
8bb79eb639d5b7cc742449467ecbac57
d4c153ac24deb0fe94f5a59b71c2d8ce1449d75f
71368 F20101123_AABBYX osborne_l_Page_032.jpg
9d26aa8b9bac266ec23f2d5085044d84
171c11d35bcee9de7bc50dcf712c4976e94b82ac
F20101123_AABCFG osborne_l_Page_087.tif
eada4b19b766677020648df123f6c709
b9b9fab1f41c5ea3c1d3574cc6f4de15c4da2663
F20101123_AABCER osborne_l_Page_063.tif
8bd4c8b615a4b4f9f36feb32636baa1c
f86d104cb1859d14c2970466cde575572e97a987
76553 F20101123_AABBZL osborne_l_Page_055.jpg
543957495a124dcf981d1f6521a65bca
c57f3ec423bf9ff718ec5bb9d2ad7b5284ee90ff
65835 F20101123_AABBYY osborne_l_Page_033.jpg
ac3d628bac7e3f0ec6e8d72bb2103fd1
4000f72da32f34f47e1926e39ba97304e2176fd1
F20101123_AABCFH osborne_l_Page_088.tif
3bd5618a464454c71a72530fc366c7f5
553d25cf2944d8027127483afd881e8b51dd5cd0
F20101123_AABCES osborne_l_Page_064.tif
41f5fd21c6053e2c0f245987b440e8c6
ca8cb13abe3dd0b8e5c21435d1211a9af1fea9a2
78757 F20101123_AABBZM osborne_l_Page_058.jpg
802ced92942bc4854c2da1720107a7da
6e66a519f5ef98c51733748a98d847725c7ab226
78749 F20101123_AABBYZ osborne_l_Page_034.jpg
0babffc17c6e39c90155f6bac15db99f
80f6bc7f33eb9d6019ca18ce0a4554ed12c1496b
F20101123_AABCFI osborne_l_Page_089.tif
10c810b4ded42283abd099da357f8e7a
de9483677507e3449f5949ab4f83eaa219782be3
F20101123_AABCET osborne_l_Page_068.tif
be36b4f21a019ea0c0871bb9c072bbf3
717d20b13cbdbeeea36186ee3bc60671bc12d8ca
69266 F20101123_AABBZN osborne_l_Page_062.jpg
8aee75c4efff737fbf83a331353f78b1
dffd41af9307c73034a487c1f23a333e9de13f56
F20101123_AABCEU osborne_l_Page_069.tif
c0cf84b929547c99f7bf2a5b9c1daa69
a2c974d653e2e9d5da7a578feaa324ae082f11c3
70227 F20101123_AABBZO osborne_l_Page_064.jpg
f082f1c9e3354af2fa8fc19914398d48
3aed1aa481b8aeb4729ffc0460d6e308783094fd
F20101123_AABCFJ osborne_l_Page_090.tif
e2c0d80fe141fdb580500397e10aa77d
f3459bf24427031dddc344ff785ab38900bc911e
F20101123_AABCEV osborne_l_Page_071.tif
c7bf517badd7023faf6ab2ffe6ff161d
9f58dcb01a33941b2a2195cc01a73f54bb6f9b59
65686 F20101123_AABBZP osborne_l_Page_066.jpg
4ae245f38c0daa792d748191930d6751
b6873b331dbd3fea9cb6ef62c2704c58b7ac163b
F20101123_AABCFK osborne_l_Page_092.tif
4812f5b613a962facaeb2113c91710fc
d5b591cc7c382ade4efc6e846ffeb6398f54ef39
F20101123_AABCEW osborne_l_Page_072.tif
9a84cb6837c26589d94a477c0767ed1a
355adbb61d10ebf06c0ecd81fba9657e6c87fd80
75690 F20101123_AABBZQ osborne_l_Page_068.jpg
30ad57168496e4d629d9816bb0c253bb
57f985dd5f2600ebb44ffb3d8e5dc1593cc9ffd9
F20101123_AABCFL osborne_l_Page_093.tif
a62be14075236db08937371fe9edacff
8adda235daaca3b9fbada9374fb6ddf5dcb4fbd5
F20101123_AABCEX osborne_l_Page_073.tif
e55367f476aaf5e5d42f405f34579f73
d7535be9e5352748cd0d5665bf2a2a3b4c273cfd
71948 F20101123_AABBZR osborne_l_Page_069.jpg
bd8a47788c693138a9d648882446e87a
69242790eba39af39559f1cbba6015a855ccd128
29926 F20101123_AABCGA osborne_l_Page_014.pro
def9ff4b744b8148f7c92b91e4d9a0f0
8e78f6e31681627f925d72a2503e087e43846405
F20101123_AABCFM osborne_l_Page_094.tif
55155a4839adf9d892e0095338a2f72d
cdee9baf1d684278538adfe21577b9022dc87ca5
F20101123_AABCEY osborne_l_Page_076.tif
ed0f474f7fe4466007f99d9bedff53e9
3d01a981fd1d97719fa5ada2abe42fc6409d7744
71537 F20101123_AABBZS osborne_l_Page_071.jpg
4181349359f637025e6c7871edd0f854
d19d4cff2e71b7b1ea116ea939a787ebc27d7c34
43605 F20101123_AABCGB osborne_l_Page_015.pro
34de1ec455c7a9e22eb1c6570d3ce667
e71f512c80adb5fd9da5243d6dfb7b46ed3a2570
F20101123_AABCFN osborne_l_Page_095.tif
16be413883fe9a81aadd1be9052a38c0
2dbe79435b8bd455317522d7b529898418f09350
F20101123_AABCEZ osborne_l_Page_079.tif
27b398b0af6ca759bcbb8564521c5b4f
c8e29949aa28db183f43f65c4c868dabfbb75e91
72286 F20101123_AABBZT osborne_l_Page_072.jpg
bef2537a3fd165ab526c68006fafa04f
ac4af2ca5aa2e066a57efb7afa8832a6b5891844
51876 F20101123_AABCGC osborne_l_Page_017.pro
7dc970b27eaab62c9d9235f73eaa8ff8
79844ed7b33cb48eb0b5256e87d14ba96091c2d9
F20101123_AABCFO osborne_l_Page_096.tif
94ffa0c354fe73e8f9a3016a8a71ffb2
2ea415f571e7f0b172caa9a22af676173b79c76e
68738 F20101123_AABBZU osborne_l_Page_074.jpg
eecfc9e9c4e4717de94aabb3814b1f19
cb8aea7997fae0cbb44e8e297258acb2b92b7819
51216 F20101123_AABCGD osborne_l_Page_018.pro
d053009949000cccdc3ea9585fb86a00
93f56dce85f778deba0cc1d7807da0de6edfc905
F20101123_AABCFP osborne_l_Page_097.tif
7c6e0d290f5cab2bc5eae77d2adfe883
272c4ec43e30e3ff0d895c0912eca13479358604
67270 F20101123_AABBZV osborne_l_Page_076.jpg
17d578f26893ae325b736ad39413ae86
1dd3a15dac47f9c248d12f9b62f995fff996bd93
59470 F20101123_AABCGE osborne_l_Page_019.pro
7b38f486688d2577b01c660dce425920
98765a25d35f869a44754af8d58108efd1559ded
F20101123_AABCFQ osborne_l_Page_099.tif
08cf09cb760e5c002c3a5715b1d3e5f1
19c2ab8223ae9f7b93fda6da29d164df70b2614c
73500 F20101123_AABBZW osborne_l_Page_078.jpg
5df2cbb5ba10191a543e9ccc20973363
df2dd01b3849694394f000725b83c71b363db7f1
60472 F20101123_AABCGF osborne_l_Page_020.pro
1bf232cffff6cd0ddc2d4d36ee095add
aeb30039bba9cdd4e586a0834036059ac07c20c3
8538 F20101123_AABCFR osborne_l_Page_001.pro
55c2f9583e55a7139963d7026b30206b
e1f1840e2b0b48bb9710702b5755dec695a9c22e
70554 F20101123_AABBZX osborne_l_Page_079.jpg
3cdff5404d63a35d76f78fe04686597c
555a0e0ab3afb34f38c68b662ab0ed468daf94dd
59574 F20101123_AABCGG osborne_l_Page_021.pro
f87d4cae4b27f996554674f3f717d23f
7c2d8c0849d033553cf60c88f726219afaf45b2d
1383 F20101123_AABCFS osborne_l_Page_002.pro
5fdc29412c9affd4cb2c3fca1481f647
a552195aec545b6ecc072e3b48548514841ea241
74156 F20101123_AABBZY osborne_l_Page_080.jpg
26d23f8668c1fcdbf2037de3320cef50
aa8c859f72842ca7e700119224d453ea4f6cab75
48986 F20101123_AABCGH osborne_l_Page_022.pro
2f9086a095f1fd31a06a21a99f4f637f
4be3928825a2fc237c6ebc383a1598e2a49c748b
25064 F20101123_AABCFT osborne_l_Page_004.pro
9139cecee8d5a74492de39a1cf051cb6
0fa6cdc3c6519e5503ef25d87cc46f2639f8a946
71146 F20101123_AABBZZ osborne_l_Page_082.jpg
b67a73b0df61f8046912956f6e3a0091
42fa1d03dd571abbc6083473f415c26879039c29
44626 F20101123_AABCGI osborne_l_Page_023.pro
d55c579210f711e3b50b970d85329de7
7e25d0a7cc4835c64988cafe35794fffabbdaee4
10518 F20101123_AABCFU osborne_l_Page_006.pro
a8265319890f77c7e0da67c11ab09fb1
705fce27f24fc47336733b6e9c70958407656d34
58368 F20101123_AABCGJ osborne_l_Page_024.pro
f9429f0bf7d4e39f6f33a60f789fafc5
2cc129a5984b50772644d46ec6ec86ef06399b26
8440 F20101123_AABCFV osborne_l_Page_007.pro
f1632fa460cff429221064e2a35736be
fcfed7b7104e695d89ba0fa0382679ae9a741716
60036 F20101123_AABCFW osborne_l_Page_010.pro
1d04fcf3056ea008e12d5ca8b0c10afb
55bd09d1262cc9fe48dfdf6000f65068adf52535
45935 F20101123_AABCGK osborne_l_Page_025.pro
cd7d5fcaf3cf8bdc738b1aa66a37d970
ea8ce1b7803b331aaeb8c4639db2a5dbc7eb05f0
53457 F20101123_AABCFX osborne_l_Page_011.pro
0ec753e7c767f68c707596e1ddce40aa
58c0668a2419c5281d5a26cdd0bf44b6500ed121
54105 F20101123_AABCHA osborne_l_Page_054.pro
b6d5941ff09eae393518931b620fdf54
0ca1d60e3cd1315b989220f0271381f596a5d237
53617 F20101123_AABCGL osborne_l_Page_027.pro
ee02c35978458a64af4b721c78fb0ca1
dfc247ac500423109c296f3301e4de2ef69aef18
67605 F20101123_AABCFY osborne_l_Page_012.pro
e2920cc00ffde6d8f534d20feae9596f
f16cdc21042e724cf7fbe3f9c94ab4745b987115
59042 F20101123_AABCHB osborne_l_Page_055.pro
110f79bf919d2fffeec9f6a92dd73d8b
fd6c9325df5a8333828afb1daf397a7764d77de1
57974 F20101123_AABCGM osborne_l_Page_028.pro
8571f9adc420110b0d71bbefc734e857
ec3a784e4762de847dfecfcfbe63940a4dce223a
52407 F20101123_AABCFZ osborne_l_Page_013.pro
db59a4a3753ab04ce3f062350db31f27
1e331e0e4c4c575066392569b1c3035bc6f0eec5
59416 F20101123_AABCHC osborne_l_Page_057.pro
b0433a6d973acb1c1d09834a5b465ff9
bdc3f65bd7e1485bd43b8b3890859e5072432177
53770 F20101123_AABCGN osborne_l_Page_029.pro
7f478e6cce4b983a0753f6ae6fe3a823
c187cd4ce2d69cced6f26fad87c5d5f4b19f0812
54545 F20101123_AABCHD osborne_l_Page_059.pro
21631630c6632c2591b19275d386103c
bbc1848286720be18fbef5f05b7c4d3b3d3eae6e
53592 F20101123_AABCGO osborne_l_Page_030.pro
a1827aa893717e169ab7c90f976ec2b8
7b85abaa81a4b9516a4d56fc701436c405932bd6
54266 F20101123_AABCHE osborne_l_Page_061.pro
8ba4ca952301b0eb98fbd326fe11e362
cfc6410018a98e8be5acb67a258415de24a97fd3
42427 F20101123_AABCGP osborne_l_Page_031.pro
08221eec93fe522c26ce322f18e1d8fa
f3a30a022a8a23a2f70ba2f2fb93d444cc98f507
50824 F20101123_AABCHF osborne_l_Page_062.pro
ea6ff6a4ae1ac0f1f7604a286ea24f49
75d46552ac17811efa8e75b45da5582d122fc98d
51887 F20101123_AABCGQ osborne_l_Page_034.pro
b3fd87c39cc640a70e41114ee34d7583
6645845900dddea09d3095d199d3aa16bfe8b42f
49557 F20101123_AABCHG osborne_l_Page_063.pro
9c570ac10ad21cb056ee65f4cd813b35
31dcbd33ff14d03b48c7c79a5ea368262bd01099
50139 F20101123_AABCGR osborne_l_Page_037.pro
3dfaa3b0e344c9a92c903a27b9769a57
33c41dbe76e757d06438e20975c5487aa595d24c
61236 F20101123_AABCHH osborne_l_Page_065.pro
b30c88348829518db7afc8941bdee9d2
202004196d6cf99eec95a4b69813522a1774e059
50788 F20101123_AABCGS osborne_l_Page_039.pro
04a20be4a298e769714bcddc18755fca
955a566a0cffa76b131483db75b562f1646126cb
54555 F20101123_AABCHI osborne_l_Page_067.pro
4e6ef4f3e7a96bf796843bf5f17e8ae1
1d1511566eaca8dc96e87d2b021df60f370210aa
2910 F20101123_AABCGT osborne_l_Page_040.pro
8749263229ed3de4a011378463a65dd5
02b0c571956f42c3f99ee117a20267df314f0924
52937 F20101123_AABCHJ osborne_l_Page_070.pro
d7ce34e6d7b95edb1ffe344266cc5600
6e1d31bde67e9f3230b217d209239aaaf74de647
50475 F20101123_AABCGU osborne_l_Page_043.pro
809e2f6ef8b3945f912cf4887a672e7e
0d2f7d2bba52ac15f4bd762a8434d35382c1fdf4
51265 F20101123_AABCHK osborne_l_Page_071.pro
423ef5b90e51ffe1ac4c187fbab6d81c
ce43256a1669a415b07522552a76426aa7fd608e
53026 F20101123_AABCGV osborne_l_Page_044.pro
288d106a132057dffada9921a4385e80
d1b3693e83499ec09f28ef4142ddd40a4f2ce48c
53480 F20101123_AABCGW osborne_l_Page_046.pro
2fdf5c589dddbe812f800e7846d79fd4
bc0542d076a458975977cebe24e6332ec57bc87a
54654 F20101123_AABCIA osborne_l_Page_096.pro
f6731acc9f473e615418d7bdaac52f55
3667ff73d865b7f6124104c40d70bca7e881677e
43519 F20101123_AABCHL osborne_l_Page_073.pro
4302eb8f20d452f72af34d7160f0976a
f48ccf34175ac0061cbaad356c2d0eedbcacff9d
F20101123_AABCGX osborne_l_Page_050.pro
3bd05953975b78f0f9fef8048ae04c3e
f681adbc7168bf9453a0828c33b8b6a1dcd1449b
51679 F20101123_AABCIB osborne_l_Page_098.pro
bebc5b2852169cad0efe874586429dc1
475f5e8c24afe4bccfd5647f8fee329d6225d6ea
56586 F20101123_AABCHM osborne_l_Page_077.pro
68aeddfe5e4f476620373a18fa705e1c
156647bfc5c717f7a6cfbc6cc9f4312925f2526a
53147 F20101123_AABCGY osborne_l_Page_052.pro
1cc0ff9dfbd83189537852e60cff43f8
af2f61582ea7273bf64821b9e60a86e76ef1cf8a
13585 F20101123_AABCIC osborne_l_Page_100.pro
b788e78055e76f6db1a3a60fb235ca69
b9e194826b3ab39441f8be0cafa44b971d85518e
51913 F20101123_AABCHN osborne_l_Page_078.pro
849ec39903e640efb57a69c01a11bef6
bb474ccae396d824d9e9274eb014561a4f544a94
50355 F20101123_AABCGZ osborne_l_Page_053.pro
6418ce670b63c5f0008245e2b0bc0a53
f6eeb0f7b2209f7cc961f4b8f9c65df7222e02ba
118 F20101123_AABCID osborne_l_Page_002.txt
9358aaca947275365eef7caa138874cb
6c622494a62ec66f9a5efd3b00b68cfe00bea715
50102 F20101123_AABCHO osborne_l_Page_079.pro
a220f36b01e034a336ebe5723d872b40
1cb51096eb3e0cfc480ef665e1eba3e92298bf95
219 F20101123_AABCIE osborne_l_Page_003.txt
75fe206ebaf47546940e9135361a5f06
a2c10043a5cc940afe0d23af5405d1c3f23ae7b3
55281 F20101123_AABCHP osborne_l_Page_080.pro
429dafc3b234dcf5757d7df4826c2d9f
3884ef0307560b7189d98ad7867251693b8157a8
430 F20101123_AABCIF osborne_l_Page_006.txt
5a21730e2c70c5e51782d00c5632c30e
1163c42a661e8724acb48a2cc45109d010622147
58055 F20101123_AABCHQ osborne_l_Page_081.pro
a2823de8877373a6e26d32fd34077959
bbf03b2034bc30c17af9a2bf3ac66d871f5454eb
397 F20101123_AABCIG osborne_l_Page_007.txt
ee6e49df8c91515234c14e1f3fcc54e9
78460bd6d77f63ebb1721ab54d769b94d2ba3a24
54189 F20101123_AABCHR osborne_l_Page_083.pro
57288f1b6f5d9eef3f47cb22245372c1
a6d5239b532b6b455937e7f73add15d96e983543
1652 F20101123_AABCIH osborne_l_Page_008.txt
fbf1df8a67d56188ac14792831b806c9
71911b2d099225be4f7a4a0bc0a2fb5c74b21da5
45901 F20101123_AABCHS osborne_l_Page_085.pro
9bdb55ae74e98fec8b94758037924bb9
8e4f50eaa71cc5c1fb8aac5648ea8c39adb67a16
1784 F20101123_AABCII osborne_l_Page_009.txt
b7580384b5b6596633a5fb96b5632535
f1f15e92a09fd70420ddcd140565a32c2c4a821b
51567 F20101123_AABCHT osborne_l_Page_086.pro
16fa93465c6c2fa2998251e99a828ada
e880cd1ae1fb07aa175558d9a39e98f621fedf8d
56774 F20101123_AABCHU osborne_l_Page_088.pro
53549aab2e65062fe2903ad74ad3940d
528df5964fefe9a4def06f61a43887e8b4fe0292
2097 F20101123_AABCIJ osborne_l_Page_011.txt
4cc57f36f9606b31b96c05a4717d1174
43b3b9d5aa52ac74b214252bc09984c43d60c1d7
52456 F20101123_AABCHV osborne_l_Page_090.pro
1244201fc186ea41981d5b205379e735
ef7bf24c004b2565d053a016159dab78b23210a0
2052 F20101123_AABCIK osborne_l_Page_013.txt
c57825bde7410bd471e3a11df54914be
556acd1644c563a7c4c833233a5d9348d2f6ac8d
35529 F20101123_AABCHW osborne_l_Page_091.pro
76e359a1f950b29a660a4d285c9ebc85
7aafdd6a2e20b2c5739819849b699e5fd77b2fb5
2043 F20101123_AABCIL osborne_l_Page_016.txt
bf4c3e19960a051cb8f1f08d2883b43f
6a3c08351389cbb9d2703d63285b8ec3808ed7f3
10797 F20101123_AABCHX osborne_l_Page_092.pro
73fdb55d3c9a6651dd6aba85af66f4df
9d4858d99c646ee9f74557cedb96e6726c0728ed
F20101123_AABCJA osborne_l_Page_035.txt
4ff7cfaf99900e648d57f76e6c167219
bfd90bd585a4fdc1b22e7297b1ee1b33eb2b453c
47987 F20101123_AABCHY osborne_l_Page_094.pro
ba4b0c0f74696736456d9b7c870ccf0a
399184518db5f680b3da8911d536035e9eb993d9
2053 F20101123_AABCJB osborne_l_Page_036.txt
bcb84788f4827ad5d24e830a0724046e
a47e18b5d6c6e05593cc339ac058c6524f8a2746
2087 F20101123_AABCIM osborne_l_Page_018.txt
3ed0d7d7b3729cd223c884177557f4b6
ad6027db426e10790d7dd85e978374c2c87eed1e
57445 F20101123_AABCHZ osborne_l_Page_095.pro
7e21afdc8356d3005620051b9b519355
387d7e25357baa3022cfa291bcfb24c239d66ca8
1998 F20101123_AABCJC osborne_l_Page_039.txt
ac547ac4ca1391e52899aa227bdd3d38
f505e76c0bd21bffb9750b82210f333e04a83b9f
2310 F20101123_AABCIN osborne_l_Page_019.txt
975028a1e5437ee489ac32e2aa0cdc56
16cd6ff0da607404bc05a6c714fecdbcc0b34389
160 F20101123_AABCJD osborne_l_Page_040.txt
85c24f76833248827f628a14d42d0da8
8ee9b0858e568af81324d153c0d33a33fd237004
2372 F20101123_AABCIO osborne_l_Page_020.txt
46a43c1a48372f6c2b7c1780742f910c
fb9eceab3b06ac624149851639a1a1e240a12607
1910 F20101123_AABCJE osborne_l_Page_041.txt
456e1e5f1aa37c05919457f9c8d64347
b9104150bcbd50971a51ba8819d304b5b254814f
2317 F20101123_AABCIP osborne_l_Page_021.txt
6c76c6fe46dd2bc2420e24a3f9fa590b
bed0782272f6fb3b110a92b761ecbaca38a038be
1895 F20101123_AABCJF osborne_l_Page_042.txt
e434cd2d85824d7369ca937bc0a249ff
b323d89070e093c8f5f5698976501a1fd0c46047
1957 F20101123_AABCIQ osborne_l_Page_022.txt
7cd7e0e2450aae8cbb594e02d0582b6e
0062de0ddf0bd83dbf20c4b07b89235abcd3ac8c
1989 F20101123_AABCJG osborne_l_Page_043.txt
d1d70be77eac126bc7f406acf603d573
b528f9b591f11dfb771ff11fc9577ff4d4aaad3b
1774 F20101123_AABCIR osborne_l_Page_023.txt
1443faa33e5013a49c6aa778ce8870b5
339c8ad2bdbdef53628cd33552f04bc0ab73238e
2094 F20101123_AABCJH osborne_l_Page_044.txt
eccdba3c26613aabb9831f48b54f7faa
7fe452ad60eddbd2a9c072c8d1952eda6c7878df
2302 F20101123_AABCIS osborne_l_Page_024.txt
c2acd719d4aa69c33a4d06396b719c1b
70353571d3f877cdbd4cc6d2c3420ab01e6587f2
2098 F20101123_AABCJI osborne_l_Page_045.txt
b8c2ea7c35bf87a1a0f0c890ad9a2bc6
dcf21ef2e9de630ab71423c1c00b450020435d00
2007 F20101123_AABCIT osborne_l_Page_026.txt
f830640d7e79da754add7a7299b1c63d
4fd1adc3248afcc08b9d7a0953ddb442e9004437
2141 F20101123_AABCJJ osborne_l_Page_046.txt
2b74b9145cbaa99745acdcd837f1158d
63d1becdb894a3b5374316d8fa97c435b77a1331
2121 F20101123_AABCIU osborne_l_Page_027.txt
32b02dface1c4761f04d2c0a2dcc5ea3
6d279aa4f4dea98bde8883c6758bb4141eecef67



PAGE 1

THROUGH AN OPEN DOOR? INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, 1946-1958 By LEIGH ANN BAUER OSBORNE A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Leigh Ann Bauer Osborne

PAGE 3

This thesis is dedicated to my grandfather, Robert O. Bauer, to my grandmother, Addie Payne, and in memory of Joyce Bauer and James E. Payne.

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my advisor and committee chair, Dr. Sevan Terzian, for his guidance and encouragement during the writing of this thesis as well as throughout my graduate studies. I would also like to thank Dr. Richard Renner for serving on my committee and for his insights on this thesis. The staff of the UF Special Collections Library, particularly Carl Van Ness and Florence Turcotte, deserve acknowledgment for their kind assistance as I searched through the University Archives. I am also thankful to my co-workers at the International Center for their encouraging words. Special recognition goes to my parents, Bill and Wanda Bauer, for their loving support, helpful advice, and for always making time to take a trip to Gainesville. I am forever grateful to my husband, Ryan, for his love and understanding, for always knowing just what to say to keep me going, and for bringing me a cup of tea when I needed it most. iv

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................iv LIST OF FIGURES ..........................................................................................................vii ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE.......................6 Federal Legislation and the National Scene.................................................................6 Review of Literature.....................................................................................................9 Historical Surveys of International Students and International Education.........10 Historical Surveys of American Higher Education.............................................12 Literature from the Post-WWII Era.....................................................................16 The Role of the Federal Government and Private Foundations..........................21 Administration of Foreign Student Programs......................................................24 Conclusions from the Review of Literature........................................................30 3 INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, 1946-1958............................................................................................................................32 The Beginnings of the University of Florida, 1853-1946...........................................32 University Expansion on all Fronts, 1946-1948.........................................................35 Re-Opening the Door to Foreign Students, 1948-1949..............................................43 The Foreign Student Problem, 1949-1950..............................................................46 Whither International Education at the University of Florida? 1949-1951................51 Return of the Foreign Student Problem, 1951-1952...............................................58 The Adviser to Foreign Students: Years of Progress, 1952-1955..............................61 New Definitions for Foreign Students at the University of Florida, 1955-1957........68 The Adviser to Foreign Students: Towards the Saturation Point, 1957-1958............72 4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION...........................................................................76 v

PAGE 6

APPENDIX; INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AT UF AND IN THE U.S., 1946-1958............................................................................................................................83 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................85 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................91 vi

PAGE 7

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page International Students at UF, 1946-1958...........................................................................83 International Students in the U.S., 1946-1958...................................................................84 vii

PAGE 8

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Education THROUGH AN OPEN DOOR? INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, 1946-1958 By Leigh Ann Bauer Osborne August 2005 Chair: Sevan G. Terzian Major Department: School of Teaching and Learning Following World War II, the University of Florida (UF), similar to many American higher education institutions, experienced significant growth in all aspects of the university. This thesis examines the history of international students at the University of Florida from 1946 to 1958, when enrollment of these students from abroad increased dramatically. The study highlights the administrations of three successive UF presidents and the policies that were formed during this period to accommodate this new influx of students from abroad. An account of the developments of UFs foreign student program is provided using archival sources from UF presidential and administrative policy records as well as personal correspondence between UF presidents, faculty members, and individuals outside of the university. National sources regarding international students and American higher education are also examined throughout this study to place the developments at the University of Florida into a broader historical context. viii

PAGE 9

The response of UF presidents John J. Tigert, J. Hillis Miller, and J. Wayne Reitz to the universitys role in hosting these sojourning students demonstrates the complexities of foreign student programs on American campuses. For all three presidents, international students rhetorically held an important place within the university, yet the administrative decisions, or lack thereof, regarding the international student program at UF sent ambiguous messages concerning the value of these students to the university, state, and nation. To consider the factors that influenced this ambiguous response, the study explores the relationship between UF presidents and the universitys various constituencies, including faculty and staff, and the state legislature and its governing body for higher education, the Board of Control. UFs mission as a public, land-grant institution to serve primarily the interests of the state often conflicted with the presidents ability to advocate for increased support of international students. At the same time, many faculty and staff members advocated for international students as a means to overcome provincialism and enhance the universitys international reputation. The history of international students at UF also reveals that from 1946 to 1958, the rationales for the importance of foreign students shifted from the goals of peace and mutual exchange towards national foreign policy aims to ensure the spread of American democratic principles. This shift in rationale was consistent with the larger change nationwide, as the federal government became progressively more involved in measures to support the presence of foreign students on American campuses. ix

PAGE 10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In 1946, University of Florida president John J. Tigert indicated in a letter to a hopeful French student that foreign students would not be admitted for the upcoming academic year due to the overcrowded conditions caused by the flood of returned World War II veterans enrolling at the university in record numbers. 1 By 1958, the universitys advisor to foreign students, exasperated by the increased workload and lack of staff, wrote that he was not willing to go on doing this much longer unless the administration made changes to lessen his burden. 2 During this period of twelve years and three university presidents, the University of Florida (UF) grew dramatically into a nationally prominent research university, with enrollment doubling from 6,334 in 1946 to 12,306 by 1958. 3 The number of students from other countries enrolled at UF increased significantly as well, from just 0.3 percent of the student body, with twenty-four foreign students in 1946, to two percent, with 250 students, by 1958. Nationally, the number of 1 Tigert to Antoine, 10 August 1946, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P10b: box 9, General Correspondence 1946. The term foreign students was used during this time period to describe students from other countries who came to the United States for a limited period of time to earn a college or university degree. This term, while still in use, was generally replaced with the more culturally sensitive term international students in the late 1960s. For the purposes of this thesis, both foreign students and international students will be used interchangeably. 2 Irving J. Putman, Report of the Adviser to Foreign Students 1957-58, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P14a: box 31, Foreign Students & Visitors, 1955-67, 9. 3 University of Florida Office of Institutional Research, Total enrollment for University of Florida from 1905-2003, http://www.ir.ufl.edu/factbook/enroll.htm (accessed June 2005). It was also during this time period that UF developed from an all white, male institution to one that was coeducational (1947) and accepted its first African-American student to the Law School (1958). 1

PAGE 11

2 international students exploded from 10,341 in 1946 to 47,245 in 1958. 4 The issue of accommodating this new group of students from other countries became one that required the attention of higher education administrators as never before. At the end of World War II, the United States faced immense change with regards to its place in the world as the nation shifted from its brief postwar jubilation towards a cold war with the Soviet Union. Consequently, the federal government became increasingly involved in funding research activities on American campuses, which altered the academic landscape of many colleges and universities. Given this time of dramatic change throughout the United States and the rapid expansion of its higher education institutions, this thesis provides a detailed examination of the history of a large, public land-grant institution, the University of Florida, and its response to this new influx of students from overseas. Although the history of international students at the University of Florida began prior to 1946 and continued well beyond 1958, these twelve years were a pivotal period of transformation at the University of Florida and at higher education institutions across the nation. In regards to foreign students, the University of Florida evolved from severe restrictions on foreign student enrollments in 1946 to admitting more foreign students in 1958 than could be adequately handled. On the national level during the period of this study, three important federal measures, to be discussed in Chapter 2, affected higher education programs for foreign students and international education: the Fulbright Act of 1946, the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, and the National Defense Education Act of 1958. In 4 Committee on Friendly Relations Among Foreign Students, The Unofficial Ambassadors 1946 (New York: Committee on Friendly Relations, 1946), 14. Institute of International Education, Open Doors 1958 (New York: Institute of International Education, 1958), 20.

PAGE 12

3 addition, there is a dearth of historical works that detail the status of foreign students on American campuses in general and in the postwar era in particular. Furthermore, foreign students have not been considered in the existing University of Florida institutional histories. 5 To map the history of international students at UF from 1946 to 1958, this thesis poses the following questions: How did the University of Floridas administration address the needs of international students? What were the rationales presented for or against the presence of foreign students during these times of great change throughout the university and the nation? To answer these questions, this thesis examines University of Florida presidential and administrative policy records as well as personal correspondence between UF presidents and various faculty members and individuals outside of the university. Preceding the University of Florida case history is an overview of the federal legislation regarding foreign students and international education in the postwar era. A review of the literature, both from the period of study and current, is also presented to frame the larger debates concerning the role of international students in American higher education and to place the developments at UF into a broader historical context. This examination of foreign students at the University of Florida from 1946 to 1958 reveals that while UF presidents appeared to value foreign students, they rarely defined 5 For University of Florida histories, see Samuel Proctor, The University of Florida: Its Early Years, 1853-1906 (PhD diss., University of Florida, 1958); Richard R. Alexander, A Smooth Transition: Racial Integration at the University of Florida, 1954-1958 (Unpublished typescript, University of Florida, 1995); Neil D. Webb, Fifty Years of Building the University of Florida, 1925 to 1975 (Gainesville: self-published, 1997); Kevin McCarthy, Fightin Gators: A History of University of Florida Football (Charleston: Arcadia Publishing, 2000). For non-historical studies on international students at the University of Florida, see Abdallah Naser, The Relationship Between Academic Achievement and Demographic and Language Variables for Male Foreign Students at the University of Florida (masters thesis, University of Florida, 1964); Nancy Baldwin, Cultural Adaptations of International Student Wives at the University of Florida (PhD diss., University of Florida, 1969); K. Usha Vyasulu, International

PAGE 13

4 why these students were important to the university, state, and nation. Faced with the need to balance both the state legislative pressure to serve the interests of the state with the desire of the administration and faculty to raise the universitys national and international reputation as a prominent research university, this thesis argues that UF presidents sent ambiguous messages about the value of foreign students. Without a clear declaration from the university president as to the value of international students, those involved with foreign students at UF developed multiple interpretations about these sojourning students and their role within the academic community. While some characterized foreign students as a growing problem, others suggested that the universitys inability to address the needs of this population was to blame. The conception of the foreign student problem persisted throughout this period and largely resulted from the lack of coordinated goals for the foreign student program at UF. As committees to study foreign student problems were formed and re-formed, the fact that the problem of foreign students persisted suggested to some that these issues were inherent to the presence of these students themselves rather than a result of the universitys administrative ambiguity as to how to best accommodate these sojourning students. Although the university presidents did not explicitly define any rationales for the importance of foreign students at UF, numerous justifications were offered in reports from committees to study foreign students and those of the foreign student adviser as well as other interested faculty members. These rationales included: mutual exchange for peace and goodwill, enhancement of UFs international reputation and avoidance of Students on the University of Florida Campus: Analysis of Their Strongly Held Attitudes Toward U.S. Nationals (masters thesis, University of Florida, 1975).

PAGE 14

5 provincialism, and the importance of foreign students to ensure Americas future as a world leader in the face of communism. In exploring these rationales, this thesis also reveals how the perception of international students changed as the United States moved away from the lingering idealism of the immediate postwar era towards the national scare of the Cold War. For advocates of international education, foreign students were initially an important means to achieve peace and mutual understanding. By 1958, however, the education of foreign students became increasingly associated with ensuring Americas national defense and foreign policy goals. The University of Floridas response to this growing group of students from overseas mirrored the larger shift in the rationale behind federal support of international education and foreign students. Even when foreign students were characterized as central to the national interest, however, three successive UF presidents sent ambiguous messages about the value of international students and neglected to define their importance to the academic community or the State of Florida.

PAGE 15

CHAPTER 2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE Federal Legislation and the National Scene On the national level during the period of this study (1946-1958), three important federal legislative measures had enormous influence on universities and their international education programs: the Fulbright Act of 1946, the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, and the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958. The distinct rationales that sparked the creation of these legislative acts exemplified the shift away from international education for peace and goodwill towards the aims of national defense and security. These measures also signified a new era of federal involvement with international programs, which were previously funded in large part by philanthropic organizations such as the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie Foundations. The Fulbright Act, named for the creator and sponsor of the bill, Senator J. William Fulbright (D-Ark.), designated funds from surplus military supplies for the exchange of students and faculty in the U.S. and abroad. In so doing, the act aimed to foster international goodwill through educational and cultural exchange as a means to ensure world peace. Senator Fulbright explained the initial goal of the legislation: If large numbers of people know and understand the people from nations other than their own, they may develop a capacity for empathy, a distaste for killing other men, and an inclination to peace. 1 The motives behind the passage of the Fulbright Act were not 1 Theodore M. Vestal, International Education, Its History and Promise for Today (Westport, CT: Praeger Press, 1994), 22. 6

PAGE 16

7 purely altruistic, however. In addition to the rationale of educational exchange for mutual understanding and world peace, Fulbright foresaw a need to integrate international education with foreign policy goals: It was the Senators purpose to commit the United States government deeply to international education but, at the same time, in a sophisticated way to integrate such educational activity into the foreign policy of the nation. 2 As the nation moved closer towards the Cold War, another act of Congress, the Smith-Mundt Act, provided for increased federal involvement with international education programs. In 1948, the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act, commonly known as the Smith-Mundt Act, expanded upon Fulbrights aim of increasing American involvement in international educational exchange programs. Rather than focusing on mutual exchange, however, the law aimed to promote a better understanding of the United States among the peoples of the world. 3 The act connected educational exchange with the foreign policy objectives of the U.S. government as never before. It designated taxpayer dollars, rather than the Fulbright Acts military surplus funds, to increase these educational exchanges. In addition, the Smith-Mundt Act established an information service to disseminate the federal governments perspective on foreign affairs. The scope and financial resources that the Smith-Mundt Act provided allowed the United States to engage in educational exchange and technical assistance with more nationsincluding those with developing economiesthat might otherwise be aided by the Soviet Union. The acts inclusion of funds for technical assistance foreshadowed the later development 2 Walter Johnson and Francis J. Colligan, The Fulbright Program: A History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), 14. 3 H. Alexander Smith, Report to Accompany HR 3342. Senate Reports, 80 th Congress, 1, no. 811. 1948.

PAGE 17

8 in 1949 of President Harry S. Trumans Point Four programs, which shared American technological expertise with the developing nations of the world. Although differences existed between the Fulbright and Smith-Mundt Acts, both were products of the volatile political climate, as historian Richard Humphrey explained: Both acts mirrored the psychology of a nation turning, at the height of its power and prestige, from a commitment to destroy a totalitarian onslaught on free democracyto a program of constructive amelioration of what were then conceived to be the underlying tensions between men and nations. 4 These underlying tensions between American democracy and Soviet communism rose dramatically to the surface with the launch of the Sputnik space satellite on October 4, 1957. The success of Sputnik, a demonstration of the Soviet Unions scientific might, triggered the passage of the National Defense Education Act in 1958, which, among other educational aspects, emphasized scientific research and specialization in areas deemed central to U.S. foreign policy interests. Under its Title VI, the NDEA funded the creation of area and foreign language study centers on American campuses. The opening statement of the NDEA revealed the federal governments commitment to the endeavor: The security of the nation required the fullest development of the mental resources and technical skills of its young men and women. 5 Historian John Patrick Diggins noted that the NDEA enjoyed as much success as the 1944 GI Bill, which provided funds for returned veterans college educations, but differed from it in that the NDEA represented 4 Richard Humphrey, Cultural Communication and New Imperatives, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 335 (1961): 144. 5 As quoted in Nancy L. Ruther, Barely There, Powerfully Present: Thirty Years of U.S. Policy on International Higher Education (New York: Routledge Falmer, 2002), 60.

PAGE 18

9 less a commitment to knowledge and learning than to national defense. 6 Although the NDEA did not extend funding to foreign students, the importance of foreign students towards the end of the 1950s increasingly became one of achieving the foreign policy aims of the federal government. As Cora Du Bois explained in her 1956 book Foreign Students and Higher Education: The United States government, for example, is necessarily concerned that the students it sponsors acquire not only a deeper but also a more appreciative understanding of this countryAlthough the enabling legislation of the Congress stresses education rather than propaganda as the instrument for achieving this goal, the intent is clear. Education is not equated with propaganda, but it is nevertheless envisaged as an instrument of foreign policy and of national interest. 7 Given this new context, the importance and function of foreign students were increasingly defined as a means to ensure the defeat of communism. At the University of Florida, the administrations characterization of its foreign students, when addressed at all, mirrored this national shift in rationale and exemplified the tension between federal foreign policy aims and altruistic motives of peace and goodwill as rationales for welcoming students from abroad. Review of Literature Although many studies address international students academic and counseling issues, historical surveys of international students on American campuses are not widespread. In addition to a general lack of historical research on the subject, University of Florida institutional histories have not addressed the foreign student population and 6 John Patrick Diggins, The Proud Decades: America in War and in Peace, 1941-1960 (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1988), 321. 7 Cora Du Bois, Foreign Students and Higher Education in the United States (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1956), 12.

PAGE 19

10 their role in the development of the university. 8 This review of the literature will consider the existing historical surveys, literature from the post-WWII era, works on the role of the federal government and private foundations, and the administration of foreign student programs. The literature on foreign students in the United States, as the review of scholarship from the period of this study to the present will demonstrate, often criticized the lack of comprehensive policies towards the foreign student population and advocated for a better definition of the role of foreign students in American higher education. Historical Surveys of International Students and International Education Emma Schulken provided a much-needed historical framework for tracing the foreign student presence in America from the Colonial era to the 1970s. Schulken defined three distinct periods which led to the growth of international students in the U.S.: the foreign missionary movement of the nineteenth century; the emergence of philanthropic organizations such as the Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford Foundations after World War I; and the increased involvement of the U.S. government to fund international education and foreign student exchange programs from the early 1940s to the 1970s. 9 Schulken concluded that throughout these periods, and particularly after World War II, a basic duality existed between the idealism of exchange for international understanding and goodwill and the pragmatic goals of ensuring Americas future as a world leader. According to Schulken, this duality led in turn to a certain failure on the part of American higher education and the federal government: 8 For institutional histories devoted to the subject of international students, see Khosro Tabariasl, A History of International Students at Ball State University, 1945-1980 (PhD diss., Ball State, 1987) and Flora Vansant, The International Student in the University of North Carolina (EdD diss., University of North Carolina Greensboro, 1985). 9 Emma Walker Schulken, The History of Foreign Students in American Higher Education from its Colonial Beginnings to the Present (PhD diss., Florida State University, 1972), xii-xiii.

PAGE 20

11 All too often actions have been motivated not so much by idealistic slogans as by political realities. The result has been unprecedented growth in numbers of foreign students in American higher education, often accompanied by inadequate programs which reflect confusion between the ideal and the pragmatic. 10 This confusion between the ideal and the pragmatic persisted as American colleges and universities developed their own administrative structures to accommodate these students from abroad. While Schulken addressed the history of foreign students in particular, others have written on the history of international education in general. 11 Hans de Wit provided the first full-scale analysis of the literature on, debates on, and experience with the internationalization of higher education. 12 Comparing the American approach to international education with that of Europe, de Wit contended that the American combination of parochialism and feelings of superiority had shaped the outlook of international education endeavors on the nations campuses. 13 Similar to Schulkens definition of the existence of both idealistic and pragmatic motives, de Wit concluded that peace and goodwill as well as foreign policy and national security were the driving rationales behind the expansion of international education in the United States. For de 10 Ibid., 207. 11 Although the definition of international education is often debated, Hararis (1972) definition is commonly cited: International education is an all-inclusive term encompassing three major strands: (a) international content of the curricula, (b) international movement of scholars and students concerned with training and research, and (c) arrangements engaging U.S. education abroad in technical assistance and educational programs. Maurice Harari, Global Dimensions in U.S. Education: The University (New York: Center for War/Peace Studies, 1972). 12 Hans de Wit, Internationalization of Higher Education in the United States and Europe: A Historical, Comparative, and Conceptual Analysis (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002), xviii. De Wit defined internationalization as an extension of international education and refers to a more strategic process approach (119). 13 Ibid., 217.

PAGE 21

12 Wit, the rationale of advancing U.S. foreign policy interests became the dominant rationale over that of peace and goodwill. Josef Mestenhauser described three historical phases of international education in the United States. 14 Mestenhauser characterized the euphoria stage from 1946 to the Vietnam War. This euphoria consisted of increased support from private philanthropies such as the Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations. The federal government also increased funding for international education endeavors on American campuses. During this euphoric period, Mestenhauser suggested that the foundations of the international education field in the U.S. were laid, particularly in regards to foreign students, study abroad, area studies, and the administration of international programs. The next historical phase, darkening clouds, began with the failed International Education Act of 1966 until the early 1980s, when support from private philanthropies was nearly non-existent and federal funding diminished. Mestenhausers final stage, defense through associations, began in the early 1980s until the late 1990s and consisted of further financial limitations for international education. 15 Historical Surveys of American Higher Education In addition to historical surveys of international education, it is useful to consider historical works regarding the development of higher education in the United States. These works offer insight into the rapid growth of colleges and universities after World 14 Josef Mestenhauser, Portraits of an International Curriculum, in Reforming the Higher Education Curriculum: Internationalizing the Campus, eds. Josef Mestenhauser and Brenda Ellingboe (Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1998), 10-11. 15 For more on the International Education Act of 1966 and federal funding of international education, see: Theodore Vestal, International Education: Its History and Promise for Today (Westport: Praeger, 1994). For more on the history of federal funding for international education, and the NDEA Title VI in particular, see Nancy Ruther, Barely There, Powerfully Present: Thirty Years of U.S. Policy on International Higher Education (New York: Routledge Falmer, 2002).

PAGE 22

13 War II. John R. Thelin provided a thorough yet concise account of the history of American higher education from its origins in the Colonial era to its condition at the beginning of the 21 st century. In his discussion of the post-WWII era, Thelin reported that enrollment at American colleges and universities increased by 80 percent between 1940 and 1950, when 2.7 million students attended the nations higher education institutions. 16 The federal governments Servicemens Readjustment Act of 1944, better known as the GI Bill, was in large part responsible for this unprecedented enrollment growth. By 1946, one million returned veterans across the country utilized GI Bill funds to earn their college degrees. In the same year, the federal government had expended more than $5.5 billion to fund the program. 17 While often characterized as a Golden Age for American colleges and universities, Thelin concluded that postwar higher education also experienced significant challenges as it entered into the uncharted territory of growth and expansion: Lack of certainty and lack of precedents meant that for the higher-education participants in the thick of events between 1946 and 1970, change and a new set of pressures transformed institutions without benefit of a gyroscope or road map. 18 Without any clear direction, the relationship between higher education institutions and their constituencies in the federal and state governments, as well as the private foundations, did not always produce harmonious results: Various groups pursued multiple public policies and programs without clear coordinationand without any 16 John R. Thelin, A History of American Higher Education (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004), 261. 17 Ibid., 263. Thelin noted that in 2000 dollars, the amount expended would equal $48 billion. 18 Ibid., 260.

PAGE 23

14 assurance that these experiments would become permanent fixtures. 19 Thelin concluded that it was the pursuit of these various agendas that made it difficult for American higher education institutions to define their purposes to themselves and to their external constituents. Historian Christopher J. Lucas also addressed the explosive growth of postwar era higher education in his work on the history of American higher education from its beginnings to the early 1990s. Lucas discussed the impact of the federal governments increased involvement in academia after World War II and into the Cold War. Lucas noted that in the 1950s, the federal government provided more than $150 million for contract research at the nations colleges and universities. 20 With the creation of the National Defense Education Act of 1958, much of this research concentrated on scientific and engineering programs to develop innovations needed during the Cold War. As a result of this new partnership between higher education and the federal government, higher education became essential to bolstering the nations defenses and helping to advance vital national policy objectives. 21 Lucas noted that those concerned with the reliance on federal funding during the postwar era cautioned against the loss of autonomy and academic freedom that could result from government oversight. 22 Lucas concluded that the debate between the loss of academic freedom and the gain of federal funds was one that had continued into the later decades of the twentieth century. 19 Ibid., 262. 20 Christopher J. Lucas, American Higher Education: A History (New York: St. Martins Press, 1994), 233. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid., 234.

PAGE 24

15 Furthering the discussion of the federal governments connection to higher education, Roger L. Geiger provided a rich history of the rise of American research universities after World War II. Geiger detailed the development of these institutions as they became increasingly involved with research activities by focusing efforts on graduate programs and on contributing to the nations quest for scientific dominance over the Soviet Union. In turn, Geiger concluded that research universities were conflicted between their previous function to foster the general intellectual growth of their undergraduates while also expanding the scope and strength of their research endeavors, mostly at the graduate level. Geiger characterized the history of the research university as one of continuous evolution to serve a multitude of purposes and constituents: As universities were impelled forward, undertaking more and more varied tasks, they faced a continuous challenge both to sustain the vigor and integrity of academic culture and to maintain a semblance of balance among their manifold roles. 23 The balance between these various roles was often difficult for the research institutions to maintain, as Geigers work revealed. Common to Thelin, Lucas, and Geigers historical surveys is the notion that postwar higher education experienced immense growth that challenged previous conceptions of the function and importance of these institutions to American society. It is important to note, however, that the subject of foreign students and their role in American higher education after World War II is absent from these comprehensive histories. 24 This lack of 23 Roger L. Geiger, Research and Relevant Knowledge: American Research Universities Since World War II (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 332. 24 Thelin gave brief mention to international students in the context of higher education after World War I. Thelin described the impact of foreign students on undergraduate education at the time as minimal, or at best uneven. Neither Thelin, Lucas nor Geiger discussed the role of international students after World War II. Thelin, A History of American Higher Education, 225.

PAGE 25

16 inclusion is perhaps explained by the fact that foreign students comprised a small percentage of total student enrollments during this period. Nevertheless, this omission demonstrates a need for further consideration of the role of foreign students in the development of American higher education during an era of its most dramatic transformation. Literature from the Post-WWII Era Since comprehensive histories of international students in American higher education are scarce, it is particularly useful to review the commentary and scholarship from the period of this study (published between 1946 and 1958 or shortly thereafter). These near primary sources reveal the rationales of foreign student advocates as well as the status of these students nationwide. Mestenhauser pointed out that these sources are often neglected in the contemporary literature on international education. 25 Many of the private foundations that funded international education programs, such as the Institute of International Education, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Ford Foundation, and the American Council on Education, also published works during the post-WWII era that discussed the myriad issues of international endeavors on American campuses. For data on foreign students, two foreign student surveys provide useful information on the numbers, geographic distribution, countries of origin, and funding support for these students from overseas on American campuses. The Committee on Friendly Relations among Foreign Students (CFRFS) compiled the first nationwide survey of international students, The Unofficial Ambassadors, which it published from 25 Mestenhauser, Reforming the Higher Education Curriculum, 11.

PAGE 26

17 1928 to 1953. The Institute of International Educations survey, Education for One World, was published from 1948 to 1954, when it was renamed Open Doors. This report remains the definitive source for data on international students in the U.S. as well as for numbers of domestic students studying abroad. 26 Cora Du Bois 1956 book is particularly informative, as it exclusively discussed the subject of foreign students. Du Bois study, published and funded by the American Council on Education, covered many aspects of the foreign student experience, including cultural adjustment and academic issues, as well as institutional and governmental policies towards foreign students. Du Bois called attention to the need for university administrators to develop a clearly stated, campus-wide policy towards foreign students. According to Du Bois, this policy must be specific to the individual college or university but also must be based upon a broad knowledge of foreign student programs and of foreign students as socially and psychologically determined individuals who have varying needs. 27 Du Bois insisted that continuous assessment and research must take place to ensure that American higher education fulfilled its promise of a quality education to foreign students. 28 Addressing the university as a whole and its relation to world affairs, Howard Wilsons Universities and World Affairs suggested that universities must assess their own 26 Committee on Friendly Relations Among Foreign Students, The Unofficial Ambassadors (New York: Committee on Friendly Relations, 1928-1953). Institute of International Education, Education for One World (New York: Institute of International Education, 1948-1954). Institute of International Education, Open Doors (New York: Institute of International Education, 1954-present). 27 Du Bois, Foreign Students and Higher Education in the United States, 196. 28 Ibid., 197.

PAGE 27

18 international endeavors and develop self-appraisals for doing so. 29 Published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Wilsons work included foreign students as part of the universitys larger involvement with international endeavors. Wilson also discussed the new foreign policy objectives for international education on American campuses: There is evidence abundant that the arts and sciences are now consciously employed in national foreign policy and in international action. This fact no university custodian of the arts and sciences can afford to ignore. Whether one is encouraged or alarmed at this new form of partnership between learning and politics, the partnership is now an historical fact. 30 If the partnership between government and universities in regards to international affairs was an historical fact in 1951, it continued to be so in the decades that followed. In the 1960s, several books addressed similar issues as Wilson, including The University and World Affairs, Edward Weidners The World Role of Universities, and Wilsons later work, American Higher Education and World Affairs. 31 Many of the suggestions in these early works are reflected in contemporary calls to internationalize the American university for the twenty-first century. In addition to publications from private foundations, numerous journal articles focused on foreign student issues during this period. Many of these articles studied foreign student adjustment issues and their attitudes towards Americans and American 29 Howard E. Wilson, Universities and World Affairs (New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1951). 30 Ibid., 4. 31 The Committee on the University and World Affairs, The University and World Affairs (New York: The Ford Foundation, 1960); Edward Weidner, The World Role of Universities (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962); Howard E. Wilson and Florence H. Wilson, American Higher Education and World Affairs (Washington D.C.: American Council on Education, 1963).

PAGE 28

19 ways of life. 32 James Peterson and Martin Neumeyer surveyed a group of international students from various countries and determined that the most common problems experienced were academic and financial. 33 Peterson and Neumeyer suggested that universities and colleges needed to provide more counseling services, improve orientations, increase financial aid, and provide housing and meeting centers for foreign students. 34 Reisha Forstat expanded upon Peterson and Neumeyers study and concluded that foreign student adjustment was not necessarily made easier if the student remained in the host country for a longer period of time. 35 Therefore, according to Forstat, a program planned specifically to help these students must be designed to integrate them more fully into the social life of the university and the community. 36 Norman Keill reported the results of a survey of Indian students on U.S. campuses. 37 Keills study revealed that after their sojourn in the U.S., these students held less than favorable attitudes about America and its democratic principles. His findings contradicted the assumption that hosting and educating international students, under programs such as those of the Fulbright and Smith-Mundt Acts, would automatically lead to an appreciation for American democratic 32 For additional journal articles concerning foreign student attitudes, see: A.T. Bruegger and B.H. Atkinson, Cherchez Les Differences, Journal of Higher Education 27, no. 6 (1956): 297-300; Panos D. Bardis, Attitudes toward Dating among Foreign Students in America, Marriage and Family Living 18, no. 4 (1956): 339-344; Lionel Olsen and William Kunhart, Foreign Student Reactions to American College Life, Journal of Educational Sociology 31, no. 7 (1958): 277-280. 33 James A. Peterson and Martin H. Neumeyer, Problems of Foreign Students, Journal of Sociology and Social Research 32, no. 4 (1948): 787-792. 34 Ibid., 792. 35 Reisha Forstat, Adjustment Problems of International Students, Journal of Sociology and Social Research 36, no. 1 (1951): 25-30. 36 Ibid., 29. 37 Norman Keill, Attitudes of Foreign Students, Journal of Higher Education 22, no. 4 (1951): 188-194, 225.

PAGE 29

20 values. Keills suggestions for remedying the situation of foreign students on American campuses echoed those of Peterson and Neumeyer, and Forstat in that he called for more formal programs and structure within the university administration. M. Brewster Smith, however, criticized Keills findings and asserted that Keill did not account for the students appraisal of their sojourn upon return to their home countries. 38 For Smith, this might have resulted in less hostility towards American values and democracy. The discussion about foreign student adjustment in relation to their attitudes towards Americans continued throughout the late 1950s. The Journal of Social Issues devoted an entire volume to Attitudes and Adjustment in Cross-Cultural Contact of foreign students. Richard Morris article concluded that international students who felt that Americans assigned a low status to their nationality in turn held unfavorable opinions of Americans. 39 Claire Sellitz, Anna Lee Hopson, and Stuart Cook studied the amount of social interaction that foreign students had with Americans at various types of higher education settings (small colleges in small towns, large universities in large cities, and large universities in small towns). 40 The authors also examined other factors that might affect potential social interaction, including nationality and living arrangements. The study concluded that nationality and interaction potential seemed to be related, as Europeans were more likely to be in situations with more interaction potential than non-Europeans. 38 M. Brewster Smith, Some Features of Foreign-Student Adjustment, Journal of Higher Education 26, no. 5 (1955): 231-241. 39 Richard Morris, National Status and Attitudes of Foreign Students, Journal of Social Issues 12, no. 1 (1956): 20-25. 40 Claire Sellitz, Anna Lee Hopson and Stuart Cook, The Effects of Situational Factors on Personal Interaction between Foreign Students and Americans, Journal of Social Issues 12, no. 1 (1956): 33-44.

PAGE 30

21 The Role of the Federal Government and Private Foundations As the number of international students on American campuses continued to increase after World War II, the federal government became progressively more involved in matters relating to foreign student programs. Hans de Wit noted that in the postwar era, the coordination of international education and exchange efforts in the U.S. shifted from the incidental and individual into organized activities, projects, and programs, based mainly on political rationales and driven more by national governments than by higher education itself. 41 The passage of the Fulbright and Smith Mundt Acts, in 1946 and 1948 respectively, represented a new beginning for federal involvement in international education. Liping Bu provided an in-depth exploration of how this era of federal involvement changed the outlook on foreign student programs. Bu concluded that once foreign students were defined as central to the nations foreign policy objectives to combat communism, as the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 firmly established, the rationale behind educational exchange shifted away from mutual understanding and goodwill towards a one-sided indoctrination of the American perspective: The strategy of international educational exchange thus began to shift to a unilateral approach to exporting American culture and American know-how, although mutual understanding remained the watchword. With the advent of the Cold War, the word exchange actually meant the export of American values, the projection of the great success of the American system, and the influence on the thinking of foreign trainees and students. 42 As a result of this new role of the federal government, private philanthropies, such as the Ford, Carnegie, and the Rockefeller foundations, suddenly found themselves with a 41 De Wit, Internationalization of Higher Education, 13. 42 Liping Bu, Making the World Like Us: Education, Cultural Expansion, and the American Century (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003), 156.

PAGE 31

22 partner in the endeavor to host international students in the United States. Bu noted that leaders of the private foundations, as well as foreign student advocates, were wary of government involvement in a field that was previously detached from overt foreign policy aims, other than the goals of world peace and mutual understanding. 43 While the relationship between the philanthropic organizations and the federal government strengthened after World War II, the foundations developed motives of their own for supporting international exchange programs. As Bu described, this was particularly the case with the largest of the philanthropies, the Ford Foundation: Most officials at the Ford Foundation believed that the involvement would not only strengthen U.S. government programs, but also enhance the influence of the foundations financial power. 44 Regardless of their motives, the Ford Foundations financial support significantly contributed to the development such organizations as the Institute of International Education, the National Association of Foreign Student Advisers, and the Committee on Friendly Relations among Foreign Students. Although the federal government encouraged the expansion of international exchange through the Fulbright and Smith-Mundt Acts, Bu noted that the government did not provide consistent funds to administer these programs. As a result, the funding burden often fell to the private foundations and the higher education institutions themselves to make up the difference. 45 The Ford Foundation, for example, provided 43 Ibid., 157-159. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid., 167-169.

PAGE 32

23 nearly $2 million to the Institute of International Education from 1951 to 1956. 46 During the same time period, as former Assistant Secretary of State Philip Coombs noted, the amount of federal appropriations for educational exchange programs declined from $16 million in 1951 to less than $10 million by 1955. Furthermore, these funding shortfalls occurred at a time when the number of countries participating in exchange programs with the U.S. rose from 62 in 1951 to 97 by 1959. 47 After the 1958 passage of the National Education Defense Act in response to the Soviets launching of Sputnik, however, federal dollars for education exchange returned to previous funding levels. Coombs notably concluded that for the nation to succeed in the Cold War, the area of educational and cultural exchange must be considered a fourth dimension of U.S. foreign policy alongside economic, military, and political goals. Similar to Coombs conclusion, Charles Frankel, who also served as Assistant Secretary of State, wrote in 1965 that while the federal governments efforts for educational and cultural exchange were among the most successful of the nations diplomatic efforts, this remained a neglected aspect of foreign policy. Frankel called for better coordination among government programs as well as an increased awareness of the importance of educational and cultural exchange among the American public. 48 46 Ibid., 197. The Institute of International Education became the central organization charged with the selection and distribution of Fulbright grants as well as other exchange programs authorized by the Smith-Mundt Act. 47 Philip Coombs, The Fourth Dimension on Foreign Policy: Educational and Cultural Affairs (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 36. Coombs, a former program director at the Ford Foundation, was the first Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs from 1961 to 1962. 48 Charles Frankel, The Neglected Aspect of Foreign Affairs (Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1965).

PAGE 33

24 Throughout this period of increased federal involvement in foreign student exchange programs, a new relationship between the federal government and the private foundations developed. This relationship left alone the decentralized higher education institutions to develop their own foreign student programs to best suit their particular needs. As a result, the efforts to coordinate foreign student programs during the postwar era were as varied in effort and success as the American higher education system itself. Administration of Foreign Student Programs Several works focusing on international students offer insight into the relevant issues surrounding the administration of foreign student programs. Edward Cieslak defined two reasons why policies towards foreign students were so divergent on American campuses: first, the institutional autonomy of higher education and second, the lack of knowledge on the part of administrators regarding the guidance of foreign student programs. 49 Cieslak reported that despite the growth in the number of designated foreign student advisers on American campuses (which increased from 400 in 1948 to more than 1,000 by 1952), these individuals lacked the authority to make effective administrative decisions about the students they served. 50 Cieslak recommended that university and government officials clarify the objectives of hosting international students. In addition, university officials needed to conduct a realistic appraisal of the effect of American education upon students from other countries. 51 49 Edward Cieslak, The Foreign Student in American Colleges: A Survey and Evaluation of Administrative Problems and Practices (Detroit: Wayne University Press, 1955), 25. 50 Ibid., 94. 51 Ibid., 155.

PAGE 34

25 Following Cieslaks lead in suggesting the importance of appraising institutional services to foreign students, Homer Higbee surveyed foreign student advisers in a study funded by the National Association of Foreign Student Advisers (NAFSA). 52 Higbees survey found that most foreign student advisers were generally happy with the status of their foreign student program. However, the survey also revealed the indifference of many university presidents towards their foreign student program and foreign student advisors: Most [presidents] said they rarely became involved with a specific foreign student problem. Very few had given major attention to the role of the Foreign Student Adviser, or to the role of the foreign student himself, from an educational point of view. 53 Higbee concluded that top administrators needed to recognize the importance of international students to the overall mission of the university. Under the direction of international education scholar Maurice Harari, a report from the Education and World Affairs Study Committee in 1964 discussed foreign student admission procedures and suggested ways to improve foreign student programs on American campuses. Echoing Cieslak, Higbee, Du Bois and others assertions that each institution must develop a clearly stated purpose for international students, Harari declared: At present this clarity is rarely found. Policymakers within the same institution often differ sharply over the role of their institution in relation to foreign students. Few boards of trustees give consideration to this topic. It is not surprising then that 52 The organizations name has since changed to the Association of International Educators but continues to use the NAFSA acronym. For more on NAFSA, see www.nafsa.org accessed June 2005. 53 Homer Higbee, The Status of Foreign Student Advising in United States Universities and Colleges (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1961), 41.

PAGE 35

26 foreign student policies followed by American colleges and universities are ambiguous and conflicting. 54 This ambiguity and lack of a cohesive policy towards foreign students continued to draw criticism from international education scholars in the following decades. Irwin Sanders and Jennifer Ward concluded in 1970 that despite the progress of foreign student programs over the years, there was still much room for improvement. 55 While many higher education institutions in the U.S. had created the organizational structure to handle the influx of international students, they had not yet faced up to the more fundamental aspects of the role and purpose of foreign students. 56 Sanders and Ward called upon U.S. higher education to provide better internal coordination, creation of a dialogue between the various departments and schools, a more internationally oriented curriculum, and greater concern with the relevance of the curriculum to future employment possibilities. 57 For Sanders and Ward, the success of foreign students needed to be as central to the institution as any other mission to ensure that the larger campus community recognized the importance of these students from abroad. Clark Kerr, former Chancellor of the University of California at Berkley, stated that foreign students on U.S. campuses were often an overlooked resource for expanding the international perspectives of American students. 58 In addition, Kerr stated that 54 Maurice Harari, The Foreign Student: Whom Shall We Welcome? (New York: Education and World Affairs, 1964), 4. 55 Irwin Sanders and Jennifer Ward, Bridges to Understanding: International Programs of American Colleges and Universities (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970), 144-155. 56 Ibid., 155. 57 Ibid., 155. 58 Clark Kerr, Global Education Concerns of Higher Education for the 1980s and Beyond, in Expanding the International Dimension of Higher Education, ed. Barbara Burn (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980), xxiii.

PAGE 36

27 universities and colleges must take great care to admit only those foreign students whose academic goals could be met at their chosen institution. He called upon American higher education to provide adequate support services to ensure the success of foreign students. Kerr further concluded that higher educations response to its role in international affairs in general had been severely inadequate: The nation is more and more involved in world political and economic leadership. Yet higher education has been in retreat in its attention to the international dimensions of the world for the past two decades. This trend needs to be reversed. The nation and world are moving in exactly opposite directions from higher education. Higher education has not been leading. It has not been following. It has been going the wrong way. 59 If higher education had been going the wrong way, as Kerr asserted in 1980, other scholars of later works were similarly critical of higher educations direction in addressing the needs of international students. Humphrey Tonkin and Jane Edwards suggested that although the United States led the world in foreign student enrollments, the presence of these students from overseas had not been significantly recognized at the institutional level. Tonkin and Edwards described this ambivalence as a major paradox in American higher education. 60 Barbara Burn also discussed the lack of attention that institutional policymakers have given to foreign students: I am deeply concerned that international exchanges of students and college and university policies towards foreign students have such an apparently low priority in central decision-making.Too often these visitors are regarded as an aggravation 59 Ibid., xxxviv. 60 Humphrey Tonkin and Jane Edwards, The World in the Curriculum: Curricular Strategies for the 21 st Century (New Rochelle: Change Magazine Press, 1981), 29.

PAGE 37

28 rather than as a resource for international learning and reinforcing the internationality of our institutions. 61 As president of the influential association NAFSA, Burn vowed that the organization would push American higher education to increase its efforts and strategies in regards to the foreign student population. Similar to Burns assessment, Liping Bu concluded that international students were not properly utilized as a resource in American higher education due to the half-hearted attitude of university administrators. Further, this indifference resulted in the disconnection between the institutions educational mission and the objectives of foreign student programs. 62 For Bu, university administrators failed to recognize the foreign policy implications of hosting students from overseas due in large part to the universitys focus on the domestically oriented university curriculum. 63 Perhaps most critical of American higher educations response to international students were professors Craufurd Goodwin (Duke University) and Michael Nacht (Harvard University). In Absence of Decision, Goodwin and Nacht condemned what they viewed as lip service from top administrators on American campuses who often stated their commitment to international endeavors and foreign students, yet took little action. 64 Goodwin and Nacht studied the administration of foreign student programs in three states: Florida, California, and Ohio. These states were selected because all three were 61 Barbara Burn, Higher Education is International, in Dimensions of International Higher Education, ed. William Allaway and Hallam Shorrock (Boulder: Westview Press, 1985), 23. 62 Bu, Making the World Like Us, 215. 63 Ibid. 64 Craufurd D. Goodwin and Michael Nacht, Absence of Decision: Foreign Students in American Colleges (New York: Institute of International Education, 1983).

PAGE 38

29 considered to be in front of the wave and therefore representative of the direction that other states were headed in the future. At the University of Florida, Goodwin and Nacht interviewed eleven individuals including the Registrar, Dean of the Graduate School and the Assistant to the President for International Studies and Programs. Similar to Cieslak and Higbees findings, the study concluded that administrators assigned a low priority to foreign student issues. Furthermore, they found that the foreign student adviser did not have an influential role in decision-making. Goodwin and Nacht also discussed the dynamics between public institutions and state legislatures. State legislatures often posed significant challenges to expanding foreign student programs as they were likely to think of higher education as a relatively simple and homogenous service to be provided to their constituents, like health care or good roads. 65 Without a clear definition of the purpose of foreign students from university presidents, provision of this service to foreigners seemed simply wrong and necessarily at the expense of domestic consumers. 66 Goodwin and Nacht found that administrators at public institutions were largely unsuccessful in explaining to its state legislatures and boards of trustees why foreign students were important for the benefit of the state, mainly because they had not defined their importance to their own institutions. To remedy this lack of well-defined purposes for hosting foreign students, the authors recommended that every college and university conduct a self-study to appraise their foreign student program. 65 Ibid., 26. 66 Ibid.

PAGE 39

30 Conclusions from the Review of Literature While many of the works cited in this review of the literature criticized American higher educations response to the influx of foreign students, it is important to note that a number of those most critical were written during the darkening clouds phase of the late 1960s through the 1980s, as Mestenhauser characterized. In light of this somewhat grim assessment of the universitys relative inability to accommodate foreign students, however, the review of the literature demonstrates that certain issues persist regarding foreign students in American higher education. Key among these issues was the call for universities and colleges to state clearly their goals and purposes for enrolling students from other countries. Another recurring issue was the need to define international students as a central component to the overall success of the university, not only to those outside of the university but also to the institutions themselves. A third key issue was the call to recognize the importance of international students to the future benefit of the United States, whether for peace and goodwill or to ensure the spread of American democracy. At the University of Florida, administrators struggled with many of the key issues discussed in the national literature on foreign students. The persistence of these issues over several decades raises larger questions about the nature of American higher education institutions and their ability to respond to the needs of international students. Therefore, the study of this large, public research university and the development of its foreign student program during its most formative years seeks to contribute to a better understanding of the complexities of hosting foreign students on American campuses. In addition, this research fills a void in the literature of institutional histories devoted to the

PAGE 40

31 subject of international students and their role in the development of American higher education.

PAGE 41

CHAPTER 3 INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, 1946-1958 The Beginnings of the University of Florida, 1853-1946 In 1853, the creation of the East Florida Seminary in Ocala laid the foundation for what later became the University of Florida in Gainesville. With the passage of the Morrill Act in 1862, U.S. President Lincoln authorized the donation of land to state governments to establish higher education institutions. The original mission of these new institutions, as the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) describes, was to teach agriculture, military tactics, and the mechanic arts as well as classical studies so that members of the working classes could obtain a liberal, practical education. 1 In 1884, Floridas first land-grant institution, the Florida Agricultural College, opened in Lake City, which was chosen for the site only after Gainesville failed to provide its promised share of funding. 2 As the state of Florida grew and the demand for post-secondary education increased, the state legislature recognized the need for greater coordination amongst its higher education institutions. To avoid duplication of efforts and wasteful spending of state resources, the Buckman Act of 1905 abolished all seven state-funded higher education institutions in favor of consolidating these into three schools designated for specific purposes. The University of Florida, which was to be relocated from Lake City to 1 National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, The Land-Grant Tradition, http://www.nasulgc.org/publications/Land_Grant/land.htm (accessed June 2005). 2 University of Florida, UFs Beginnings , http://www.ufl.edu/history/1853.html (accessed June 2005). 32

PAGE 42

33 Gainesville, would educate the states white males, while Tallahassees Florida State College for Women was designated for white females and the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical College for Negroes in Tallahassee would serve African-Americans. The Buckman Act also created the governing body for the states higher education institutions, the Board of Control, to which the governor was authorized to appoint five members. 3 The University of Florida opened its doors in Gainesville on September 24, 1906 with a total enrollment of 102 students. Under the leadership of President Albert Murphree, the university continued the land-grant institutional mission to serve the interests of the state. By 1909, UF offered instruction in the areas of Agriculture, Education, Engineering, Law, and the Liberal Arts and Sciences. 4 The University of Floridas beginnings at the turn of the nineteenth century set the stage for its later development into one of the largest public research institutions in the United States. The University of Florida welcomed its first international students in 1887, when two Russian students enrolled at the predecessor institution in Lake City. 5 Due to the states proximity to the Caribbean and Latin America, as well as its growing agricultural industry, the University of Floridas first international efforts focused on the Caribbean and Latin American regions. In 1890, the universitys first Latin American student, 3 Alfred Adams, A History of Public Higher Education in Florida: 1821-1961 (EdD diss., Florida State University, 1962). 4 Ibid. 5 Abdallah Omar Naser, The Relationship Between Academic Achievement and Demographic and Language Variables for Male Foreign Students at the University of Florida (masters thesis, University of Florida, 1964), 6.

PAGE 43

34 Tomas Angel of Havana, enrolled at the agricultural college in Lake City. 6 Once established in Gainesville, the University of Florida continued to host students from overseas, with the majority arriving from Cuba. The number of international students, however, did not grow significantly during the first three decades of the universitys existence. Between 1900 and 1928, no more than twelve international students were enrolled each semester at UF. 7 The UF Institute of Inter-American Affairs, established in 1930, began a new era of growth for the universitys involvement with Latin America. The creation of the Institute preceded U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelts 1933 Good Neighbor Policy, which aimed to foster goodwill between the two Americas as well as to strengthen their economic and agricultural relationships. 8 During the 1930s and 1940s, the University of Florida enjoyed modest growth in total enrollment as the student body increased from just over 2,000 in 1930 to more than 3,000 by 1940. The onset of World War II, however, resulted in a significant loss of enrollment; less than 600 students attended UF in 1943. The number of international students attending UF during the war years also stalled, with only ten enrolled in 1942. 9 As the war ended and the federal government announced the GI Bill, the University of 6 University of Florida Graduate School, Proposal to the United States Department of State for an Inter-American Cultural and Scientific Center (Gainesville: University of Florida, 1961), 8. 7 Ibid. 8 For more on FDRs Good Neighbor Policy, see Irwin F. Gellman, Good Neighbor Diplomacy: United States Policy in Latin America, 1933-1945 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979). 9 Committee on Friendly Relations Among Foreign Students, The Unofficial Ambassadors 1942 (New York: Committee on Friendly Relations Among Foreign Students), 16.

PAGE 44

35 Florida braced itself for its largest student body in its history, with 6,334 enrolled for the fall of 1946. 10 University Expansion on all Fronts, 1946-1948 After World War II, the population of Florida rapidly expanded at three times the national growth rate. 11 This population boom, strengthened by the return of World War II veterans and an increase in high school graduates, placed significant strains on the resources of the states higher education institutions. While Floridas higher education officials welcomed the postwar enrollment increase, they greatly underestimated the financial impact of the GI Bill, which Congress passed in 1944. To meet these rapid enrollment demands, the states universities needed urgent funding. The state governing body for Florida public higher education, the Board of Control, recognized the pressing need to expand higher education facilities and authorized $1.3 million in new construction funds at the University of Florida. 12 This authorization marked an enormous increase in funding, as the state had provided only $350,000 for all construction on the UF campus during the previous fifteen years. 13 By 1946, enrollment at the University of Florida reached 6,334, a figure more than double that of any other year in the institutions history. While the universitys enrollment was at an all-time high, its physical plant and faculty members were sufficient 10 University of Florida Office of Institutional Research, Total enrollment for University of Florida from 1905-2003, http://www.ir.ufl.edu/factbook/enroll.htm (accessed June 2005). 11 Richard L. Forstall, Florida Population of Counties by Decennial Census, 1900 to 1990, U.S. Bureau of the Census, http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/fl190090.txt (accessed June 2005). 12 Adams, A History of Public Higher Education in Florida: 1821-1961, 213. 13 George Osborn, John James Tigert: American Educator (Gainesville: University Presses of Florida, 1974), 454.

PAGE 45

36 to accommodate only 3,500 students. Given this time of enormous strain on state resources to keep pace with the unprecedented expansion of the university, the Board of Control announced on May 10, 1946 that foreign students, as well as out-of-state students, were not to be admitted until the needs of returning veterans could be met. 14 The University of Florida was not the only institution to limit enrollments to in-state residents. The United States Office of Educations journal Higher Education, reported that such limitations were found in practically all publicly supported intuitions. 15 The article concluded that the enrollment restrictions were a major departure in educational policy for the land-grant colleges and cautioned that state legislatures in these states would undoubtedly look with disfavor on any and all proposals to return to an open door policy. 16 The Board of Controls closing of this open door at the exclusion of foreign students came during the final two years of John J. Tigerts nineteen-year presidency at the University of Florida and was likely somewhat of a disappointment to Tigert. A Rhodes scholar and former U.S. Commissioner of Education, Tigert firmly believed that education must work towards the goals of international understanding and peace. 17 Looking ahead to the end of World War II, Tigert had predicted: 14 Tigert to Hume, 14 May 1946, University of Florida Archives, Office of the Dean, Graduate School, Series 46a: box 5, Foreign Students 1946-52. 15 Henry Schmitz, Implications of Geographic Restrictions on Enrollments in State Colleges and Universities, Higher Education 3, no. 14 (1947): 2. 16 Ibid., 2-3. 17 Tigert was the first student from his native state of Tennessee to be selected for the prestigious Rhodes Scholarship, which provided for two years of study at Oxford University in England. University of Florida Office of the President, John J. Tigert, http://www.president.ufl.edu/pastPres/tigert.htm (accessed June 2005).

PAGE 46

37 After this war, there are going to be new worldwide interests. Education is going to have to expand in order to give us an understanding of the other civilizations of the world, their geography and our relation with themNot until we can learn to understand and love each other (the peoples of the world) thoroughly through educationand I dont mean education in schools alonecan we bring about a permanent peace. 18 Tigerts sentiments were consistent with the idealism of the time and reflected those of Senator J. William Fulbright, who described the importance of the Fulbright Act in terms of achieving international goodwill and world peace. 19 These goals for peace and understanding would inform President Tigerts work with foreign students in general, and with those from Latin America in particular. In addition to the hope of worldwide understanding and peace, Tigert envisioned the academic and economic benefits of a relationship between Latin America and Florida. With the creation of the Institute of Inter-American Affairs (IIAA) in 1930, Tigert had successfully strengthened the universitys ties with Latin America and its connection to international education endeavors. During the 1930s and 1940s, the IIAA continued its growth and gained international recognition. In 1941, the IIAA was awarded the prestigious FIDAC Medal, given on behalf of veterans of World War I allies to institutions making the greatest contributions to Latin America. The university was selected for the honor alongside the University of California and Columbia University. In the Birmingham Age-Herald, Tigert was commended for his foresight: He knows that 18 Edith Pitts, Reminiscences of Three University Presidents, University of Florida Archives, Manuscript Collection 50, Edith Pitts Papers (no date), 200. Ms. Pitts served as executive secretary to UF presidents Tigert, Miller and Reitz. 19 Theodore M. Vestal, International Education, Its History and Promise for Today (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994), 22.

PAGE 47

38 while the South may be only the shank end of a continent on a map of North America, it is the heart of a whole hemisphere on a map of the Americas together. 20 Tigert was clearly committed to the idea of international education and believed that American higher education institutions must share their wealth of knowledge with other countries for a benevolent purpose. Tigert articulated his belief in the merits of American education to assist developing nations in a 1943 letter to the director of the National School of Engineers in Lima, Peru: I am convinced that the greatest contribution that our nation can make toward a permanent world peace is by sharing our scientific knowledge and ideas with those of other lands, thereby assisting them in a larger development of their own resources and enabling them to bring about a greater measure of prosperity within their own borders. 21 Tigerts comments foreshadowed the later national developments of U.S. President Harry S. Trumans Point Four programs, which funded such technical assistance to developing countries. Despite Tigerts stated commitment to the importance of international education, however, he remained ambiguous in defining the importance of foreign students at the University of Florida. One explanation for Tigerts ambiguity resulted from the need for funding from the Board of Control and their lack of support for foreign student endeavors. Board of Control member T.T. Scott strongly disapproved of Tigerts requests for funding the IIAA and its student scholarships. In response to Tigerts presentation of the university budget in 1945, Scott interrupted, shouting: 20 John Graves, This Morning, Birmingham Age-Herald, October 14, 1941. Available in University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P7c: box 14, Genre Files 1928-1947. 21 Tigert to Laroza, 19 November 1943, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P7a: box 18, Center for Latin American Studies.

PAGE 48

39 Ask him about his give away program! Here is a list of scholarships he has just recommended, after I have warned him time and again that he must stop spending state money for this purpose, and he still insists on bringing all of these dagoes to the university. He wouldnt do as much for a lot of good Georgia boys. 22 This pointed criticism underscored at least one outspoken board members feelings about supporting foreign students and providing them with financial incentives to attend Floridas higher education institutions. Scotts outburst also demonstrated a resistance within Florida, still very much a conservative Southern state, against the presence of foreign students and the resentment towards requests of state monies to fund give aways to foreigners. The issue of Latin American student scholarships was also included in a legislative committee investigation of wasteful expenditures that were beyond reason, as Scott charged. 23 The tensions between the UF president and the Board of Control exemplified what Craufurd Goodwin and Michael Nacht have described as the resistance that public institutions faced when requesting funding for foreign student programs from their governing boards and state legislatures. 24 With the decision in 1946 to restrict foreign student enrollment along with out-of-state students, it was clear that Floridas Board of Control members were unconvinced of the importance of educating foreign students as a means to creating world peace, particularly if that meant at the exclusion of Floridian, or even other Southern, students. 25 22 Edith Pitts, Reminiscences of Three University Presidents as quoted in Osborn, John James Tigert, 266. The Board members name is not mentioned in Osborn but is discussed in more detail in Pitts manuscript. 23 Ibid., 155. 24 Craufurd D. Goodwin and Michael Nacht, Absence of Decision (New York: IIE, 1983), 27. 25 Hank Drane, columnist for the Jacksonville newspaper The Florida Times Union, characterized the conservative political outlook that persisted in Florida after World War II: At the time, Florida was experiencing rapid growth but it was still essentially a rural state in its character and philosophical leanings. Although a big percentage of the growth was being registered in the southern part of that state, that area was fragmented politically. The political clout was far greater in North Florida with its conservative

PAGE 49

40 Although Tigert believed in furthering international endeavors at UF, he did not go to great lengths to oppose the Board of Controls decision to limit foreign student enrollments. Since this was an unparalleled time of great expansion at the university, and the board controlled the universitys purse strings, Tigert needed to choose his battles wisely. Tigert was apologetic as he explained the enrollment restrictions in a reply to a French student seeking admission: Because of the overcrowded conditions at the University of Florida by returning veterans, we have been forced to restrict admission for the first time. Since the University of Florida is supported by State appropriations, we feel sure you will understand that our first obligation is to former University students returning from the service and to graduates of Florida high schoolsUnder these circumstances we have been forced to close admission to all foreign students. 26 As the situation was unpredictable, Tigert suggested that the student inquire again about admission in one year. Tigerts emphasis on the word forced and his explanation of the universitys obligation to in-state students reveals the influence of the Board of Control and the importance of adhering to the state institutions mission of teaching, research, and service to provide for the interests of the state first and foremost. This tension between the state governing bodys nativist tendencies and the UF presidents desire to increase the universitys global reach was one that continued in the years ahead. Echoing Tigerts statements and calling it the worst time in the history of student exchange, John F. Martin, Director of the Inter-American Institute, wrote a similar letter to a hopeful Portuguese student and suggested he reapply in March or April of 1947. 27 viewpoint and strong ties to the South. Hank Drane, Historic Governors (Ocala, FL: Ferguson Printing, 1994), 124. 26 Tigert to Antoine, 10 August 1946, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P7b: box 9, General Correspondence 1946. 27 Martin to Dias da Fonseca, 3 June 1946, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P7a: box 18, Center for Latin American Studies, misc.

PAGE 50

41 By March of 1947, however, the Board of Controls prohibition on new foreign and out-of-state student enrollments remained, as the university struggled to keep pace with returned veterans, many of whose wives were now requesting admission. 28 By this time, faculty members began to speak out in support of foreign students joining their programs. In April of 1947, Herbert Wolf, Head of the Department of Horticulture, and Harold Hume, Dean of the College of Agriculture, wrote to the Dean of the Graduate School, Thomas Simpson, seeking the admission of several horticulture students from China. Requesting that the students also be awarded fellowships, Wolf and Hume reasoned that the Chinese students should be supported on the principle of aiding a war ally as well as for the positive future benefit of the university: If it would be possible for us to offer fellowships to a few of these students, it would be a very practical means of helping in the agricultural rehabilitation of our war ally, and we could probably learn some things which would be profitable to us. 29 Wolf and Humes rationale, one advocating for the foreign student out of goodwill and mutual benefit, proved compelling for Simpson; he wrote to President Tigert the next day. In his letter to the president, Simpson suggested that it would be profitable to host the Chinese students and furthered his point by quoting an article from the March 1947 edition of Higher Education titled Implications of Geographic Restrictions on Enrollments in State Colleges and Universities: If a university can keep its graduate school open to outstanding students from other states and other nations, it is not in too great danger of becoming local or 28 Simpson to Sundaram, Embassy of India, 28 March 1947, University of Florida Archives, Graduate School, Office of the Dean, Series 46a: box 5, Foreign Students 1946-52. 29 Wolf and Hume to Simpson, 7 April 1947, University of Florida Archives, Graduate School, Office of the Dean, Series 46a: box 5, Foreign Students 1946-52.

PAGE 51

42 provincial, however rigid the exclusion may be in undergraduate levels of instruction. 30 Concluding his letter to Tigert, Simpson questioned whether or not the Board of Control would look favorably upon the request to admit these Chinese students given the enrollment restrictions. Simpsons letter to Tigert reveals that international students were defined not only as a means to provide international goodwill but also to avoid the trappings of provincialism and to increase the universitys international reputation. That Tigert did not reply to the faculty members letter is evidence of the presidents reluctance to raise the issue of foreign student enrollments with the Board of Control. Despite the enrollment restrictions, however, three new international students did gain admission to the university. The annual survey of foreign student enrollments, The Unofficial Ambassadors, reported that 24 foreign students attended UF in 1946, with 27 reported at the conclusion of 1947. 31 The Board of Controls enrollment restrictions would not be officially lifted until the coming of the next UF president, J. Hillis Miller. During the spring and summer of 1947, two major changes took the university in a new direction: President Tigert retired and women were granted admission to the university. Tigert announced his retirement in the spring and by midsummer, the Board of Control appointed J. Hillis Miller as the universitys new president. The summer of 1947 also brought the universitys most radical change to date with the announcement 30 Simpson to Tigert, 8 April 1947, University of Florida Archives, Graduate School, Office of the Dean, Series 46a: box 5, Foreign Students 1946-52. The journal Higher Education was a publication of the Higher Education Division of the United States Office of Education. 31 Committee on Friendly Relations Among Foreign Students, The Unofficial Ambassadors (New York: Committee on Friendly Relations, 1946, 1947).

PAGE 52

43 that women would be admitted. 32 Upon completion of the 1947-48 academic year, student enrollment had reached a record 9,787 students. 33 Re-Opening the Door to Foreign Students, 1948-1949 The University of Floridas fourth president, J. Hillis Miller, was born in Virginia and earned his A.B. and M.A. from the University of Virginia before receiving his Ph.D. in psychology from Columbia University. Specializing in counseling and personnel administration, Miller became Dean of the Psychology department at Bucknell University in Pennsylvania. After serving as president of Keuka College in New York, Miller spent five years as the State of New Yorks Associate Commissioner of Education before becoming UFs top administrator. 34 President Millers outlook on the role of higher education in world affairs echoed that of his predecessor John J. Tigert in his call for scholars to work towards international understanding: It is the function of higher education to invade more effectively the field of international relationsThus far in the development of world civilization, international relations have not brought peace upon earth. The best minds of the country must address themselves to the problems of effective relationships between nations in order to give some promise of security to the human race. 35 At Millers inauguration on March 5, 1948, George D. Stoddard, President of the University of Illinois, gave the first keynote address. Stoddards speech, entitled The Role of Education in International Affairs, underscored the importance of the university 32 Osborn, John James Tigert, 489. 33 Adams, A History of Higher Education in Florida, 204. 34 University of Florida Archives, J. Hillis Miller, http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/spec/archome/Miller.htm (accessed June 2005). Pitts, Reminiscences of Three University Presidents, Miller Chapter 1, 1-2. 35 J. Hillis Miller, Higher Education and the Problems of this Decade, The Educational Record 32, no. 4 (1951): 335-349.

PAGE 53

44 to create the fostering of understanding and good will among the nations. 36 Millers inaugural address, however, Higher EducationThe Balance Wheel of Progress in the State of Florida, concentrated on issues relevant to serving the states interest: I make no apology for turning to domestic and local affairs in discussing my subject. 37 With an audience that included Florida Governor Millard F. Caldwell and his cabinet as well as members of the Board of Control and the Florida Legislature, Miller focused on the urgent need to expand the universitys facilities to keep pace with the projected enrollment increases of the next decades. Millers speech laid the groundwork for his six-year plan for the university, which requested approximately $17.5 million in building construction costs. Since a majority of these funds needed to come from the state, it is no surprise that the new presidents speech concentrated on local issues. Although Miller focused on the needs of the university and its importance to the future benefit of the state, he did not neglect the international aspect of the university entirely. Nearing the end of his address, Miller pledged many significant goals for expanding UFs international aspects: We shall endeavor to build here extensive collections of books pertaining to Florida history and to Latin America, with particular reference to the West Indies. We shall seek to have the University designated as one of the depositories for the United Nations. We shall exhaust every possibility of erecting an Inter-American building on this campus through the cooperation of our neighboring countries to the South, and we shall seek in every possible way to solicit support for our Inter-American Institute. 38 36 The Inauguration of Joseph Hillis Miller as President of the University of Florida (Jacksonville: Drew Press, 1948), 13. 37 Ibid., 50. 38 Ibid., 57-58.

PAGE 54

45 Perhaps aware of the difficulty of convincing the state of Florida legislature to pay for these international goals, Miller continued: Although we recognize that these expenditures are legitimate charges against the State, we shall not hesitate to solicit support from private sources to the end that the cultural program of the University may keep pace with our great educational, research, and technical programs. 39 Millers allusion to the need for financial support from outside sources demonstrates his awareness of the importance of philanthropic foundations, such as the Carnegie, Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, to fund a significant portion of international education endeavors at American universities and colleges. Absent from Millers declaration of international education goals for the university, however, is any mention of foreign students or their role within the university. This omission is consistent with President Tigerts lack of a definitive statement to the university and the state of Florida regarding the importance of foreign students. Although Miller did not directly address foreign students or their significance in his inauguration speech, he was aware of the detriment that closing the universitys doors to non-Floridians caused. Considering Millers experience in the state of New York and at Columbia University, an institution with one of the highest numbers of foreign students in the country, it is likely that Miller found a great contrast between the international atmosphere of his previous institution and the lingering nativist attitudes in the state of Florida. By 1948, the Board of Control loosened its enrollment restrictions due in large part to Millers advocacy, as Edith Pitts, Millers executive secretary, explained: [Miller] felt that the policy of a great state in limiting its higher educational facilities to residents only was so provincial as to reflect on the state and its leadership. When he recommended to the governing boards that they lift the 39 Ibid., 58.

PAGE 55

46 limitations and let all who would and could qualify [be] admitted regardless of residence, they readily approved. 40 As a result of Millers cosmopolitan outlook and his ability to convince the board to lift the geographic restrictions on enrollments, thirty foreign students enrolled at UF for the 1948-49 academic year, second in the state to the University of Miami, which hosted fifty-eight students from other countries. The presence of foreign students across the nation continued to grow, as nearly 20,000 international students were enrolled in American higher education institutions during the same year. 41 The admission of new foreign students during Millers inaugural year provided a promising new start for the future of the universitys foreign student program. As the Miller presidency continued, however, the pattern of ambiguity from the universitys top administrator towards foreign students re-emerged. The Foreign Student Problem, 1949-1950 In February of 1949, President Miller received a letter from a discussion group of six UF faculty and administrators concerned with the broad problem of foreign students on the campus of the University of Florida. 42 The group outlined common problems that foreign students experienced, including difficulty finding part-time work and housing, social isolation, and racial discrimination. Problems resulting from the presence of international students on campus were also mentioned, including: the students lack of 40 Pitts, Reminiscences of Three University Presidents, Miller Chapter 1, 26. 41 Committee on Friendly Relations Among Foreign Students, The Unofficial Ambassadors 1948 (New York: Committee on Friendly Relations, 1948), 10. 42 Discussion group to Miller, 14 February 1949, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P10a: box 7, Committee on Foreign Students. The group consisted of John F. Martin, Director of the Inter-American Institute; W.M. Wise, Dean of Student Personnel; Harry R. Warfel, Professor of English; A.L. Funk; Associate Professor of Social Sciences; James L. Wilson, Assistant Professor of Freshman English; and Sam Jennings, Secretary of the Interior of the Student Body.

PAGE 56

47 sufficient English skills, determining the distribution of out-of-state tuition waivers, lack of adequate foreign student housing and counseling services, and the formidable challenge of changing group attitudes of American faculty and students towards foreign students. The discussion group wanted not only to raise awareness of these problems, but also to make recommendations for future action. The group suggested that the president appoint a committee to study these issues in greater detail. The questions must have resonated with Miller; less than three weeks later, he established the Committee to Study the Problems of Foreign Students. 43 The articulation of these foreign student problems was the first known occasion that these concerns were brought to the attention of a UF president. In requesting better coordination of services to foreign students, the faculty group recognized that these sojourning students had different needs than domestic students. However, this discussion also set the stage for characterizing foreign students in terms of the problems rather than the benefits that they brought to the university. This characterization continued at UF in the years ahead as the number of students from other countries increased at the university and these issues persisted, leading some to conclude that the problems of foreign students were inherent with their presence rather than with the universitys administration of its foreign student program. As the conversation regarding foreign students at UF progressed, the concerns listed in the groups report resurfaced to varying degrees. The problems of racial discrimination and of changing group attitudes, in particular, warrant closer examination 43 Wise to Miller, 9 May 1950, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P10a: box 7, Committee on Foreign Students. This letter to Miller indicates that the committee was established on March 3, 1949.

PAGE 57

48 within the local and national context of the University of Florida in 1949. Regarding discrimination of foreign students, the group concluded: There are relatively few foreign students at the University of Florida whose skin is dark enough to cause them to have difficult social problems during their stay here on the campus. However, there are one or two who do feel this is a problem and, depending on the admission policies of the University, there may be more in the future. 44 The group urged closer consideration of the subject because it might lead to some cause of concern and embarrassment on the part of both the University and the students involved. 45 Although this statement minimizes the overall impact of racial discrimination for the majority of foreign students, it illustrates a powerful irony: the plea for understanding and goodwill towards those who were foreign was not extended towards their fellow Americans with darker skin. One example of this contradiction can be found with John F. Martin, Director of the Institute of Inter-American Affairs. Martin had lived abroad for twenty-five years in Argentina and several other Latin American countries. Despite his experiences overseas and his support of foreign students at UF, his views on race were consistent with the segregationist policies of the time. In response to a request from the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs in Washington D.C. to publish an article from an African-American author in UFs Latin American journal, Martin responded: As Negroes are barred from the University of Florida, I do not feel justified in opening the columns of one of our publications to a Negro author for the purpose of adding to his professional and, incidentally, social prestige. And that you may not 44 Discussion group to Miller, 14 February 1949, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P10a: box 7, Committee on Foreign Students. 45 Ibid., 1. For an insightful article detailing the history of desegregation in Southern higher education institutions, see Peter Wallenstein, Black Southerners and Non-Black Universities: Desegregating Higher Education, 1935-1967, History of Higher Education Annual 19 (1999): 121-148.

PAGE 58

49 be misled into thinking that I am shielding myself behind the Universitys attitude, I may say that personally I am a firm believer in white supremacy. 46 Martins statements were especially candid, but he was not alone in this contradiction between supporting the inclusion of foreign students while at the same time maintaining that African-Americans were inferior to whites. 47 Perhaps the most prominent national example comes from J. William Fulbright, the U.S. senator from Arkansas who gained worldwide respect and admiration for his work towards international exchange and understanding. Fulbright biographer Randall Bennett Woods explains, however, that Fulbright was also an indisputable racist who saw no contradiction between his views on international affairs and civil rights. 48 While the impression of the UF faculty discussion group was that the majority of UFs foreign students did not experience racial discrimination, the contradiction between American democratic ideals of freedom for all and racial segregation was likely quite apparent to foreign students. As Norman Kiell explained in the results of his 1951 national survey of Indian students, the dilemma that foreign students faced in this environment was a double blow: The realization of our racial problem hits [foreign students] especially hard: first, because it is so strikingly inconsistent with the democratic traditions they have associated with the United States; and second, because for many of themthose from India, China, and Africa in particularit has meant personal humiliation. Thus observing our racial double standards and sometimes being on the receiving end of discriminatory practices, these young people often come to the conclusion 46 Martin to Robey, 6 January 1944, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P7a: box 18, Center for Latin American Studies, Misc. 47 Upon receiving a copy of Martins letter, President Tigert insisted that Martin send a telegram to the recipient explaining that his statements were to remain confidential. 48 Randall Bennett Woods, Fulbright: A Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 115, 119.

PAGE 59

50 that there is no democracy in the United States worthy of the name, or worthy of emulation. 49 Keills findings contradicted the often-stated belief that by hosting foreign students, the U.S. would automatically endear them to the nations democratic principles. 50 Nevertheless, the rationale of educating international students for the purpose of achieving foreign policy objectives became increasingly prominent during the late 1940s and early 1950s. It would also be seen in later UF reports concerning the status of foreign students on the campus. In addition to the issue of racial discrimination, the UF discussion group mentioned the very complex and difficult problem of changing the attitudes of the university community in order to give careful attention to the problem of foreign students on our campus and to make an effort to better understand and appreciate these students from other countries. 51 Convincing the faculty to become more accepting of foreign students, if they were not already, was likely made a more formidable task in 1949, as the legislature threatened all state employees, including university professors, with loyalty oaths. Among many detailed and personal questions ensuring the employees loyalty to democracy and rejection of communism, the oath asked: Have you ever studied or attended a school in a foreign country? and Have you ever participated in politics, or in a parade or demonstration of any kind in a foreign country? 52 Although the loyalty oaths 49 Norman Keill, Attitudes of Foreign Students, Journal of Higher Education 22, no. 4 (1951): 189. 50 Liping Bu, Making the World Like Us (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003), 184. 51 Discussion group to Miller, 14 February 1949, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P10a: box 7, Committee on Foreign Students, 2. 52 Communist Questionnaire Given [to] University Professors, Gainesville Sun, May 17, 1949. Available in University of Florida Archives, Graduate School, Office of the Dean, Series 46a: box 7.

PAGE 60

51 were eventually dismissed, the inclusion of questions regarding participation in foreign education implicated that the study of and within other countries was suspicious, and perhaps even un-American, in the view of the state legislature. The states attempted loyalty oath reveals the continued nativist tendency amongst those in the legislature, which hindered the universitys president ability to advocate for full support of international endeavors on the UF campus. The loyalty oath that the Florida legislature attempted to impose was also consistent with the national shift away from the idealism of international education for peace and mutual understanding towards the need for America to defend itself against communism. This was a change that would become more apparent at UF and throughout the United States in the years to come. Whither International Education at the University of Florida? 1949-1951 In June of 1949, President Miller validated the status of the newly formed Committee to Study the Problems of Foreign Students with a presidential memorandum to all university administrators. 53 Miller articulated his goals for improving the conditions of foreign students on the campus: We are eager to iron out all problems which present handicaps or hindrances to our foreign students and we also wish to give new and added emphasis to the very important role which our foreign visitors can play in the total education picture. 54 Although Miller recognized the very important role of foreign students, he did not offer a rationale as to why these students were important to the larger university community or the state and left the value of these students in ambiguous terms. However, the memorandum announced an important step towards addressing the needs of foreign 53 Miller memorandum, 22 June 1949, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P10b: box 5, Numbered Memoranda, no. 30. 54 Ibid.

PAGE 61

52 students, with the appointment of a part-time Counselor to Foreign Students for the 1949-50 academic year. Considering the presidents academic background in psychology and counseling, it is not surprising that he made the appointment of a foreign student counselor a high priority. By the fall of 1949, Miller released another administrative memorandum to announce a foreign student counseling service for all non-Latin American students, which was to be headed by J. Ed Price, of the Office of Student Personnel. 55 Latin American student counseling and administration continued to be handled out of the Institute of Inter-American Affairs. Millers memorandum also indicated that the Committee to Study the Problems of Foreign Students would soon announce its recommendations to address foreign student issues. On February 10, 1950, J. Ed Price submitted to Dean of Student Personnel Max Wise a report culminating the work of the committee entitled Whither International Education at the University of Florida? A Presentation of Some Realities of Program and Policy. In his cover letter, Price presented a positive outlook for increased support of foreign students at UF: The student body, faculty, and administrative contacts I have experienced convince me that cooperation, not antagonism, will be easy to obtain. 56 At the focus of the twenty-page report were the following questions: What were the objectives sought for each foreign student who attended the University of Florida and how were these objectives to be obtained? 57 Since interest from foreign students continued to increase, Price recommended that the university assess its plan for foreign 55 Miller memorandum, 10 September 1949, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P10b: box 5, Numbered Memoranda, no. 33. 56 J. Ed Price, 10 February 1950, Whither International Education at the University of Florida? University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P10b: box 14, Reports, Foreign Students, 1. 57 Ibid., 13.

PAGE 62

53 students in order to set forth clearly its objectives, and to labor honestly and critically for the actual fruition of stated objectives. 58 This statement preceded many of the national calls for universities and colleges to define the purposes of their foreign student programs from international student educators such as Cora Du Bois, Edward Cieslak, and Howard Wilson. 59 The report detailed eight starting points from which to make collaborative decisions about UFs foreign student program. Among the recommendations, two aimed at making foreign student admissions more selective to ensure the success of the foreign student and to enhance UFs academic reputation. First, the report suggested that only superior individuals proficient in English be admitted. Second, the foreign student needed to show proof of sufficient funds and an adequate hospitalization insurance policy before obtaining admission. Other suggestions aimed at improving administrative procedures, including the creation of a booklet about UF to send in response to inquiries and the improvement of UFs relations with government agencies such as the Department of State and Immigration and Naturalization Services. Other recommendations centered on ways to ease the foreign students adjustment to campus life, which included: developing a foreign student orientation, endowing an emergency fund for students in financial distress, designating a formal committee on foreign student matters, and 58 Ibid., 11. 59 Cora Du Bois, Foreign Students and Higher Education in the United States (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1956); Edward Cieslak, The Foreign Student in American Colleges: A Survey and Evaluation of Administrative Problems and Practices (Detroit: Wayne University Press, 1955); Howard E. Wilson, Universities and World Affairs (New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1951).

PAGE 63

54 coordinating foreign student administration in one unit rather than separate services for Latin American and non-Latin American students. 60 In addition to these eight starting points, the report also outlined the national status of foreign students. The number of international students on American campuses continued to rise dramatically, from less than 10,000 in 1930 to nearly 27,000 by 1949. 61 Consistent with this growth, Price reported that the number of foreign students at UF increased from 13 students in 1930, representing .5% of the student body, to 103 in 1949, representing nearly 1% of total students. 62 Although the total number of students enrolled in American higher education institutions also increased dramatically, up from 1,154,000 in 1930 to 2,456,000 in 1949, the expansion of the foreign student population called for universities to devote careful study and unique resources to meet the needs of these students from other countries. 63 Price recognized this context: The increased college attendance has resulted in each institutions working under the severe handicap of inadequate facilities, both in personnel and physical plant. Justifiable and desirable as they may be, the special services created for the foreign student must be weighed carefully. 64 Prices cautionary statement illustrates his recognition of the opposition, seen previously within the Board of Control, to designate resources to a select group of students who comprised only one percent of the total student body. This statement further indicates that without a clear definition from the UF president regarding the value of foreign students, 60 Price, Whither International Education? 18. 61 Institute of International Education, Education for One World 1948-49 (New York: IIE, 1949), 14. 62 Price, Whither International Education? 10. 63 Ibid., 13. 64 Ibid., 9.

PAGE 64

55 advocates for these students continued to encounter resistance from those more concerned with meeting the needs of the state above all else. In a step towards clarifying the purpose of foreign students at UF, the Whither International Education report significantly articulated two rationales for why foreign students were important to the university. First, the report stated that Americans benefited from the foreign student just as much, if not more, than the foreign student himself: The presence of foreign students on the campus is a tremendous asset to the faculty, to the student body, and to the State of Florida. That the foreign student is an asset, that he can contribute even more to us than we give to him, is a truth which should be emphasized continually by the University. 65 This rationale of the foreign student as an asset recalled those of the post-World War I era, which aimed at world peace and goodwill through mutual exchange and understanding. The suggestion that the foreign students importance be emphasized continually was perhaps a call for President Miller to articulate a statement to the university community and the State of Florida. Second, the report emphasized that the foreign student presence ensured that the nation maintained its competitive edge, a rationale that became increasingly persistent as the country moved towards the Cold War: If it is to be realistic, the college or university must visualize its program of education for foreign students as an integral, vital part of the national and international scene. When the universities and colleges of Europe are rehabilitated and re-staffed, will the United States continue its world leadership in higher education? The answer to that question is going to depend, to a great degree, on how well our colleges and universities succeed in their work with each foreign 65 Ibid., 1-2.

PAGE 65

56 student who comes to the United States to study in the institutions of higher learning. 66 This rationale of the role of foreign students and international education as key to maintaining the United States dominance resonated with government and administrative officials more than that of peace and goodwill. As Hans de Wit has suggested, these rationales were often interconnected, as was the case in the UF report, but one remained the dominant catalyst for gaining federal support and funding: Although peace and mutual understanding continued to be a driving rationale in theory, national security and foreign policy were the real forces behind [international educations] expansion and with it came government funding and regulations. 67 The inclusion of both rationales in the Whither International Education report demonstrates what Emma Schulken defined as the basic duality between idealistic and pragmatic motives. This duality, as Schulken contended, ultimately led to relative inaction on the part of universities to achieve their goals with foreign student programs. 68 In May of 1950, Dean Wise sent the Whither International Education report to President Miller. Wise advocated swift administrative action on the reports suggestions, noting that the only recommendation with a dissenting vote was that of combining all foreign student services within one unit. 69 Wise also advised Miller to allocate funds for personnel and operational costs to improve the foreign student program. The issues raised 66 Ibid., 8. 67 Hans de Wit, Internationalization of Higher Education in the United States and Europe: A Historical, Comparative, and Conceptual Analysis (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002), 25. 68 Emma Walker Schulken, The History of Foreign Students in American Higher Education from its Colonial Beginnings to the Present (PhD diss., Florida State University, 1972), 207. 69 John F. Martin, Director of the Institute of Inter-American Affairs, objected to the idea of combining Latin American students with non-Latin Americans. No reason was reported. One other committee member also submitted a dissenting vote (H.S. Wolfe) but only on the basis that he was not present at the discussion and thus he did not feel informed enough to make a decision.

PAGE 66

57 in the report were of such insistent urgency that Wise encouraged the president to take action before June 1, 1950. 70 Millers response did not come until mid-July, however, when he approved all of the committees recommendations. The president explained that the first priority was to act upon the recommendation to place all foreign student counseling in one unit, as it was most important that the official advice concerning immigration and university regulations be correct and consistent. 71 For the remaining seven recommendations, Miller acknowledged that they were desirable but did not offer a specific plan of action. Instead, the president announced the appointment of a sub-committee, the Committee on Foreign Students, to implement the recommendations of the larger committees report. Six faculty members were assigned to the task. 72 Therefore, President Miller did not follow the recommendation to define foreign students as an asset to the university nor did he designate any immediate resources to these students. The naming of an additional committee to study the needs of UFs foreign student programs also reveals the disinclination of the president to act quickly on foreign student matters. As a result of the reluctance of the universitys top administrator towards defining the role of international students, the stage was set for further characterization of this group as a problem when the numbers of foreign students continued to increase and these issues persisted. 70 Wise to Miller, 9 May 1950, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P10a: box 7, Committee on Foreign Students. 71 Ibid. 72 The Committee on Foreign Students consisted of: J. Johnson, Martin, Price, Larry Variel, J.L. Wilson, and W.S. Wolfe.

PAGE 67

58 Return of the Foreign Student Problem, 1951-1952 As the work of the Committee to Study the Problems of Foreign Students and its newly created sub-committee progressed, the issue of English language proficiency was raised as a major concern. In March of 1951, the Secretary of the committee, J.L. Wilson, wrote to the Registrar and the University Examiner to advocate for better assessment of foreign student applicants English skills. According to Wilson, the committee felt that the lack of knowledge of English is one of the most pressing of the many problems connected with new foreign students. 73 Wilsons characterization of the foreign student as a problem is indicative of the larger sentiment that foreign students brought with them a multitude of problems that the university then had to sort out on their behalf. Cora Du Bois, author of Foreign Students and Higher Education in the United States, discussed the national prevalence of this characterization in quoting the statement of a higher education official with considerable experience regarding foreign students: Have we created the problem of the foreign student more or less on purpose, in our own image? Have we, by adopting the running presumption that the foreign student must be a quivering mass of problems, encouraged a jungle-growth of a great, loose-jointed apparatus in this country which makes problems inevitable? 74 Du Bois inclusion of this comment reveals the national prevalence of characterizing international students as aggravations and suggests that this depiction had more to do with the universitys administration of foreign student programs than with the students themselves. The question of the foreign student problem was one with which the UF committee and its newly appointed sub-committee continued to struggle. 73 Wilson to Johnson and McQuitty, 15 March 1951, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P10a: box 7, Committee on Foreign Students. 74 DuBois, Foreign Students and Higher Education in the United States, 32.

PAGE 68

59 In November of 1951, a year and a half after President Miller appointed the SubCommittee on Foreign Students to enact the recommendations of Whither International Education, the committee announced its findings. 75 Committee Chairman, Harry Warfel, wrote to President Miller regarding the unanimous approval of the recommendations made in the 1950 report. Warfel stated three recommendations, the first of which was identical to Millers previous decision that all foreign student counseling be placed in one unit. The second and third recommendations offered suggestions that stemmed from those previously stated: to enlarge the current duties of the Director of Latin-American Student Affairs to make the office available to all foreign students and to place this office within the Dean of Student Personnel. The sub-committees progress after a year and half to make only three recommendations, two of which were extensions of previous suggestions, implies that neither the committee nor the president gave the work top priority. However, Dean Wise (also Chairman of the larger Committee to Study the Problems of Foreign Students) welcomed these suggestions, as he described to President Miller: In previous correspondence with your office, I have drawn your attention to the serious problems which exist in the Universitys handling of the problems of foreign students. In my opinion, the recommendation of the Committee offers a major step in the solution of these problems. 76 Dean Wises statement regarding the situation of foreign students differs from Wilsons regarding the many problems connected with new foreign students. For Wise, it was the universitys inadequacy to address the problems of foreign students that led to all 75 Warfel to Miller, 21 November 1951, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P10a: box 7, Committee on Foreign Students. 76 Wise to Miller, 1 December 1951, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P10a: box 7, Committee on Foreign Students.

PAGE 69

60 other difficulties rather than the problems being inherent to presence of foreign students themselves. The point that Wise made is significant in that he seemed to be the only administrator to place the responsibility onto the university administration rather than the foreign students. Similar to his previous suggestion in 1950 that the president act immediately on the Whither International Education recommendations, Wise again called Millers attention to the immediate need for solutions to the universitys problems in addressing foreign student needs and concerns. Two months after Dean Wises letter, President Miller submitted a memorandum to all administrative and academic councils announcing both the retirement of John F. Martin, Director of Latin American Student Affairs, and the creation of a foreign student adviser position. 77 While the search began for a full-time adviser, the duties were split between the School of Inter-American Studies and the Office of Student Personnel. 78 Across the country, other universities and colleges similarly recognized the importance of a specialist to coordinate foreign student services. By 1952, there were 1,029 full-time foreign student advisers on American campuses, a significant increase from only 400 in 1948. 79 The necessity of a full-time adviser was apparent to Acting Dean of UFs Graduate School, C.F. Byers, who wrote to Miller: The problem of admission and academic placement of graduate students from outside the United States is becoming 77 Although Martin opposed the combination of Latin American student services with those for other foreign students, it is not known if the announcement of his retirement is connected to the announcement of the creation of an adviser for all foreign students. 78 Miller memorandum, 8 February 1952, University of Florida Archives, Graduate School, Office of the Dean, Series 46a: box 5, Committee on Foreign Students. 79 Cieslak, The Foreign Student in American Colleges, 93.

PAGE 70

61 increasingly important and is more difficult to handle. 80 Byers description of the growing foreign student problem reveals that by late in the 1951-52 academic year, the recommendations to improve the universitys administration of its foreign student program were not effectively in place. Byers statement echoes that of Committee Secretary Wilson, who had also defined foreign students as a growing problem. The persistence of this depiction of international students as a problem largely resulted from the inaction of the universitys top administrator to clarify the direction of the foreign student program and to enact the recommendations of his appointed committees. Without decisive administrative guidance, those involved with foreign studentswhether in the classroom, in research labs, or in counseling officescame to associate these students with the challenges that surrounded their presence on campus. With President Millers eventual creation of the position of adviser to foreign students, however, improvements upon the universitys foreign student program soon became evident. The Adviser to Foreign Students: Years of Progress, 1952-1955 In August of 1952, two years after the committee recommended creating the position, Ivan J. Putman was hired as UFs first Adviser to Foreign Students. Unlike many universities that designated a faculty member to advise foreign students part-time, President Miller selected an individual with an academic background in foreign student counseling for the full-time position. Putman had earned his Ph.D. from Millers alma mater, Columbia University, and completed his dissertation on the admission and academic performance of Columbias international graduate students. During the first three years of his work, Putman issued detailed reports about foreign students at the 80 Byers to Miller, April 29, 1952, University of Florida Archives, Graduate School, Office of the Dean, Series 46a: box 5, Foreign Students 1946-52.

PAGE 71

62 University of Florida. These reports, submitted to the president and other administrators, reveal many insights about the status of foreign students at the University of Florida in the early 1950s. In his first report summarizing the 1952-53 academic year, for example, Putman described the importance of the foreign student adviser to contribute to worldwide peace and mutual understanding: His principal objective is to help facilitate the kind of exchange which will be of maximum benefit to all parties concerned in terms of understanding among peoples and development of individual capacities to contribute to human welfare throughout the world. 81 Although the nation as a whole was no longer in the midst of postwar idealism, Putmans statement reveals the persistence of the rationale for international students as one of fostering peace and goodwill, particularly among foreign student advisers. 82 Putmans omission of any foreign policy objectives for hosting international students is indicative of his idealistic perspective about his new job in particular and the role of foreign students in general. Putman described his manifold duties as foreign student adviser, including: coordinating responses to application inquires, receiving new students, hosting orientations, coordinating counseling services, arranging for contacts with Americans, offering assistance with scholarship and financial aid information and serving as a resource for American students wanting to study abroad. Putman devoted a section of his 1952-53 report to Relationships with Foreign Students, in which he noted that there were initial problems during the transition period with Latin American students who 81 Ivan J. Putman, Annual Report of Adviser to Foreign Students, 1952-1953, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P10b: box 14, Reports, Foreign Students, 3. 82 Bu, Making the World Like Us, 161.

PAGE 72

63 felt abandoned as a result of the merger of all foreign student services. 83 Putman reported, however, that in a short amount of time this feeling subsided. By the spring of 1953 he had received an average of 20 to 30 student visits per day, up from only four or five in the fall semester. 84 The university hosted 207 foreign students that fall and 197 the following spring. Although these figures seem to suggest UF had a total of 404 students, further examination reveals that Putman likely counted each student every semester rather than conducting an academic year tally. The figure of 262 foreign students at UF for 1952-53, as reported in the Institute of International Educations national foreign student survey, Education for One World, is perhaps a more accurate total because the survey required students be counted by the academic year rather than by each semester. The University of Floridas 262 foreign students surpassed in number all other Florida higher education institutions, with the University of Miamis 231 students a close second and Florida State Universitys total of 48 foreign students a distant third. 85 Out of the national tally of 33,675 foreign students, the state of Floridas 648 foreign students ranked first in number among the Southeastern states, while the state of New York ranked highest in the nation with 6,044. 86 Putman explained the progress that his office, staffed with a full-time secretary and part-time graduate assistant, had made on several of the recommendations from the 1950 Whither International Education report. These improvements included discussions with the Registrars Office to overhaul the admissions process, the creation of an information 83 Putman, Annual Report of Adviser to Foreign Students, 1952-1953, 4. 84 Ibid. 85 Institute of International Education, Education for One World 1952-53 (New York: IIE, 1953), 26. 86 Ibid., back cover.

PAGE 73

64 bulletin to foreign students, and the improvement of orientation services. Putman and his wife arranged to meet each student at the station or airport upon arrival, and his goal was to host each student for dinner at least once during the year. 87 Putman was clearly committed to ensuring that every foreign student felt welcome at the University of Florida. In addition to welcoming these students from abroad, Putman also addressed their problems. Resulting from a series of group interviews with UFs international students throughout the semester, Putman summarized three areas of commonly experienced foreign student concerns: lack of contact with American students, difficulty with orientation and registration procedures, and the need to improve their English skills. 88 Putman summarized the outcomes of the group interviews: One of the most interesting results of these meetings was the interest of the group of foreign students in the fact that such a meeting had been called. An appreciable number of them commented that they were glad to be consulted. 89 This remark underscores the importance of the foreign student adviser, who counseled the foreign students from their first arrival in town until the end of their sojourns. Putmans description of foreign student concerns also echoes Dean of Student Personnel Max Wises earlier assertion that the problems of foreign students were not inherent to the students themselves, but rather a result of the lack of administrative procedures to address adequately the students unique needs. 87 Putman, Annual Report of Adviser to Foreign Students, 1952-1953, 6. 88 Ibid., 20. 89 Ibid.

PAGE 74

65 The reports of the Foreign Student Adviser from 1953-54 and 1954-55 reveal two years of progress within UFs foreign student program. In his 1953-54 report, Putman stated that the new admissions procedures enacted during the previous year reduced a number of academic problems. Further, the quality of the foreign students academic work seemed to be improving. 90 Admissions policies had become more selective for students from other countries. Even though the number of applicants increased, UF admitted only 191 foreign students for 1953-54, compared with 262 from the previous year. 91 The recurring issue of inadequate English skills was addressed with the creation of the English Language Institute, which began in the summer of 1954. An information bulletin for foreign students was published and put to use successfully, serving as a model for other universities. 92 An International Student Organization (ISO) including both foreign and American students was started with the hopes that it would be successful in increasing student interest in international affairs generally. 93 Despite the potential of the International Student Organization, Putman cited that contacts between American and foreign students remained rather minimal and that this was an area with room for improvement. Putman described the ISOs plan to start a Community Advisory Group to involve more American students and residents of Gainesville. Putman hoped this plan would remedy the foreign students feeling that locals took little or no interest 90 Ivan J. Putman, Annual Report of Foreign Student Adviser, 1953-54, University of Florida Archives, Series 136, Committee on Foreign Students, 3. 91 Institute of International Education, Education for One World, 1953-54 (New York: IIE, 1954), 22. 92 Putman, Annual Report of Foreign Student Adviser, 1953-54, 3. 93 Ibid., 24.

PAGE 75

66 in them or their countries. 94 Even if socialization between American and foreign students at UF was not commonplace, evidence suggests that some aspect of the foreign students presence was accepted as part of the larger UF community. For example, a Latin American student groups homecoming float won first prize in the 1953 homecoming parade. 95 Putman also recounted the situation of a married foreign student couple from Transjordan, Mr. and Mrs. Wasfi Hijab, who had quadruplets during their studies in Gainesville. Organizations within the community provided donations and financial help, and the Hijabs even gained semi-celebrity status when a milk company offered them an advertising contract. Further, Putman became legal guardian to the children to avoid income tax complications resulting from the milk ad contract. 96 For the 1954-55 academic year, Putman reported new enrollment trends such as the slight decline in Latin American student numbers, which he attributed to more selective admissions, and the increase in non-Latin American foreign students from the Middle East and south Asian countries. Other trends included the increase of graduate foreign student enrollment while undergraduate numbers remained about the same. 97 These trends mirrored those in the national arena, as reported in the Institute of International Educations national survey of foreign student data, Open Doors. Although Canada remained the largest foreign student nationality attending U.S. institutions, the report noted significant gains within the previous five years in the number of students from 94 Ibid., 28. 95 Ibid., 26. 96 Ibid., 19. 97 Ivan J. Putman, Annual Report of Foreign Student Adviser, 1954-55, University of Florida Archives, Series 136, Committee on Foreign Students, 3.

PAGE 76

67 Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and Colombia. 98 The majority of foreign students on American campuses were undergraduates but the report noted that some countries, including India, the United Kingdom, the Philippines, and Thailand, sent an unusually high percentage of graduate students. 99 Putman described his satisfaction with the increased academic performance of the foreign student group; the undergraduate foreign students, with an average GPA of 2.29 for the spring of 1954, surpassed the overall university average of 2.13. 100 Contributing to these academic accomplishments were the increased effectiveness of the new admissions standards, the enhancement of English instruction, and the improvement of foreign student and academic advising. 101 Putman concluded that 1954-55 was a very satisfying year but cautioned against complacency: We have found that there are limits to what the office can accomplish and we are close to the saturation point a good part of the time, if not past it. This is disturbing in view of the fact that much more could be done with considerable profit to all concerned. However, even as things stand, foreign students are generally having a good experience at the University of Florida, and their presence is making more of a contribution to the education of our own native students. There is every indication that these improvements will continue to develop. 102 Putmans mention of reaching the saturation point foreshadowed what was to come in the years ahead, as the university continued its rapid expansion and the nation plunged deeper into the Cold War. 98 Institute of International Education, Open Doors, 1954-55 (New York: IIE, 1955), 7. 99 Ibid., 9. 100 Putman, Annual Report of Foreign Student Adviser, 1954-55, 5. 101 Ibid. 102 Ibid., 11.

PAGE 77

68 New Definitions for Foreign Students at the University of Florida, 1955-1957 Putman indeed faced the dilemma of increased demand and lack of resources shortly after his 1955 report. Another foreign student report did not appear until three years later. During the three years between Putmans foreign student status reports, many changes took place within the universitys administration. President Miller died suddenly on November 14, 1954 and the Board of Control named Vice President John S. Allen as interim president. 103 On March 22, 1955, the board appointed J. Wayne ReitzUFs Provost of Agricultureas the fifth president of the University of Florida and the first former faculty member to be named to the post. Born in Kansas, Reitz had received his education from various institutions: Colorado State University (bachelors), University of Illinois (masters), and the University of Wisconsin (Ph.D.). Reitz became a professor of Agricultural Economics at UF in 1935 and was later named as Provost of Agriculture in 1949 upon his return to academia after working for the USDA. 104 With his strong interest in Latin American agricultural research and his service on the executive board for two Costa Rican institutions, Reitz held promising connections to international education. In his inauguration speech, moreover, Reitz recognized the importance of the American university to world affairs. Unlike presidents Tigert and Miller, who emphasized the universitys international role in creating goodwill and world peace, Reitz placed the universitys global role firmly within the context of defeating communism: America has risen to a place of unusual leadership in the modern world, so suddenly that we are having great difficulty in assuming these new and enlarged responsibilitiesWe must better understand the history, culture, and psychology of 103 University of Florida Archives, J. Hillis Miller, http://web.uflib.ufl.edu/spec/archome/Miller.htm (accessed June 2005). 104 University of Florida Archives, J. Wayne Reitz, http://web.uflib.ufl.edu/spec/archome/Reitz.htm (accessed June 2005).

PAGE 78

69 the people with whom we work and relate ourselvesThe American democratic way of life, with whatever weaknesses it may have, needs to be set out in clear contrast to the diabolical features of communism and other forms of government which destroy the minds and souls of men. 105 Reitzs statements reflected the national scare of the Cold War and the perceived threat of communism, which now overshadowed the rationale of international education for world peace and goodwill, as Hans de Wit noted. 106 Although Reitz called attention to this new role for the university in world affairs, he made no mention of foreign students. This omission is consistent with the administrative ambiguity towards publicly defining the role of international students which former presidents Tigert and Miller also demonstrated. Although his inauguration speech did not address foreign students directly, in the spring of 1956 Reitz issued a presidential memorandum to all faculty members regarding foreign students. 107 The memorandum served to update former President Millers statements in 1949 regarding foreign student policies. The memorandum also summarized the current functions of the Foreign Student Adviser. In this document, Reitz made two important statements regarding the status of foreign students and how they were to be treated at the University of Florida. Reitz first emphasized the need to hold foreign students to the same academic and admissions standards of American students. Second, Reitz stated that faculty members must encourage foreign students to return home upon graduation so that these students remained focused on the needs and 105 Pitts, Reminiscences of Three University Presidents, 50. 106 De Wit, Internationalization of Higher Education in the United States and Europe, xviii. 107 Reitz to Faculty, 25 May 1956, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P14a: box 31, Foreign Students & Visitors 1955-67.

PAGE 79

70 problems of their home countries and ways in which they can most effectively contribute to their solution. 108 It is significant that Reitz issued such guidelines to all faculty members, as his statements gave legitimacy to the presence of foreign students. These statements also provided insight into how the university president viewed international students and their place within the larger university. According to Reitz, foreign students were not to be singled out from domestic students. The presidents second statement indicating that foreign students must be encouraged to return home, armed with the new knowledge gained from their studies in the U.S., suggested that it was the foreign students, not the university, which had the most to gain from their academic sojourns. The statements from President Reitz were also consistent with the national concern of returning foreign students to their home countries so that they could become ambassadors of goodwill, and more importantly, of the American democratic way of life. In response to Reitzs memorandum, the new Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Students, Nicholas Chotas, reported to the president on the committees recent discussion of plans for an International House. 109 The proposed building would provide not only accommodations but also bring American and foreign students together in a community living environment. The idea for an international house had originated with President Tigerts plans for an Inter-American House in the 1930s. Since more than half of UFs 207 foreign students in 1956 were from non-Latin American countries, Chotas reasoned that the housing area should be open to all foreign students as well as American 108 Ibid. 109 Chotas to Reitz, 21 November 1956, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P14a: box 31, Foreign Students & Visitors, 1955-67.

PAGE 80

71 students. Similar to the statements in Whither International Education, the rationale Chotas presented echoed the late 1940s sentiment of international exchange for goodwill and mutual understanding. Furthermore, Chotas also provided a rationale that foresaw positive consequences: It is not inconceivable that a constructive exchange in daily living on the University of Florida campus between foreign and United States students today could favorably affect international policies between countries when todays students become tomorrows policy makers. 110 The presidents reply to Chotas request was not encouraging: While I am sure that the ideas expressed by the committee have much merit, there does not seem to be anything that we can do about this matter in the immediate future. 111 Reitz did not offer any indication as to why their request could not be met, but he suggested that the committee approach the planning board of the new student union building to inquire about any additional space in the developing plans. Without much support from the president, however, the hope for an international house proved difficult to realize. The student union was built without space for an international house or meeting area. 112 President Reitzs denial of the International House request contrasts sharply with his earlier memorandum to the university community, which legitimized the presence of these students at UF. Reitzs response indicated that although foreign students were rhetorically important to the university, when it came to allocating financial resources, foreign students were not a priority. 110 Ibid. 111 Reitz to Chotas, 27 December 1956, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P14a: box 31, Foreign Students & Visitors, 1955-67. 112 The creation of an international house or dormitory designated for the interaction of foreign and American students continued to be debated throughout the years. The goal would be achieved finally in 2002, with the designation of the Weaver Hall dormitory as the Weaver International House.

PAGE 81

72 The Adviser to Foreign Students: Towards the Saturation Point, 1957-1958 In the fall of 1957, the university welcomed its largest and most varied group of foreign students in its history, with a total of 315 students from 57 countries. The Committee on Foreign Students Chairman Nicholas Chotas announced the news in a letter to all faculty and staff in which he appealed to them to reach out to these highly selected and promising individuals by inviting them to dinner, a picnic, or the beach. 113 In June of 1958, Chotas reported to Harry Philpott, the newly appointed Vice President, on the accomplishments of the year and the future plans for the Committee on Foreign Students. Chotas indicated that the response of the faculty and staff to his request was heartening but the extent of participation had not been determined. 114 Philpotts response to the report was complimentary: As a newcomer to the administrationI have been tremendously impressed by the provisions made for our foreign students. It is quite clear that the University of Florida has one of the finest programs in this respect to be found in any institutions in the United States. 115 While UFs vice president considered its foreign student program to be exemplary, the Adviser to Foreign Students, Ivan Putman, was reaching his breaking point. Reporting 228 foreign students to the Open Doors survey, UF ranked first in the state of Florida and thirtieth in the nation of all U.S. institutions hosting international students. 116 In the 1958 report of the Adviser to Foreign Students, Putmans exasperated tone was considerably 113 Chotas to Members of the University Faculty and Staff, 18 November 1957, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P14a: box 31, Foreign Students & Visitors, 1955-67. 114 Chotas to Philpott, 5 June 1958, P14a: box 31, Foreign Students & Visitors, 1955-67. 115 Philpott to Chotas, 1 July 1958, P14a: box 31, Foreign Students & Visitors, 1955-67. 116 Ivan J. Putman, Adviser to Foreign Students announcement, 26 June 1958, University of Florida Archives, Office of Academic Affairs, Series 2a: box 56, Foreign Students 1958-1973.

PAGE 82

73 less positive than his earlier accounts. Describing his report as frank and personal, Putman explained the reason for the three-year gap: There simply has not been time, and there is not now time, to issue the fairly comprehensive reports which I prepared in 1953, 1954, and 1955. 117 Because of his increased workload, Putman could no longer meet every student at the station upon arrival. In order to maintain his role as counselor to foreign students with an open door policy, Putman stated that he struggled to complete the numerous administrative tasks required of him. The lack of adequate personnel placed considerable strain upon Putman and his meager staff of two secretaries, a graduate assistant, and two part-time student assistants. His requests for additional staff during the summer months went unanswered, and the morale within Putmans organization was considerably low: We have been fortunate in having devoted and hard-working staff people who have accepted the pressure of over-work and crowded conditions with good grace. However, they have understandably grumbled when they have seen others, often with higher ratings and better salaries, sitting around with less to do and less responsibility. 118 Putman urged for the appointment of a full-time Assistant Foreign Student Adviser and for the provision of a more adequate space than the room currently shared with the Student Personnel Records office. Unless changes were made, Putman stated that he was not willing to go on doing this much longer nor was he willing to ask his staff to continue working with as much pressure and as little recognition as they had received. 119 Putmans exasperation at the lack of attention from the top administrators 117 Ivan J. Putman, Report of the Adviser to Foreign Students 1957-58, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P14a: box 31, Foreign Students & Visitors, 1955-67, 1. 118 Ibid., 8. 119 Ibid., 9.

PAGE 83

74 demonstrates what international educators Edward Cieslak, Homer Higbee, and Craufurd Goodwin and Michael Nacht noted regarding the low status assigned to the work of foreign student advisers and their inability to influence administrative policy. 120 Concluding his report of 1958, Putman stated a very different rationale from that of his first report in 1953, in which he had emphasized the mutual benefits of cultural exchange for its own sake. The importance of the nations foreign policy interests now depended upon the success of foreign students: The stakes of our country, and therefore of our University, in the international area are high, and we can therefore not afford to do a half-way job with these students from abroad who are tomorrows leaders in their countries. 121 As Putman made the case to university administrators, the shift in rationale from his first report was indicative of the larger changes taking place in international education towards the role of international students. In the 1963 book, The Foreign Student: Whom Shall We Welcome?, Maurice Harari characterized this Cold War cultural diplomacy as involving the belief that training foreign students here is a way of making friends for the United States in the Cold War. 122 This conception of diplomacy was very different from that of the late 1940s when mutual benefit and goodwill rather than improving the nations image abroad was first emphasized as a rationale for the support of foreign students. The purpose of foreign students on American campuses was no longer a matter 120 Edward Cieslak, The Foreign Student in American Colleges (Detroit: Wayne University Press, 1955), 25; Homer Higbee, The Status of Foreign Student Advising in U.S. Universities and Colleges (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1961), 41; Goodwin and Nacht, Absence of Decision, 8 121 Putman, Report of the Adviser to Foreign Students 1957-58, 12. 122 Maurice Harari, The Foreign Student: Whom Shall We Welcome? (New York: Education and World Affairs, 1964), 4.

PAGE 84

75 of extending an offer of mutual exchange to make a more peaceful world, but rather one of national defense interests. Despite Putmans characterization of foreign students as key to the future of the nation, a significant shift from his previous rationale, President Reitz did not take immediate action upon the foreign student advisers requests. A response finally came three months later, when Vice President Harry Philpott wrote to Nicholas Chotas, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Students, to discuss the issues Putman raised in his report. Philpott revealed that President Reitz had decided to name yet another faculty committee to provide guidance on the current state of foreign students at the university and then to assess this groups needs. 123 That Reitz did not reply personally to the issues Putman raised is indicative of the ambiguous presidential response towards foreign students demonstrated throughout this study. Similar to President Miller before him, Reitz chose not to take immediate action upon the recommendations of concerned faculty members and staff regarding the foreign student program. Reitzs lack of a response to the foreign student advisers criticisms reveals the difficulty for the university president to act upon the needs of the foreign student program within the context of the state universitys various constituencies. Moreover, even when foreign students were defined as a way to ensure national defense, that this rationale was not enough to move the president into action illustrates the strength of the public institutions mission to serve the interests of the state above all else. 123 Philpott to Chotas, 9 December 1958, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P14a: box 31, Foreign Students & Visitors, 1955-67.

PAGE 85

CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION From 1946 to 1958, the University of Florida moved from severe restrictions on foreign student admissions to hosting larger foreign student numbers than could be adequately handled. Although University of Florida presidents John J. Tigert, J. Hillis Miller, and J. Wayne Reitz articulated beliefs in the importance of the universitys role in world affairs and international relationswhether for peace and goodwill or to ensure the defeat of communismthe role of foreign students was not defined as essential to the universitys overall mission. Tigert, serving as president during UFs greatest expansion, faced strong opposition from the Board of Control to provide any state resources for foreign students. Despite the resistance within the state, Tigert made significant contributions to the universitys international endeavors during his nineteen years as president. Most notable had been his creation of the Institute of Inter-American Affairs in 1930. When the Board of Control restricted foreign and out-of-state student admissions in 1946, however, Tigert chose not to advocate for their inclusion due to the need to concentrate efforts on accommodating returning World War II veterans and to ensure the Boards approval of necessary construction funds. President Tigerts ambiguousness towards foreign students during this period likely resulted more from the struggle to keep pace with domestic student expansion than from any personal disregard for the importance of these sojourning students. In fact, one year after his retirement Tigert accepted an offer to serve as one of two Americans on a commission to study higher education in India. During his year spent 76

PAGE 86

77 throughout India, Tigert observed the countrys universities and suggested reforms for improving the quality of their higher education system. 1 Tigerts successor, J. Hillis Miller, brought numerous improvements to UFs foreign student program during his presidency from 1948 to 1953. At the suggestion of concerned faculty members, Miller established a formal committee to study the problems of foreign students in addition to sending a presidential memorandum to the university community regarding the organization of services to these students. With his background in counseling at Columbia University, Miller recognized the need for a designated professional to administer the foreign student program and named Ivan Putman as Adviser to Foreign Students in 1952. Although the Miller years improved the organization of the foreign student program at UF, the universitys top administrator reacted slowly, if at all, to the recommendations of his appointed committees. In his inaugural address, in which he made no apologies for concentrating on state and local issues, Miller set the stage for his reluctance to define the role of international students and his concentration on serving the interests of the state of Florida first and foremost. Considering Millers untimely death, it is difficult to speculate as to whether he would have eventually clarified the role of foreign students at the University of Florida or if he would have remained at a standstill in regards to defining their potential contributions to the university, the state, and the nation. The administration of the University of Floridas fifth president, J. Wayne Reitz, continued from 1955 until 1967. During his tenure, President Reitz successfully strengthened Tigerts legacy of interest in Latin America and expanded the Institute of 1 George Osborn, John James Tigert: American Educator (Gainesville: University Presses of Florida, 1974), 493-500.

PAGE 87

78 Inter-American Affairs into the Center for Latin American Studies. 2 Reitz also furthered Millers statements about foreign students in an updated memorandum to the university community regarding policies towards these students from abroad. In this document, Reitz called for international students to be held to the same standards as domestic students and emphasized the need to encourage foreign students to return to their home countries upon completion of their degrees. Reitzs sentiments were consistent with the larger shift in rationale at the federal level for the need to host foreign students. Unlike his predecessors Tigert and Miller, who had described the importance of international education in terms of world peace and understanding, Reitz characterized international education as a means of defeating communism and ensuring the spread of democracy. However, even when foreign students were defined as essential to the future defense of the country, as evidenced in the final foreign student adviser report of 1958, the university president did not respond to the call to provide more resources to serve these students. Rather than offer a personal response to Putmans report, Reitz again named a faculty committee to study the problems in greater detail. Although Reitz differed from his predecessors in his outlook on the aims of international education, Reitz was similarly concerned with facing pressure from the state of Florida legislature regarding the expansion of the foreign student program. By 1966, when the 746 students from other countries comprised more than three percent of UFs student body, Reitz suggested enacting a quota to limit foreign student enrollment to no 2 Similar to President Tigert, Reitz also continued international education activities upon retirement. Reitz served in numerous educational positions throughout Latin America and Thailand and later agreed to become Director of the UF Council for International Studies in 1975. University of Florida Office of the President, J. Wayne Reitz, http://www.president.ufl.edu/pastPrez/reitz.htm (accessed June 2005). Reitz to Marston, 23 May 1975, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P13a: box 73, International Studies and Programs.

PAGE 88

79 larger than three percent. Reitz advocated for this arbitrary ceiling in order to preserve the important place of foreign students on our campus by avoiding potential conflicts with the legislature: If we allowed the number to get too large, there could possibly be repercussions which would result in placing restrictions which we would want to avoid. In other words, by exercising internal management, if you will, we might avoid external criticism from the standpoint of the legislature, when it is so generally recognized that our pressure from students in the state is so great. 3 Reitzs cautionary statement reveals an explanation for the ambiguous administrative response to foreign students evidenced throughout the twelve-year period of this study and in later years at the university. For presidents Tigert, Miller, and Reitz, international students rhetorically held an important place on the campus, yet their presence was not to grow so large as to awaken the nativist tendencies of the state legislature. In making their administrative decisions, these three UF presidents juggled the demands of various constituencies within the university, the state, and the nation. Faculty members who advocated for foreign students first characterized the students importance in terms of achieving peace and mutual understanding and later as a means to ensure the future success of the United States. Some faculty members defined foreign students as a growing problem, while others lamented the universitys inability to address these students needs. State legislators and Board of Control members, directly and indirectly, influenced the ambiguous response of the UF presidents in their resolve to serve the needs of the state and its residents first and foremost. Nationally, federal officials became increasingly involved in foreign student programs after World War II and provided funding to higher education as never before. Through international exchange programs 3 Reitz to Bryan, 29 April 1966, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series 2a: box 56, Presidents Report on Foreign Students.

PAGE 89

80 funded by the Fulbright and Smith-Mundt Acts, federal officials aimed to gain support from American-educated future foreign leaders. The history of international students at the University of Florida from 1946 to 1958 reveals the complexities of foreign student programs in state-sponsored, public institutions. The University of Florida presidents during this period struggled to accommodate UFs rapid growth while also meeting the demands of its various constituencies with competing agendas. On the one hand, these university presidents needed to expand UFs international reputation and participate in the new world role of universities in international affairs, an effort increasingly supported by the federal government. Conversely, the university presidents also recognized the need to serve the interests of the state of Florida in order to maintain relations with the universitys main funding source, the state legislature and its accompanying Board of Control. As the door to foreign students opened wider at the University of Florida from 1946 to 1958, the administrative decisions made during these years sent ambiguous messages to international students about their desired contributions to the university, the state, and the nation. This study contributes to a greater understanding of the literature on foreign students, which repeatedly calls for higher education institutions to define their purposes for hosting these sojourning students to their respective academic communities first and foremost. In the case of the University of Florida, three successive presidents were ambiguous in defining the value of international students to the institution itself as well as to its outside constituents. Although committees to study the needs of foreign students were formed, the president often reacted slowly, if at all, to his committees

PAGE 90

81 recommendations for improving UFs accommodation of foreign students. The development of UFs foreign student program also proves useful to the argument of Craufurd Goodwin and Michael Nacht, who suggested that universities have not successfully gained support for international student programs from their state legislatures because they have not defined for themselves the potential contributions that foreign students could make to the university and the state. Without this definition, state legislators considered funding foreign students to be simply wrong and at the expense of its residents rather than an overall benefit to the state. 4 In addition to illuminating the dynamics between public university administrators and their state legislatures, this thesis also contributes to an understanding of the larger history of American higher education after World War II. The development of the foreign student program at the University of Florida exemplifies what historians John Thelin, Christopher Lucas, and Roger Geiger characterized as a period in which the nations colleges and universities were adjusting rapidly to new roles and expectations within American society. This study of the University of Florida reveals an institution that found itself welcoming foreign students yet not so much so that the needs of the state felt threatened. As a result, presidents Tigert, Miller, and Reitz neither ignored foreign students entirely nor did they define explicitly the value of these students to the university, the state, or the nation. A recent initiative in the Florida legislature suggests that the debate about the importance of international students continues. The Student Financial Assistance bill (HB 21), which passed in the Florida House of Representatives in 2005, would have denied 4 Craufurd D. Goodwin and Michael Nacht, Absence of Decision: Foreign Students in American Colleges (New York: Institute of International Education, 1983), 26.

PAGE 91

82 financial assistance to certain classifications of international students and re-directed the funds to state residents. Although the bill did not reach the Florida Senate, the measure reveals the continuing debate regarding the desirability of supporting international students in the state of Florida. Nationally, in 2004 the number of international students on American campuses (572,509) declined for the first time since 1972. In response, international student advocates have called for federal reforms of the numerous visa restrictions placed upon foreign students in the wake of September 11, 2001. Until university administrators are able to define clearly the purposes and value of international students to American higher education, the future status of these students from abroad will remain uncertain. 5 5 Florida House of Representatives, Student Financial Assistance, HB 21, 2005 sess., http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/default.aspx (accessed June 2005). Institute of International Education, Open Doors 2004 (New York: IIE, 2005). House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Testimony of Lawrence H. Bell Before the Subcommittees on Select Education and 21 st Century Competitiveness, March 17, 2005, http://www.nafsa.org/content/PublicPolicy/NAFSAontheIssues/Issues.htm (accessed June 2005).

PAGE 92

APPENDIX INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AT UF AND IN THE U.S., 1946-1958 International Students at UF, 1946-19580501001502002503001946194719481949195019511952195319541955195619571958yearnumber total int'l students Figure 1. International Students at UF, 1946-1958. (Source: Institute of International Education, Education for One World, 1946-1953 and Open Doors, 1954-1958). 83

PAGE 93

84 International Students in the U.S., 1946-195805,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,00050,0001946194719481949195019511952195319541955195619571958yearnumber total int'l students Figure 2. International Students in the U.S., 1946-1958. (Source: Source: Institute of International Education, Education for One World, 1946-1953 and Open Doors, 1954-1958).

PAGE 94

LIST OF REFERENCES Adams, Alfred. A History of Public Higher Education in Florida: 1821-1961. EdD diss., Florida State University, 1962. Alexander, Richard R. A Smooth Transition: Racial Integration at the University of Florida, 1954-1958. Unpublished typescript, University of Florida, 1995. Allaway, William H., and Hallam Shorrock. Dimensions of International Higher Education: The University of California Symposium on Education Abroad. Boulder: Westview Press, 1985. Baldwin, Nancy. Cultural Adaptations of International Student Wives at the University of Florida PhD diss., University of Florida, 1969. Bardis, Panos D. Attitudes towards Dating among Foreign Students in America. Marriage and Family Living 18, no. 4 (1956): 339-344. Bruegger, A.T., and B.H. Atkinson. Cherchez Les Differences. Journal of Higher Education 27, no. 6 (1956): 297-300. Bu, Liping. Making the World Like Us: Education, Cultural Expansion, and the American Century. Westport, CT: Praeger Press, 2003. Burn, Barbara. Higher Education is International. In Dimensions of International Higher Education, ed. William Allaway and Hallam Shorrock. Boulder: Westview Press, 1985. Cieslak, Edward. The Foreign Student in American Colleges: A Survey and Evaluation of Administrative Problems and Practices. Detroit: Wayne University Press, 1955. Committee on Foreign Students. Records. Series 136, University of Florida Archives. Committee on Friendly Relations Among Foreign Students. The Unofficial Ambassadors. New York: Committee on Friendly Relations, 1928-1953. Committee on the University and World Affairs. Report on the University and World Affairs. New York: Ford Foundation, 1960. Coombs, Philip. The Fourth Dimension on Foreign Policy: Educational and Cultural Affairs. New York: Harper & Row, 1964. 85

PAGE 95

86 De Wit, Hans. Internationalization of Higher Education in the United States of America and Europe. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002. Diggins, John Patrick. The Proud Decades: America in War and Peace. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1988. Drane, Hank. Historic Governors. Ocala, FL: Ferguson Printing, 1994. Du Bois, Cora. Foreign Students and Higher Education in the United States. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, 1956. Education and World Affairs. The University Looks Abroad: Approaches to World Affairs on Six American Universities. New York: Walker and Company, 1965. Forstall, Richard L. Florida Population of Counties by Decennial Census, 1900 to 1990. U.S. Bureau of the Census. http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/fl190090.txt (accessed June 2005). Forstat, Reisha. Adjustment Problems of International Students. Journal of Sociology and Social Research 36, no. 1 (1951): 25-30. Frankel, Charles. The Neglected Aspect of Foreign Affairs. Washington DC: Brookings Institution, 1965. Geiger, Roger L. Research and Relevant Knowledge: American Research Universities Since World War II. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Gellman, Irwin F. Good Neighbor Diplomacy: United States Policy in Latin America, 1933-1945. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979. Goodwin, Craufurd D. and Michael Nacht. Absence of Decision: Foreign Students in American Colleges. New York: Institute of International Education, 1983. Graves, John. This Morning. Birmingham Age-Herald. October 14, 1941. Available in University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P7c: box 14, Genre Files 1928-1947. Harari, Maurice. The Foreign Student: Whom Shall We Welcome? New York: Education and World Affairs, 1964. . Global Dimensions in U.S. Education: The University. New York: Center for War/Peace Studies, 1972. Higbee, Homer. The Status of Foreign Student Advising in United States Universities and Colleges. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1961. Humphrey, Richard. Cultural Communication and New Imperatives. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 335 (1961): 141-152.

PAGE 96

87 Inauguration of Joseph Hillis Miller as President of the University of Florida Jacksonville: Drew Press, 1948. Institute of International Education. Education for One World. New York: Institute of International Education, 1948-1954. . Open Doors. New York: Institute of International Education, 1954-present. Johnson, Walter, and Francis J. Colligan. The Fulbright Program: A History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965. Keill, Norman. Attitudes of Foreign Students. Journal of Higher Education 22, no. 4 (1951): 188-194, 225. Kerr, Clark. Global Education Concerns of Higher Education for the 1980s and Beyond. In Expanding the International Dimension of Higher Education, ed. Barbara Burn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980. Lucas, Christopher J. American Higher Education: A History. New York: St. Martins Press, 1994. McCarthy, Kevin. Fightin Gators: A History of University of Florida Football. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2000. Mestenhauser, Josef. Portraits of an International Curriculum. In Reforming the Higher Education Curriculum: Internationalizing the Campus, eds. Josef Mestenhauser and Brenda Ellingboe. Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1998. Miller, J. Hillis. Higher Education and the Problems of this Decade. The Educational Record 32, no. 4 (1951): 335-349. Morris, Richard. National Status and Attitudes of Foreign Students. Journal of Social Issues 12, no. 1 (1956): 20-25. Naser, Abdallah Omar. The Relationship Between Academic Achievement and Demographic and Language Variables for Male Foreign Students at the University of Florida. Masters thesis, University of Florida, 1964. National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. The Land-Grant Tradition. http://www.nasulgc.org/publications/Land_Grant/land.htm (accessed June 2005). Olsen, Lionel, and William Kunhart. Foreign Student Reactions to American College Life. Journal of Educational Sociology 31, no. 7 (1958): 277-280. Office of Academic Affairs. Series 2a, Administrative Policy Records, University of Florida Archives.

PAGE 97

88 Office of the Dean. Graduate School. Series 46a, Administrative Policy Records, University of Florida Archives. Office of the President. J. Hillis Miller. Series P10a & P10b, Administrative Policy Records, University of Florida Archives. . J. Wayne Reitz. Series P14a, Administrative Policy Records, University of Florida Archives. . John J. Tigert. Series P7a & P7c, Administrative Policy Records, University of Florida Archives. Osborn, George. John James Tigert: American Educator. Gainesville: University Presses of Florida, 1974. Peterson, James A., and Martin H. Neumeyer. Problems of Foreign Students. Journal of Sociology and Social Research 32, no. 4 (1948): 787-792. Pitts, Edith. Papers. Reminiscences of Three University Presidents. Manuscript Collection 50, University of Florida Archives. Proctor, Samuel. The University of Florida: Its Early Years, 1853-1906. PhD diss., University of Florida, 1958. Ruther, Nancy L. Barely There, Powerfully Present: Thirty Years of U.S. Policy on International Higher Education. London: Routledge, 2002. Sanders, Irwin, and Jennifer Ward. Bridges to Understanding: International Programs of American Colleges and Universities. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. Schmitz, Henry. Implications of Geographic Restrictions on Enrollments in State Colleges and Universities. Higher Education 3, no. 14 (1947): 1-3. Schulken, Emma Walker. The History of Foreign Students in American Higher Education from its Colonial Beginnings to the Present. PhD diss., Florida State University, 1972. Sellitz, Claire, Anna Lee Hopson and Stuart Cook. The Effects of Situational Factors on Personal Interaction between Foreign Students and Americans. Journal of Social Issues 12, no. 1 (1956): 33-44. Smith, H. Alexander. Report to Accompany HR 3342. Senate Reports, 80 th Cong., 1, no. 811. Smith, M. Brewster. Some Features of Foreign-Student Adjustment. Journal of Higher Education 26, no. 5 (1955): 231-241.

PAGE 98

89 Tabariasl, Khosro. A History of International Students at Ball State University, 1945-1980. PhD diss., Ball State, 1987. Thelin, John R. A History of American Higher Education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004. Tonkin, Humphrey, and Jane Edwards. The World in the Curriculum: Curricular Strategies for the 21 st Century. New Rochelle: Change Magazine Press, 1981. University of Florida. UFs Beginnings. http://www.ufl.edu/history/1853.html (accessed June 2005). University of Florida Archives. J. Hillis Miller. http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/spec/archome/Miller.htm (accessed June 2005). . J. Wayne Reitz. http://web.uflib.ufl.edu/spec/archome/Reitz.htm (accessed June 2005). University of Florida Graduate School. Proposal to the United States Department of State for an Inter-American Cultural and Scientific Center. Gainesville: University of Florida, 1961. University of Florida Office of Institutional Research. Total Enrollment for University of Florida from 1905-2003. http://www.ir.ufl.edu/factbook/enroll.htm (accessed June 2005). University of Florida Office of the President. J. Wayne Reitz. http://www.president.ufl.edu/pastPrez/reitz.htm (accessed June 2005). . John J. Tigert. http://www.president.ufl.edu/pastPres/tigert.htm (accessed June 2005). Vansant, Flora. The International Student in the University of North Carolina. EdD diss., University of North Carolina Greensboro, 1985. Vestal, Theodore M. International Education: Its History and Promise for Today. Westport, CT: Praeger Press, 1994. Vyasulu, K. Usha. International Students on the University of Florida Campus: Analysis of Their Strongly Held Attitudes Toward U.S. Nationals. masters thesis, University of Florida, 1975. Webb, Neil D. Fifty Years of Building the University of Florida, 1925 to 1975. Gainesville: self-published, 1997. Weidner, Edward. The World Role of Universities. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.

PAGE 99

90 Wilson, Howard E. Universities and World Affairs. New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1951. Wilson, Howard E., and Florence H. Wilson. American Higher Education and World Affairs. Washington DC: American Council on Education, 1963. Woods, Randall Bennett. Fulbright: A Biography. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

PAGE 100

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Leigh Ann Bauer Osborne received a Master of Arts in Education, in social foundations, from the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. She received Bachelor of Arts degrees in French and English from the University of Florida in 2000. In the summer of 1999, she studied abroad in Avignon, France. She has worked at the University of Florida International Center since 1998. In her current position as Study Abroad Advisor, she assists UF students in making their study abroad plans. 91


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011655/00001

Material Information

Title: Through an Open Door? International Students at the University of Florida, 1946-1958
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Creator: Osborne, Leigh Ann Bauer ( Dissertant )
Terzian, Sevan ( Thesis advisor )
Renner, Richard ( Reviewer )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2005
Copyright Date: 2005

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Dissertations, Academic -- Education -- UF
Education thesis, M.A.
International relations -- Study and teaching
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: United States -- Florida -- Gainesville

Notes

Abstract: Following World War II, the University of Florida (UF), similar to many American higher education institutions, experienced significant growth in all aspects of the university. This thesis examines the history of international students at the University of Florida from 1946 to 1958, when enrollment of these students from abroad increased dramatically. The study highlights the administrations of three successive UF presidents and the policies that were formed during this period to accommodate this new influx of students from abroad. An account of the developments of UF’s foreign student program is provided using archival sources from UF presidential and administrative policy records as well as personal correspondence between UF presidents, faculty members, and individuals outside of the university. National sources regarding international students and American higher education are also examined throughout this study to place the developments at the University of Florida into a broader historical context. The response of UF presidents John J. Tigert, J. Hillis Miller, and J. Wayne Reitz to the university’s role in hosting these sojourning students demonstrates the complexities of foreign student programs on American campuses. For all three presidents, international students rhetorically held an important place within the university, yet the administrative decisions, or lack thereof, regarding the international student program at UF sent ambiguous messages concerning the value of these students to the university, state, and nation. To consider the factors that influenced this ambiguous response, the study explores the relationship between UF presidents and the university’s various constituencies, including faculty and staff, and the state legislature and its governing body for higher education, the Board of Control. UF’s mission as a public, land-grant institution to serve primarily the interests of the state often conflicted with the president’s ability to advocate for increased support of international students. At the same time, many faculty and staff members advocated for international students as a means to overcome provincialism and enhance the university’s international reputation. The history of international students at UF also reveals that from 1946 to 1958, the rationales for the importance of foreign students shifted from the goals of peace and mutual exchange towards national foreign policy aims to ensure the spread of American democratic principles. This shift in rationale was consistent with the larger change nationwide, as the federal government became progressively more involved in measures to support the presence of foreign students on American campuses.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2005.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographic references (leaves 85-90).
General Note: Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0011655:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011655/00001

Material Information

Title: Through an Open Door? International Students at the University of Florida, 1946-1958
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Creator: Osborne, Leigh Ann Bauer ( Dissertant )
Terzian, Sevan ( Thesis advisor )
Renner, Richard ( Reviewer )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2005
Copyright Date: 2005

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Dissertations, Academic -- Education -- UF
Education thesis, M.A.
International relations -- Study and teaching
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: United States -- Florida -- Gainesville

Notes

Abstract: Following World War II, the University of Florida (UF), similar to many American higher education institutions, experienced significant growth in all aspects of the university. This thesis examines the history of international students at the University of Florida from 1946 to 1958, when enrollment of these students from abroad increased dramatically. The study highlights the administrations of three successive UF presidents and the policies that were formed during this period to accommodate this new influx of students from abroad. An account of the developments of UF’s foreign student program is provided using archival sources from UF presidential and administrative policy records as well as personal correspondence between UF presidents, faculty members, and individuals outside of the university. National sources regarding international students and American higher education are also examined throughout this study to place the developments at the University of Florida into a broader historical context. The response of UF presidents John J. Tigert, J. Hillis Miller, and J. Wayne Reitz to the university’s role in hosting these sojourning students demonstrates the complexities of foreign student programs on American campuses. For all three presidents, international students rhetorically held an important place within the university, yet the administrative decisions, or lack thereof, regarding the international student program at UF sent ambiguous messages concerning the value of these students to the university, state, and nation. To consider the factors that influenced this ambiguous response, the study explores the relationship between UF presidents and the university’s various constituencies, including faculty and staff, and the state legislature and its governing body for higher education, the Board of Control. UF’s mission as a public, land-grant institution to serve primarily the interests of the state often conflicted with the president’s ability to advocate for increased support of international students. At the same time, many faculty and staff members advocated for international students as a means to overcome provincialism and enhance the university’s international reputation. The history of international students at UF also reveals that from 1946 to 1958, the rationales for the importance of foreign students shifted from the goals of peace and mutual exchange towards national foreign policy aims to ensure the spread of American democratic principles. This shift in rationale was consistent with the larger change nationwide, as the federal government became progressively more involved in measures to support the presence of foreign students on American campuses.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2005.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographic references (leaves 85-90).
General Note: Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0011655:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












THROUGH AN OPEN DOOR?
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, 1946-1958
















By

LEIGH ANN BAUER OSBORNE


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005





























Copyright 2005

by

Leigh Ann Bauer Osborne

































This thesis is dedicated to my grandfather, Robert O. Bauer, to my grandmother, Addie
Payne, and in memory of Joyce Bauer and James E. Payne.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my advisor and committee chair, Dr. Sevan Terzian, for his

guidance and encouragement during the writing of this thesis as well as throughout my

graduate studies. I would also like to thank Dr. Richard Renner for serving on my

committee and for his insights on this thesis. The staff of the UF Special Collections

Library, particularly Carl Van Ness and Florence Turcotte, deserve acknowledgment for

their kind assistance as I searched through the University Archives. I am also thankful to

my co-workers at the International Center for their encouraging words.

Special recognition goes to my parents, Bill and Wanda Bauer, for their loving

support, helpful advice, and for always making time to take a trip to Gainesville. I am

forever grateful to my husband, Ryan, for his love and understanding, for always

knowing just what to say to keep me going, and for bringing me a cup of tea when I

needed it most.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

A CK N OW LED GM EN TS ............................ .......................................................... ..... iv


L IST O F FIG U R E S .... ...... ...................... ........................ .. ....... .............. vii


A B STR A C T ............................................................................... .................... viii

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... .................................. ................... 1


2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE ....................... 6

Federal Legislation and the National Scene ...................................... ............... 6
Review of Literature ................ .... ....... ........................... ................. ..... .. .9
Historical Surveys of International Students and International Education .........10
Historical Surveys of American Higher Education............................................ 12
Literature from the Post-W W II Era..................................... .... ............... 16
The Role of the Federal Government and Private Foundations ..........................21
Administration of Foreign Student Programs..........................................24
Conclusions from the Review of Literature .................................................30

3 INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, 1946-
1 9 5 8 .................................................................................3 2

The Beginnings of the University of Florida, 1853-1946 .........................................32
University Expansion on all Fronts, 1946-1948 ............................... ............... 35
Re-Opening the Door to Foreign Students, 1948-1949............................................43
The Foreign Student "Problem," 1949-1950.......................................................... 46
Whither International Education at the University of Florida? 1949-1951 ..............51
Return of the Foreign Student "Problem," 1951-1952 .................... ....... ............58
The Adviser to Foreign Students: Years of Progress, 1952-1955 ............................61
New Definitions for Foreign Students at the University of Florida, 1955-1957 ........68
The Adviser to Foreign Students: Towards the Saturation Point, 1957-1958.............72

4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .................................... ......... ......................76












APPENDIX; INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AT UF AND IN THE U.S., 1946-
1 9 5 8 .............................................................................. 8 3


LIST OF REFEREN CES ............................................................. .................... 85


B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ..................................................................... ..................91
















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

International Students at UF, 1946-1958. ............................................... .....................83

International Students in the U.S., 1946-1958 ......................................................... ......84















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Education

THROUGH AN OPEN DOOR? INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, 1946-1958

By

Leigh Ann Bauer Osborne

August 2005

Chair: Sevan G. Terzian
Major Department: School of Teaching and Learning

Following World War II, the University of Florida (UF), similar to many American

higher education institutions, experienced significant growth in all aspects of the

university. This thesis examines the history of international students at the University of

Florida from 1946 to 1958, when enrollment of these students from abroad increased

dramatically. The study highlights the administrations of three successive UF presidents

and the policies that were formed during this period to accommodate this new influx of

students from abroad. An account of the developments of UF's foreign student program

is provided using archival sources from UF presidential and administrative policy records

as well as personal correspondence between UF presidents, faculty members, and

individuals outside of the university. National sources regarding international students

and American higher education are also examined throughout this study to place the

developments at the University of Florida into a broader historical context.









The response of UF presidents John J. Tigert, J. Hillis Miller, and J. Wayne Reitz

to the university's role in hosting these sojourning students demonstrates the complexities

of foreign student programs on American campuses. For all three presidents, international

students rhetorically held an important place within the university, yet the administrative

decisions, or lack thereof, regarding the international student program at UF sent

ambiguous messages concerning the value of these students to the university, state, and

nation. To consider the factors that influenced this ambiguous response, the study

explores the relationship between UF presidents and the university's various

constituencies, including faculty and staff, and the state legislature and its governing

body for higher education, the Board of Control.

UF's mission as a public, land-grant institution to serve primarily the interests of

the state often conflicted with the president's ability to advocate for increased support of

international students. At the same time, many faculty and staff members advocated for

international students as a means to overcome provincialism and enhance the university's

international reputation. The history of international students at UF also reveals that from

1946 to 1958, the rationales for the importance of foreign students shifted from the goals

of peace and mutual exchange towards national foreign policy aims to ensure the spread

of American democratic principles. This shift in rationale was consistent with the larger

change nationwide, as the federal government became progressively more involved in

measures to support the presence of foreign students on American campuses.















CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

In 1946, University of Florida president John J. Tigert indicated in a letter to a

hopeful French student that foreign students would not be admitted for the upcoming

academic year due to the "overcrowded conditions" caused by the flood of returned

World War II veterans enrolling at the university in record numbers.1 By 1958, the

university's advisor to foreign students, exasperated by the increased workload and lack

of staff, wrote that he was "not willing to go on doing this much longer" unless the

administration made changes to lessen his burden.2 During this period of twelve years

and three university presidents, the University of Florida (UF) grew dramatically into a

nationally prominent research university, with enrollment doubling from 6,334 in 1946 to

12,306 by 1958.3 The number of students from other countries enrolled at UF increased

significantly as well, from just 0.3 percent of the student body, with twenty-four foreign

students in 1946, to two percent, with 250 students, by 1958. Nationally, the number of




1 Tigert to Antoine, 10 August 1946, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series PlOb:
box 9, General Correspondence 1946. The term "foreign students" was used during this time period to
describe students from other countries who came to the United States for a limited period of time to earn a
college or university degree. This term, while still in use, was generally replaced with the more culturally
sensitive term "international students" in the late 1960s. For the purposes of this thesis, both "foreign
students" and "international students" will be used interchangeably.

2 Irving J. Putman, Report of the Adviser to Foreign Students 1957-58, University of Florida Archives,
Office of the President, Series P14a: box 31, Foreign Students & Visitors, 1955-67, 9.

3 University of Florida Office of Institutional Research, "Total enrollment for University of Florida from
1905-2003," http://www.ir.ufl.edu/factbook/enroll.htm (accessed June 2005). It was also during this time
period that UF developed from an all white, male institution to one that was coeducational (1947) and
accepted its first African-American student to the Law School (1958).









international students exploded from 10,341 in 1946 to 47,245 in 1958.4 The issue of

accommodating this new group of students from other countries became one that required

the attention of higher education administrators as never before.

At the end of World War II, the United States faced immense change with regards

to its place in the world as the nation shifted from its brief postwar jubilation towards a

cold war with the Soviet Union. Consequently, the federal government became

increasingly involved in funding research activities on American campuses, which altered

the academic landscape of many colleges and universities. Given this time of dramatic

change throughout the United States and the rapid expansion of its higher education

institutions, this thesis provides a detailed examination of the history of a large, public

land-grant institution, the University of Florida, and its response to this new influx of

students from overseas.

Although the history of international students at the University of Florida began

prior to 1946 and continued well beyond 1958, these twelve years were a pivotal period

of transformation at the University of Florida and at higher education institutions across

the nation. In regards to foreign students, the University of Florida evolved from severe

restrictions on foreign student enrollments in 1946 to admitting more foreign students in

1958 than could be adequately handled. On the national level during the period of this

study, three important federal measures, to be discussed in Chapter 2, affected higher

education programs for foreign students and international education: the Fulbright Act of

1946, the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, and the National Defense Education Act of 1958. In



4 Committee on Friendly Relations Among Foreign Students, The -nattic ialAmbassadors 1946 (New
York: Committee on Friendly Relations, 1946), 14. Institute of International Education, Open Doors 1958
(New York: Institute of International Education, 1958), 20.









addition, there is a dearth of historical works that detail the status of foreign students on

American campuses in general and in the postwar era in particular. Furthermore, foreign

students have not been considered in the existing University of Florida institutional

histories.5

To map the history of international students at UF from 1946 to 1958, this thesis

poses the following questions: How did the University of Florida's administration

address the needs of international students? What were the rationales presented for or

against the presence of foreign students during these times of great change throughout the

university and the nation? To answer these questions, this thesis examines University of

Florida presidential and administrative policy records as well as personal correspondence

between UF presidents and various faculty members and individuals outside of the

university. Preceding the University of Florida case history is an overview of the federal

legislation regarding foreign students and international education in the postwar era. A

review of the literature, both from the period of study and current, is also presented to

frame the larger debates concerning the role of international students in American higher

education and to place the developments at UF into a broader historical context.

This examination of foreign students at the University of Florida from 1946 to 1958

reveals that while UF presidents appeared to value foreign students, they rarely defined


5 For University of Florida histories, see Samuel Proctor, "The University of Florida: Its Early Years, 1853-
1906" (PhD diss., University of Florida, 1958); Richard R. Alexander, "A Smooth Transition: Racial
Integration at the University of Florida, 1954-1958" (Unpublished typescript, University of Florida, 1995);
Neil D. Webb, "Fifty Years of Building the University of Florida, 1925 to 1975" (Gainesville: self-
published, 1997); Kevin McCarthy, F,gila' Gators: A History of University of Florida Football
(Charleston: Arcadia Publishing, 2000). For non-historical studies on international students at the
University of Florida, see Abdallah Naser, "The Relationship Between Academic Achievement and
Demographic and Language Variables for Male Foreign Students at the University of Florida" (master's
thesis, University of Florida, 1964); Nancy Baldwin, "Cultural Adaptations of International Student Wives
at the University of Florida" (PhD diss., University of Florida, 1969); K. Usha Vyasulu, "International









why these students were important to the university, state, and nation. Faced with the

need to balance both the state legislative pressure to serve the interests of the state with

the desire of the administration and faculty to raise the university's national and

international reputation as a prominent research university, this thesis argues that UF

presidents sent ambiguous messages about the value of foreign students. Without a clear

declaration from the university president as to the value of international students, those

involved with foreign students at UF developed multiple interpretations about these

sojourning students and their role within the academic community. While some

characterized foreign students as a growing problem, others suggested that the

university's inability to address the needs of this population was to blame. The

conception of the "foreign student problem" persisted throughout this period and largely

resulted from the lack of coordinated goals for the foreign student program at UF. As

committees to study foreign student problems were formed and re-formed, the fact that

the "problem" of foreign students persisted suggested to some that these issues were

inherent to the presence of these students themselves rather than a result of the

university's administrative ambiguity as to how to best accommodate these sojourning

students.

Although the university presidents did not explicitly define any rationales for the

importance of foreign students at UF, numerous justifications were offered in reports

from committees to study foreign students and those of the foreign student adviser as well

as other interested faculty members. These rationales included: mutual exchange for

peace and goodwill, enhancement of UF's international reputation and avoidance of


Students on the University of Florida Campus: Analysis of Their Strongly Held Attitudes Toward U.S.
Nationals" (master's thesis, University of Florida, 1975).









provincialism, and the importance of foreign students to ensure America's future as a

world leader in the face of communism. In exploring these rationales, this thesis also

reveals how the perception of international students changed as the United States moved

away from the lingering idealism of the immediate postwar era towards the national scare

of the Cold War. For advocates of international education, foreign students were initially

an important means to achieve peace and mutual understanding. By 1958, however, the

education of foreign students became increasingly associated with ensuring America's

national defense and foreign policy goals. The University of Florida's response to this

growing group of students from overseas mirrored the larger shift in the rationale behind

federal support of international education and foreign students. Even when foreign

students were characterized as central to the national interest, however, three successive

UF presidents sent ambiguous messages about the value of international students and

neglected to define their importance to the academic community or the State of Florida.














CHAPTER 2
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Federal Legislation and the National Scene

On the national level during the period of this study (1946-1958), three important

federal legislative measures had enormous influence on universities and their

international education programs: the Fulbright Act of 1946, the Smith-Mundt Act of

1948, and the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958. The distinct rationales

that sparked the creation of these legislative acts exemplified the shift away from

international education for peace and goodwill towards the aims of national defense and

security. These measures also signified a new era of federal involvement with

international programs, which were previously funded in large part by philanthropic

organizations such as the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie Foundations.

The Fulbright Act, named for the creator and sponsor of the bill, Senator J. William

Fulbright (D-Ark.), designated funds from surplus military supplies for the exchange of

students and faculty in the U.S. and abroad. In so doing, the act aimed to foster

international goodwill through educational and cultural exchange as a means to ensure

world peace. Senator Fulbright explained the initial goal of the legislation: "If large

numbers of people know and understand the people from nations other than their own,

they may develop a capacity for empathy, a distaste for killing other men, and an

inclination to peace."1 The motives behind the passage of the Fulbright Act were not


1 Theodore M. Vestal, International Education, Its History and Promise for Today (Westport, CT: Praeger
Press, 1994), 22.









purely altruistic, however. In addition to the rationale of educational exchange for mutual

understanding and world peace, Fulbright foresaw a need to integrate international

education with foreign policy goals: "It was the Senator's purpose to commit the United

States government deeply to international education but, at the same time, in a

sophisticated way to integrate such educational activity into the foreign policy of the

nation."2 As the nation moved closer towards the Cold War, another act of Congress, the

Smith-Mundt Act, provided for increased federal involvement with international

education programs.

In 1948, the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act, commonly

known as the Smith-Mundt Act, expanded upon Fulbright's aim of increasing American

involvement in international educational exchange programs. Rather than focusing on

mutual exchange, however, the law aimed to promote a "better understanding of the

United States among the peoples of the world."3 The act connected educational exchange

with the foreign policy objectives of the U.S. government as never before. It designated

taxpayer dollars, rather than the Fulbright Act's military surplus funds, to increase these

educational exchanges. In addition, the Smith-Mundt Act established an information

service to disseminate the federal government's perspective on foreign affairs. The scope

and financial resources that the Smith-Mundt Act provided allowed the United States to

engage in educational exchange and technical assistance with more nations-including

those with developing economies-that might otherwise be aided by the Soviet Union.

The act's inclusion of funds for technical assistance foreshadowed the later development


2 Walter Johnson and Francis J. Colligan, The Fulbright Program: A History (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1965), 14.

3 H. Alexander Smith, Report to Accompany HR 3342. Senate Reports, 80 Congress, 1, no. 811. 1948.









in 1949 of President Harry S. Truman's "Point Four" programs, which shared American

technological expertise with the developing nations of the world. Although differences

existed between the Fulbright and Smith-Mundt Acts, both were products of the volatile

political climate, as historian Richard Humphrey explained:

Both acts mirrored the psychology of a nation turning, at the height of its power
and prestige, from a commitment to destroy a totalitarian onslaught on free
democracy...to a program of constructive amelioration of what were then
conceived to be the underlying tensions between men and nations.4

These underlying tensions between American democracy and Soviet communism rose

dramatically to the surface with the launch of the Sputnik space satellite on October 4,

1957.

The success of Sputnik, a demonstration of the Soviet Union's scientific might,

triggered the passage of the National Defense Education Act in 1958, which, among other

educational aspects, emphasized scientific research and specialization in areas deemed

central to U.S. foreign policy interests. Under its Title VI, the NDEA funded the creation

of area and foreign language study centers on American campuses. The opening

statement of the NDEA revealed the federal government's commitment to the endeavor:

"The security of the nation" required the "fullest development of the mental resources

and technical skills of its young men and women."5 Historian John Patrick Diggins noted

that the NDEA enjoyed as much success as the 1944 GI Bill, which provided funds for

returned veterans' college educations, but differed from it in that the NDEA "represented




4 Richard Humphrey, "Cultural Communication and New Imperatives," Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, 335 (1961): 144.

5 As quoted in Nancy L. Ruther, Barely There, Powerfully Present: Thirty Years of U.S. Policy on
International Higher Education (New York: Routledge Falmer, 2002), 60.









less a commitment to knowledge and learning than to national defense."6 Although the

NDEA did not extend funding to foreign students, the importance of foreign students

towards the end of the 1950s increasingly became one of achieving the foreign policy

aims of the federal government. As Cora Du Bois explained in her 1956 book Foreign

Students and Higher Education:

The United States government, for example, is necessarily concerned that the
students it sponsors acquire not only a deeper but also a more appreciative
understanding of this country... Although the enabling legislation of the Congress
stresses education rather than propaganda as the instrument for achieving this goal,
the intent is clear. Education is not equated with propaganda, but it is nevertheless
envisaged as an instrument of foreign policy and of national interest.7

Given this new context, the importance and function of foreign students were

increasingly defined as a means to ensure the defeat of communism. At the University of

Florida, the administration's characterization of its foreign students, when addressed at

all, mirrored this national shift in rationale and exemplified the tension between federal

foreign policy aims and altruistic motives of peace and goodwill as rationales for

welcoming students from abroad.

Review of Literature

Although many studies address international students' academic and counseling

issues, historical surveys of international students on American campuses are not

widespread. In addition to a general lack of historical research on the subject, University

of Florida institutional histories have not addressed the foreign student population and




6 John Patrick Diggins, The Proud Decades: America in War and in Peace, 1941-1960 (New York: W.W.
Norton & Co., 1988), 321.

7 Cora Du Bois, Foreign Students and Higher Education in the United States (Washington, D.C.: American
Council on Education, 1956), 12.









their role in the development of the university.8 This review of the literature will consider

the existing historical surveys, literature from the post-WWII era, works on the role of the

federal government and private foundations, and the administration of foreign student

programs. The literature on foreign students in the United States, as the review of

scholarship from the period of this study to the present will demonstrate, often criticized

the lack of comprehensive policies towards the foreign student population and advocated

for a better definition of the role of foreign students in American higher education.

Historical Surveys of International Students and International Education

Emma Schulken provided a much-needed historical framework for tracing the

foreign student presence in America from the Colonial era to the 1970s. Schulken defined

three distinct periods which led to the growth of international students in the U.S.: the

foreign missionary movement of the nineteenth century; the emergence of philanthropic

organizations such as the Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford Foundations after World War

I; and the increased involvement of the U.S. government to fund international education

and foreign student exchange programs from the early 1940s to the 1970s.9 Schulken

concluded that throughout these periods, and particularly after World War II, a "basic

duality" existed between the idealism of exchange for international understanding and

goodwill and the pragmatic goals of ensuring America's future as a world leader.

According to Schulken, this duality led in turn to a certain failure on the part of American

higher education and the federal government:


8 For institutional histories devoted to the subject of international students, see Khosro Tabariasl, "A
History of International Students at Ball State University, 1945-1980" (PhD diss., Ball State, 1987) and
Flora Vansant, "The International Student in the University of North Carolina" (EdD diss., University of
North Carolina Greensboro, 1985).

9 Emma Walker Schulken, "The History of Foreign Students in American Higher Education from its
Colonial Beginnings to the Present" (PhD diss., Florida State University, 1972), xii-xiii.









All too often actions have been motivated not so much by idealistic slogans as by
political realities. The result has been unprecedented growth in numbers of foreign
students in American higher education, often accompanied by inadequate programs
which reflect confusion between the ideal and the pragmatic.10

This confusion between the ideal and the pragmatic persisted as American colleges and

universities developed their own administrative structures to accommodate these students

from abroad.

While Schulken addressed the history of foreign students in particular, others have

written on the history of international education in general. 1 Hans de Wit provided the

"first full-scale analysis of the literature on, debates on, and experience with the

internationalization of higher education." 12 Comparing the American approach to

international education with that of Europe, de Wit contended that the American

combination of parochialism and feelings of superiority had shaped the outlook of

international education endeavors on the nation's campuses.13 Similar to Schulken's

definition of the existence of both idealistic and pragmatic motives, de Wit concluded

that peace and goodwill as well as foreign policy and national security were the driving

rationales behind the expansion of international education in the United States. For de





10 Ibid., 207.

1 Although the definition of "international education" is often debated, Harari's (1972) definition is
commonly cited: "International education is an all-inclusive term encompassing three major strands: (a)
international content of the curricula, (b) international movement of scholars and students concerned with
training and research, and (c) arrangements engaging U.S. education abroad in technical assistance and
educational programs." Maurice Harari, Global Dimensions in U.S. Education: The University (New York:
Center for War/Peace Studies, 1972).

12 Hans de Wit, Internationalization of Higher Education in the United States and Europe: A Historical,
Comparative, and ConceptualAnalysis (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002), xviii. De Wit defined
"internationalization" as "an extension of international education and refers to a more strategic process
approach" (119).

13 Ibid., 217.









Wit, the rationale of advancing U.S. foreign policy interests became the dominant

rationale over that of peace and goodwill.

Josef Mestenhauser described three historical phases of international education in

the United States. 14 Mestenhauser characterized the "euphoria" stage from 1946 to the

Vietnam War. This "euphoria" consisted of increased support from private philanthropies

such as the Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations. The federal government also

increased funding for international education endeavors on American campuses. During

this "euphoric" period, Mestenhauser suggested that the foundations of the international

education field in the U.S. were laid, particularly in regards to foreign students, study

abroad, area studies, and the administration of international programs. The next historical

phase, "darkening clouds," began with the failed International Education Act of 1966

until the early 1980s, when support from private philanthropies was nearly non-existent

and federal funding diminished. Mestenhauser's final stage, "defense through

associations," began in the early 1980s until the late 1990s and consisted of further

financial limitations for international education.15

Historical Surveys of American Higher Education

In addition to historical surveys of international education, it is useful to consider

historical works regarding the development of higher education in the United States.

These works offer insight into the rapid growth of colleges and universities after World


14 Josef Mestenhauser, "Portraits of an International Curriculum," in Reforming the Higher Education
Curriculum: I,,.. i, ,,,i, ,: the Campus, eds. Josef Mestenhauser and Brenda Ellingboe (Phoenix: Oryx
Press, 1998), 10-11.

15 For more on the International Education Act of 1966 and federal funding of international education, see:
Theodore Vestal, International Education: Its History and Promisefor Today (Westport: Praeger, 1994).
For more on the history of federal funding for international education, and the NDEA Title VI in particular,
see Nancy Ruther, Barely There, Powerfully Present: Thirty Years of U.S. Policy on International Higher
Education (New York: Routledge Falmer, 2002).









War II. John R. Thelin provided a thorough yet concise account of the history of

American higher education from its origins in the Colonial era to its condition at the

beginning of the 21st century. In his discussion of the post-WWII era, Thelin reported that

enrollment at American colleges and universities increased by 80 percent between 1940

and 1950, when 2.7 million students attended the nation's higher education institutions.16

The federal government's Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, better known as the

GI Bill, was in large part responsible for this unprecedented enrollment growth. By 1946,

one million returned veterans across the country utilized GI Bill funds to earn their

college degrees. In the same year, the federal government had expended more than $5.5

billion to fund the program.1

While often characterized as a "Golden Age" for American colleges and

universities, Thelin concluded that postwar higher education also experienced significant

challenges as it entered into the uncharted territory of growth and expansion:

Lack of certainty and lack of precedents meant that for the higher-education
participants in the thick of events between 1946 and 1970, change and a new set of
pressures transformed institutions without benefit of a gyroscope or road map."1s

Without any clear direction, the relationship between higher education institutions and

their constituencies in the federal and state governments, as well as the private

foundations, did not always produce harmonious results: "Various groups pursued

multiple public policies and programs without clear coordination-and without any




16 John R. Thelin, A History ofAmerican Higher Education (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
2004), 261.

17 Ibid., 263. Thelin noted that in 2000 dollars, the amount expended would equal $48 billion.

18 Ibid., 260.









assurance that these experiments would become permanent fixtures."19 Thelin concluded

that it was the pursuit of these various agendas that made it difficult for American higher

education institutions to define their purposes to themselves and to their external

constituents.

Historian Christopher J. Lucas also addressed the explosive growth of postwar era

higher education in his work on the history of American higher education from its

beginnings to the early 1990s. Lucas discussed the impact of the federal government's

increased involvement in academia after World War II and into the Cold War. Lucas

noted that in the 1950s, the federal government provided more than $150 million for

contract research at the nation's colleges and universities.20 With the creation of the

National Defense Education Act of 1958, much of this research concentrated on scientific

and engineering programs to develop innovations needed during the Cold War. As a

result of this new partnership between higher education and the federal government,

higher education became essential to "bolstering the nation's defenses and helping to

advance vital national policy objectives."21 Lucas noted that those concerned with the

reliance on federal funding during the postwar era cautioned against the loss of autonomy

and academic freedom that could result from government oversight.22 Lucas concluded

that the debate between the loss of academic freedom and the gain of federal funds was

one that had continued into the later decades of the twentieth century.



19 Ibid., 262.
20 Christopher J. Lucas, American Higher Education: A History (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994), 233.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid., 234.









Furthering the discussion of the federal government's connection to higher

education, Roger L. Geiger provided a rich history of the rise of American research

universities after World War II. Geiger detailed the development of these institutions as

they became increasingly involved with research activities by focusing efforts on

graduate programs and on contributing to the nation's quest for scientific dominance over

the Soviet Union. In turn, Geiger concluded that research universities were conflicted

between their previous function to foster the general intellectual growth of their

undergraduates while also expanding the scope and strength of their research endeavors,

mostly at the graduate level. Geiger characterized the history of the research university as

one of continuous evolution to serve a multitude of purposes and constituents:

As universities were impelled forward, undertaking more and more varied tasks,
they faced a continuous challenge both to sustain the vigor and integrity of
academic culture and to maintain a semblance of balance among their manifold
roles.23

The balance between these various roles was often difficult for the research institutions to

maintain, as Geiger's work revealed.

Common to Thelin, Lucas, and Geiger's historical surveys is the notion that postwar

higher education experienced immense growth that challenged previous conceptions of

the function and importance of these institutions to American society. It is important to

note, however, that the subject of foreign students and their role in American higher

education after World War II is absent from these comprehensive histories.24 This lack of


23 Roger L. Geiger, Research and Relevant Knowledge: American Research Universities Since World War
II (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 332.

24 Thelin gave brief mention to international students in the context of higher education after World War I.
Thelin described the impact of foreign students on undergraduate education at the time as "minimal, or at
best uneven." Neither Thelin, Lucas nor Geiger discussed the role of international students after World War
II. Thelin, A History ofAmerican Higher Education, 225.









inclusion is perhaps explained by the fact that foreign students comprised a small

percentage of total student enrollments during this period. Nevertheless, this omission

demonstrates a need for further consideration of the role of foreign students in the

development of American higher education during an era of its most dramatic

transformation.

Literature from the Post-WWII Era

Since comprehensive histories of international students in American higher

education are scarce, it is particularly useful to review the commentary and scholarship

from the period of this study (published between 1946 and 1958 or shortly thereafter).

These "near primary" sources reveal the rationales of foreign student advocates as well as

the status of these students nationwide. Mestenhauser pointed out that these sources are

often neglected in the contemporary literature on international education.2 Many of the

private foundations that funded international education programs, such as the Institute of

International Education, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Ford

Foundation, and the American Council on Education, also published works during the

post-WWII era that discussed the myriad issues of international endeavors on American

campuses.

For data on foreign students, two foreign student surveys provide useful

information on the numbers, geographic distribution, countries of origin, and funding

support for these students from overseas on American campuses. The Committee on

Friendly Relations among Foreign Students (CFRFS) compiled the first nationwide

survey of international students, The UnofficialAmbassadors, which it published from


25 Mestenhauser, Reforming the Higher Education Curriculum, 11.









1928 to 1953. The Institute of International Education's survey, Educationfor One

World, was published from 1948 to 1954, when it was renamed Open Doors. This report

remains the definitive source for data on international students in the U.S. as well as for

numbers of domestic students studying abroad.26

Cora Du Bois' 1956 book is particularly informative, as it exclusively discussed the

subject of foreign students. Du Bois' study, published and funded by the American

Council on Education, covered many aspects of the foreign student experience, including

cultural adjustment and academic issues, as well as institutional and governmental

policies towards foreign students. Du Bois called attention to the need for university

administrators to develop a clearly stated, campus-wide policy towards foreign students.

According to Du Bois, this policy must be specific to the individual college or university

but also must be based upon a "broad knowledge of foreign student programs and of

foreign students as socially and psychologically determined individuals who have varying

needs."27 Du Bois insisted that continuous assessment and research must take place to

ensure that American higher education fulfilled its promise of a quality education to

foreign students.28

Addressing the university as a whole and its relation to world affairs, Howard

Wilson's Universities and World Affairs suggested that universities must assess their own




26 Committee on Friendly Relations Among Foreign Students, The UnofficialAmbassadors (New York:
Committee on Friendly Relations, 1928-1953). Institute of International Education, Education for One
World (New York: Institute of International Education, 1948-1954). Institute of International Education,
Open Doors (New York: Institute of International Education, 1954-present).
27 Du Bois, Foreign Students and Higher Education in the United States, 196.

28 Ibid., 197.









international endeavors and develop "self-appraisals" for doing so.29 Published by the

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Wilson's work included foreign students as

part of the university's larger involvement with international endeavors. Wilson also

discussed the new foreign policy objectives for international education on American

campuses:

There is evidence abundant that the "arts and sciences" are now consciously
employed in national foreign policy and in international action. This fact no
university custodian of the arts and sciences can afford to ignore. Whether one is
encouraged or alarmed at this new form of partnership between learning and
politics, the partnership is now an historical fact.30

If the partnership between government and universities in regards to international affairs

was an historical fact in 1951, it continued to be so in the decades that followed. In the

1960s, several books addressed similar issues as Wilson, including The University and

World Affairs, Edward Weidner's The World Role of Universities, and Wilson's later

work, American Higher Education and WorldAffairs.31 Many of the suggestions in these

early works are reflected in contemporary calls to "internationalize" the American

university for the twenty-first century.

In addition to publications from private foundations, numerous journal articles

focused on foreign student issues during this period. Many of these articles studied

foreign student adjustment issues and their attitudes towards Americans and American




29 Howard E. Wilson, Universities and WorldAffairs (New York: Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, 1951).

30 Ibid., 4.

31 The Committee on the University and World Affairs, The University and World Affairs (New York: The
Ford Foundation, 1960); Edward Weidner, The WorldRole of Universities (New York: McGraw-Hill,
1962); Howard E. Wilson and Florence H. Wilson, American Higher Education and World- 111, .
(Washington D.C.: American Council on Education, 1963).










ways of life.32 James Peterson and Martin Neumeyer surveyed a group of international

students from various countries and determined that the most common problems

experienced were academic and financial.33 Peterson and Neumeyer suggested that

universities and colleges needed to provide more counseling services, improve

orientations, increase financial aid, and provide housing and meeting centers for foreign

students.34 Reisha Forstat expanded upon Peterson and Neumeyer's study and concluded

that foreign student adjustment was not necessarily made easier if the student remained in

the host country for a longer period of time.35 Therefore, according to Forstat, "a program

planned specifically to help these students must be designed to integrate them more fully

into the social life of the university and the community."36 Norman Keill reported the

results of a survey of Indian students on U.S. campuses.37 Keill's study revealed that after

their sojourn in the U.S., these students held less than favorable attitudes about America

and its democratic principles. His findings contradicted the assumption that hosting and

educating international students, under programs such as those of the Fulbright and

Smith-Mundt Acts, would automatically lead to an appreciation for American democratic


32 For additional journal articles concerning foreign student attitudes, see: A.T. Bruegger and B.H.
Atkinson, "Cherchez Les Differences," Journal of Higher Education 27, no. 6 (1956): 297-300; Panos D.
Bardis, "Attitudes toward Dating among Foreign Students in America," Marriage and Family Living 18,
no. 4 (1956): 339-344; Lionel Olsen and William Kunhart, "Foreign Student Reactions to American
College Life," Journal of Educational Sociology 31, no. 7 (1958): 277-280.

33 James A. Peterson and Martin H. Neumeyer, "Problems of Foreign Students," Journal of Sociology and
Social Research 32, no. 4 (1948): 787-792.

34 Ibid., 792.

35 Reisha Forstat, "Adjustment Problems of International Students," Journal of Sociology and Social
Research 36, no. 1 (1951): 25-30.

36 Ibid., 29.

37 Norman Keill, "Attitudes of Foreign Students," Journal of Higher Education 22, no. 4 (1951): 188-194,
225.









values. Keill's suggestions for remedying the situation of foreign students on American

campuses echoed those of Peterson and Neumeyer, and Forstat in that he called for more

formal programs and structure within the university administration. M. Brewster Smith,

however, criticized Keill's findings and asserted that Keill did not account for the

students' appraisal of their sojourn upon return to their home countries.38 For Smith, this

might have resulted in less hostility towards American values and democracy.

The discussion about foreign student adjustment in relation to their attitudes

towards Americans continued throughout the late 1950s. The Journal of Social Issues

devoted an entire volume to "Attitudes and Adjustment in Cross-Cultural Contact" of

foreign students. Richard Morris' article concluded that international students who felt

that Americans assigned a low status to their nationality in turn held unfavorable opinions

of Americans.39 Claire Sellitz, Anna Lee Hopson, and Stuart Cook studied the amount of

social interaction that foreign students had with Americans at various types of higher

education settings (small colleges in small towns, large universities in large cities, and

large universities in small towns).40 The authors also examined other factors that might

affect potential social interaction, including nationality and living arrangements. The

study concluded that nationality and interaction potential seemed to be related, as

Europeans were more likely to be in situations with more interaction potential than non-

Europeans.


38 M. Brewster Smith, "Some Features of Foreign-Student Adjustment," Journal of Higher Education 26,
no. 5 (1955): 231-241.

39 Richard Morris, "National Status and Attitudes of Foreign Students," Journal of Social Issues 12, no. 1
(1956): 20-25.

40 Claire Sellitz, Anna Lee Hopson and Stuart Cook, "The Effects of Situational Factors on Personal
Interaction between Foreign Students and Americans," Journal of Social Issues 12, no. 1 (1956): 33-44.









The Role of the Federal Government and Private Foundations

As the number of international students on American campuses continued to

increase after World War II, the federal government became progressively more involved

in matters relating to foreign student programs. Hans de Wit noted that in the postwar era,

the coordination of international education and exchange efforts in the U.S. shifted from

the "incidental and individual into organized activities, projects, and programs, based

mainly on political rationales and driven more by national governments than by higher

education itself."41 The passage of the Fulbright and Smith Mundt Acts, in 1946 and 1948

respectively, represented a new beginning for federal involvement in international

education. Liping Bu provided an in-depth exploration of how this era of federal

involvement changed the outlook on foreign student programs. Bu concluded that once

foreign students were defined as central to the nation's foreign policy objectives to

combat communism, as the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 firmly established, the rationale

behind educational exchange shifted away from mutual understanding and goodwill

towards a one-sided indoctrination of the American perspective:

The strategy of international educational exchange thus began to shift to a unilateral
approach to exporting American culture and American know-how, although
"mutual understanding" remained the watchword. With the advent of the Cold War,
the word "exchange" actually meant the export of American values, the projection
of the great success of the American system, and the influence on the thinking of
foreign trainees and students.42

As a result of this new role of the federal government, private philanthropies, such as the

Ford, Carnegie, and the Rockefeller foundations, suddenly found themselves with a



41 De Wit, Internationalization of Higher Education, 13.

42 Liping Bu, Making the World Like Us: Education, Cultural Expansion, and the American Century
(Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003), 156.









partner in the endeavor to host international students in the United States. Bu noted that

leaders of the private foundations, as well as foreign student advocates, were wary of

government involvement in a field that was previously detached from overt foreign

policy aims, other than the goals of world peace and mutual understanding.43

While the relationship between the philanthropic organizations and the federal

government strengthened after World War II, the foundations developed motives of their

own for supporting international exchange programs. As Bu described, this was

particularly the case with the largest of the philanthropies, the Ford Foundation:

Most officials at the Ford Foundation believed that the involvement would not only
strengthen U.S. government programs, but also enhance the influence of the
foundation's financial power.44

Regardless of their motives, the Ford Foundation's financial support significantly

contributed to the development such organizations as the Institute of International

Education, the National Association of Foreign Student Advisers, and the Committee on

Friendly Relations among Foreign Students.

Although the federal government encouraged the expansion of international

exchange through the Fulbright and Smith-Mundt Acts, Bu noted that the government did

not provide consistent funds to administer these programs. As a result, the funding

burden often fell to the private foundations and the higher education institutions

themselves to make up the difference.45 The Ford Foundation, for example, provided





43 Ibid., 157-159.

44 Ibid.

45 Ibid., 167-169.









nearly $2 million to the Institute of International Education from 1951 to 1956.46 During

the same time period, as former Assistant Secretary of State Philip Coombs noted, the

amount of federal appropriations for educational exchange programs declined from $16

million in 1951 to less than $10 million by 1955. Furthermore, these funding shortfalls

occurred at a time when the number of countries participating in exchange programs with

the U.S. rose from 62 in 1951 to 97 by 1959.47 After the 1958 passage of the National

Education Defense Act in response to the Soviet's launching of Sputnik, however, federal

dollars for education exchange returned to previous funding levels.

Coombs notably concluded that for the nation to succeed in the Cold War, the area

of educational and cultural exchange must be considered a "fourth dimension" of U.S.

foreign policy alongside economic, military, and political goals. Similar to Coombs'

conclusion, Charles Frankel, who also served as Assistant Secretary of State, wrote in

1965 that while the federal government's efforts for educational and cultural exchange

were among the most successful of the nation's diplomatic efforts, this remained a

"neglected aspect" of foreign policy. Frankel called for better coordination among

government programs as well as an increased awareness of the importance of educational

and cultural exchange among the American public.48





46 Ibid., 197. The Institute of International Education became the central organization charged with the
selection and distribution of Fulbright grants as well as other exchange programs authorized by the Smith-
Mundt Act.

47 Philip Coombs, The Fourth Dimension on Foreign Policy: Educational and Cultural Affairs (New York:
Harper & Row, 1964), 36. Coombs, a former program director at the Ford Foundation, was the first
Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs from 1961 to 1962.

48 Charles Frankel, The Neglected Aspect of Foreign I .... (Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution,
1965).









Throughout this period of increased federal involvement in foreign student

exchange programs, a new relationship between the federal government and the private

foundations developed. This relationship left alone the decentralized higher education

institutions to develop their own foreign student programs to best suit their particular

needs. As a result, the efforts to coordinate foreign student programs during the postwar

era were as varied in effort and success as the American higher education system itself.

Administration of Foreign Student Programs

Several works focusing on international students offer insight into the relevant

issues surrounding the administration of foreign student programs. Edward Cieslak

defined two reasons why policies towards foreign students were so divergent on

American campuses: first, the institutional autonomy of higher education and second, the

lack of knowledge on the part of administrators regarding the guidance of foreign student

programs.49 Cieslak reported that despite the growth in the number of designated foreign

student advisers on American campuses (which increased from 400 in 1948 to more than

1,000 by 1952), these individuals lacked the authority to make effective administrative

decisions about the students they served.50 Cieslak recommended that university and

government officials clarify the objectives of hosting international students. In addition,

university officials needed to conduct a "realistic appraisal" of the effect of American

education upon students from other countries.5




49 Edward Cieslak, The Foreign Student in American Colleges: A Survey and Evaluation ofAdministrative
Problems and Practices (Detroit: Wayne University Press, 1955), 25.
50 Ibid., 94.

51 Ibid., 155.









Following Cieslak's lead in suggesting the importance of appraising institutional

services to foreign students, Homer Higbee surveyed foreign student advisers in a study

funded by the National Association of Foreign Student Advisers (NAFSA).52 Higbee's

survey found that most foreign student advisers were generally happy with the status of

their foreign student program. However, the survey also revealed the indifference of

many university presidents towards their foreign student program and foreign student

advisors: "Most [presidents] said they rarely became involved with a specific foreign

student problem. Very few had given major attention to the role of the Foreign Student

Adviser, or to the role of the foreign student himself, from an educational point of

view."53 Higbee concluded that top administrators needed to recognize the importance of

international students to the overall mission of the university.

Under the direction of international education scholar Maurice Harari, a report from

the Education and World Affairs Study Committee in 1964 discussed foreign student

admission procedures and suggested ways to improve foreign student programs on

American campuses. Echoing Cieslak, Higbee, Du Bois and others' assertions that each

institution must develop a clearly stated purpose for international students, Harari

declared:

At present this clarity is rarely found. Policymakers within the same institution
often differ sharply over the role of their institution in relation to foreign students.
Few boards of trustees give consideration to this topic. It is not surprising then that





52 The organization's name has since changed to the "Association of International Educators" but continues
to use the NAFSA acronym. For more on NAFSA, see www.nafsa.org, accessed June 2005.

53 Homer Higbee, The Status of Foreign Student Advising in United States Universities and Colleges (East
Lansing: Michigan State University, 1961), 41.









foreign student policies followed by American colleges and universities are
ambiguous and conflicting.54

This ambiguity and lack of a cohesive policy towards foreign students continued to draw

criticism from international education scholars in the following decades. Irwin Sanders

and Jennifer Ward concluded in 1970 that despite the progress of foreign student

programs over the years, there was still much room for improvement.55 While many

higher education institutions in the U.S. had created the organizational structure to handle

the influx of international students, they had not yet "faced up to the more fundamental

aspects of the role and purpose of foreign students."56 Sanders and Ward called upon U.S.

higher education to provide "better internal coordination, creation of a dialogue between

the various departments and schools, a more internationally oriented curriculum, and

greater concern with the relevance of the curriculum to future employment

possibilities."57 For Sanders and Ward, the success of foreign students needed to be as

central to the institution as any other mission to ensure that the larger campus community

recognized the importance of these students from abroad.

Clark Kerr, former Chancellor of the University of California at Berkley, stated that

foreign students on U.S. campuses were often an overlooked resource for expanding the

international perspectives of American students.58 In addition, Kerr stated that


54 Maurice Harari, The Foreign Student: Whom Shall We Welcome? (New York: Education and World
Affairs, 1964), 4.

55 Irwin Sanders and Jennifer Ward, Bridges to Understanding: International Programs ofAmerican
Colleges and Universities (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970), 144-155.

56 Ibid., 155.

57 Ibid., 155.

58 Clark Kerr, "Global Education Concerns of Higher Education for the 1980s and Beyond," in Expanding
the International Dimension of Higher Education, ed. Barbara Burn (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980),
xxiii.









universities and colleges must take great care to admit only those foreign students whose

academic goals could be met at their chosen institution. He called upon American higher

education to provide adequate support services to ensure the success of foreign students.

Kerr further concluded that higher education's response to its role in international affairs

in general had been severely inadequate:

The nation is more and more involved in world political and economic leadership.
Yet higher education has been in retreat in its attention to the international
dimensions of the world for the past two decades. This trend needs to be reversed.
The nation and world are moving in exactly opposite directions from higher
education. Higher education has not been leading. It has not been following. It has
been going the wrong way.59

If higher education had been going the wrong way, as Kerr asserted in 1980, other

scholars of later works were similarly critical of higher education's direction in

addressing the needs of international students.

Humphrey Tonkin and Jane Edwards suggested that although the United States led

the world in foreign student enrollments, the presence of these students from overseas

had not been significantly recognized at the institutional level. Tonkin and Edwards

described this ambivalence as a major paradox in American higher education.60 Barbara

Burn also discussed the lack of attention that institutional policymakers have given to

foreign students:

I am deeply concerned that international exchanges of students and college and
university policies towards foreign students have such an apparently low priority in
central decision-making.... Too often these visitors are regarded as an aggravation





59 Ibid., xxxviv.
60 Humphrey Tonkin and Jane Edwards, The World in the Curriculum: Curricular Strategies for the 21st
Century (New Rochelle: Change Magazine Press, 1981), 29.









rather than as a resource for international learning and reinforcing the
internationality of our institutions.61

As president of the influential association NAFSA, Bum vowed that the organization

would push American higher education to increase its efforts and strategies in regards to

the foreign student population.

Similar to Burn's assessment, Liping Bu concluded that international students were

not properly utilized as a resource in American higher education due to the "half-hearted"

attitude of university administrators. Further, this indifference resulted in the

"disconnection between the institution's educational mission and the objectives of foreign

student programs."62 For Bu, university administrators failed to recognize the foreign

policy implications of hosting students from overseas due in large part to the university's

focus on the "domestically oriented" university curriculum.63

Perhaps most critical of American higher education's response to international

students were professors Craufurd Goodwin (Duke University) and Michael Nacht

(Harvard University). In Absence ofDecision, Goodwin and Nacht condemned what they

viewed as "lip service" from top administrators on American campuses who often stated

their commitment to international endeavors and foreign students, yet took little action.64

Goodwin and Nacht studied the administration of foreign student programs in three

states: Florida, California, and Ohio. These states were selected because all three were



61 Barbara Bum, "Higher Education is International," in Dimensions of International Higher Education, ed.
William Allaway and Hallam Shorrock (Boulder: Westview Press, 1985), 23.
62 Bu, Making the World Like Us, 215.

63 Ibid.

64 Craufurd D. Goodwin and Michael Nacht, Absence ofDecision: Foreign Students in American Colleges
(New York: Institute of International Education, 1983).









considered to be "in front of the wave" and therefore representative of the direction that

other states were headed in the future. At the University of Florida, Goodwin and Nacht

interviewed eleven individuals including the Registrar, Dean of the Graduate School and

the Assistant to the President for International Studies and Programs. Similar to Cieslak

and Higbee's findings, the study concluded that administrators assigned a low priority to

foreign student issues. Furthermore, they found that the foreign student adviser did not

have an influential role in decision-making. Goodwin and Nacht also discussed the

dynamics between public institutions and state legislatures. State legislatures often posed

significant challenges to expanding foreign student programs as they were "likely to think

of higher education as a relatively simple and homogenous service to be provided to their

constituents, like health care or good roads." 65 Without a clear definition of the purpose

of foreign students from university presidents, "provision of this service to foreigners

seemed simply wrong and necessarily at the expense of domestic consumers."66 Goodwin

and Nacht found that administrators at public institutions were largely unsuccessful in

explaining to its state legislatures and boards of trustees why foreign students were

important for the benefit of the state, mainly because they had not defined their

importance to their own institutions. To remedy this lack of well-defined purposes for

hosting foreign students, the authors recommended that every college and university

conduct a self-study to appraise their foreign student program.


65 Ibid., 26.

66 Ibid.









Conclusions from the Review of Literature

While many of the works cited in this review of the literature criticized American

higher education's response to the influx of foreign students, it is important to note that a

number of those most critical were written during the "darkening clouds" phase of the

late 1960s through the 1980s, as Mestenhauser characterized. In light of this somewhat

grim assessment of the university's relative inability to accommodate foreign students,

however, the review of the literature demonstrates that certain issues persist regarding

foreign students in American higher education. Key among these issues was the call for

universities and colleges to state clearly their goals and purposes for enrolling students

from other countries. Another recurring issue was the need to define international

students as a central component to the overall success of the university, not only to those

outside of the university but also to the institutions themselves. A third key issue was the

call to recognize the importance of international students to the future benefit of the

United States, whether for peace and goodwill or to ensure the spread of American

democracy.

At the University of Florida, administrators struggled with many of the key issues

discussed in the national literature on foreign students. The persistence of these issues

over several decades raises larger questions about the nature of American higher

education institutions and their ability to respond to the needs of international students.

Therefore, the study of this large, public research university and the development of its

foreign student program during its most formative years seeks to contribute to a better

understanding of the complexities of hosting foreign students on American campuses. In

addition, this research fills a void in the literature of institutional histories devoted to the






31


subject of international students and their role in the development of American higher

education.














CHAPTER 3
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, 1946-1958

The Beginnings of the University of Florida, 1853-1946

In 1853, the creation of the East Florida Seminary in Ocala laid the foundation for

what later became the University of Florida in Gainesville. With the passage of the

Morrill Act in 1862, U.S. President Lincoln authorized the donation of land to state

governments to establish higher education institutions. The original mission of these new

institutions, as the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges

(NASULGC) describes, was to "teach agriculture, military tactics, and the mechanic arts

as well as classical studies so that members of the working classes could obtain a liberal,

practical education."1 In 1884, Florida's first land-grant institution, the Florida

Agricultural College, opened in Lake City, which was chosen for the site only after

Gainesville failed to provide its promised share of funding.2

As the state of Florida grew and the demand for post-secondary education

increased, the state legislature recognized the need for greater coordination amongst its

higher education institutions. To avoid duplication of efforts and wasteful spending of

state resources, the Buckman Act of 1905 abolished all seven state-funded higher

education institutions in favor of consolidating these into three schools designated for

specific purposes. The University of Florida, which was to be relocated from Lake City to


1 National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, "The Land-Grant Tradition,"
himp \ "\ %\ .nasulgc.org/publications/LandGrant/land.htm (accessed June 2005).
2 University of Florida, "UF's Beginnings" http://www.ufl.edu/history/1853.html (accessed June 2005).









Gainesville, would educate the state's white males, while Tallahassee's Florida State

College for Women was designated for white females and the Florida Agricultural and

Mechanical College for Negroes in Tallahassee would serve African-Americans. The

Buckman Act also created the governing body for the state's higher education

institutions, the Board of Control, to which the governor was authorized to appoint five

members.3

The University of Florida opened its doors in Gainesville on September 24, 1906

with a total enrollment of 102 students. Under the leadership of President Albert

Murphree, the university continued the land-grant institutional mission to serve the

interests of the state. By 1909, UF offered instruction in the areas of Agriculture,

Education, Engineering, Law, and the Liberal Arts and Sciences.4 The University of

Florida's beginnings at the turn of the nineteenth century set the stage for its later

development into one of the largest public research institutions in the United States.

The University of Florida welcomed its first international students in 1887, when

two Russian students enrolled at the predecessor institution in Lake City.5 Due to the

state's proximity to the Caribbean and Latin America, as well as its growing agricultural

industry, the University of Florida's first international efforts focused on the Caribbean

and Latin American regions. In 1890, the university's first Latin American student,





3 Alfred Adams, "A History of Public Higher Education in Florida: 1821-1961" (EdD diss., Florida State
University, 1962).

4 Ibid.

5 Abdallah Omar Naser, "The Relationship Between Academic Achievement and Demographic and
Language Variables for Male Foreign Students at the University of Florida" (master's thesis, University of
Florida, 1964), 6.









Tomas Angel of Havana, enrolled at the agricultural college in Lake City.6 Once

established in Gainesville, the University of Florida continued to host students from

overseas, with the majority arriving from Cuba. The number of international students,

however, did not grow significantly during the first three decades of the university's

existence. Between 1900 and 1928, no more than twelve international students were

enrolled each semester at UF.7 The UF Institute of Inter-American Affairs, established in

1930, began a new era of growth for the university's involvement with Latin America.

The creation of the Institute preceded U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 1933

Good Neighbor Policy, which aimed to foster goodwill between the two Americas as well

as to strengthen their economic and agricultural relationships.8

During the 1930s and 1940s, the University of Florida enjoyed modest growth in

total enrollment as the student body increased from just over 2,000 in 1930 to more than

3,000 by 1940. The onset of World War II, however, resulted in a significant loss of

enrollment; less than 600 students attended UF in 1943. The number of international

students attending UF during the war years also stalled, with only ten enrolled in 1942.9

As the war ended and the federal government announced the GI Bill, the University of







6 University of Florida Graduate School, Proposal to the United States Department ofState for an Inter-
American Cultural and Scientific Center (Gainesville: University of Florida, 1961), 8.

Ibid.

8 For more on FDR's Good Neighbor Policy, see Irwin F. Gellman, Good Neighbor Diplomacy: United
States Policy in Latin America, 1933-1945 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979).

9 Committee on Friendly Relations Among Foreign Students, The -mnlitic ialAmbassadors 1942 (New
York: Committee on Friendly Relations Among Foreign Students), 16.









Florida braced itself for its largest student body in its history, with 6,334 enrolled for the

fall of 1946.10

University Expansion on all Fronts, 1946-1948

After World War II, the population of Florida rapidly expanded at three times the

national growth rate." This population boom, strengthened by the return of World War II

veterans and an increase in high school graduates, placed significant strains on the

resources of the state's higher education institutions. While Florida's higher education

officials welcomed the postwar enrollment increase, they greatly underestimated the

financial impact of the GI Bill, which Congress passed in 1944. To meet these rapid

enrollment demands, the state's universities needed urgent funding. The state governing

body for Florida public higher education, the Board of Control, recognized the pressing

need to expand higher education facilities and authorized $1.3 million in new

construction funds at the University of Florida.12 This authorization marked an enormous

increase in funding, as the state had provided only $350,000 for all construction on the

UF campus during the previous fifteen years.13

By 1946, enrollment at the University of Florida reached 6,334, a figure more than

double that of any other year in the institution's history. While the university's

enrollment was at an all-time high, its physical plant and faculty members were sufficient



10 University of Florida Office of Institutional Research, "Total enrollment for University of Florida from
1905-2003," http://www.ir.ufl.edu/factbook/enroll.htm (accessed June 2005).

1 Richard L. Forstall, "Florida Population of Counties by Decennial Census, 1900 to 1990," U.S. Bureau of
the Census, http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/fll9 19009 t\t (accessed June 2005).

12 Adams, "A History of Public Higher Education in Florida: 1821-1961," 213.

13 George Osborn, John James Tigert: American Educator (Gainesville: University Presses of Florida,
1974), 454.










to accommodate only 3,500 students. Given this time of enormous strain on state

resources to keep pace with the unprecedented expansion of the university, the Board of

Control announced on May 10, 1946 that foreign students, as well as out-of-state

students, were not to be admitted until the needs of returning veterans could be met.14

The University of Florida was not the only institution to limit enrollments to in-state

residents. The United States Office of Education's journal Higher Education, reported

that such limitations were found in "practically all publicly supported intuitions.""15 The

article concluded that the enrollment restrictions were a "major departure in educational

policy for the land-grant colleges" and cautioned that state legislatures in these states

would "undoubtedly look with disfavor on any and all proposals to return to an open door

policy."16

The Board of Control's closing of this "open door" at the exclusion of foreign

students came during the final two years of John J. Tigert's nineteen-year presidency at

the University of Florida and was likely somewhat of a disappointment to Tigert. A

Rhodes scholar and former U.S. Commissioner of Education, Tigert firmly believed that

education must work towards the goals of international understanding and peace.17

Looking ahead to the end of World War II, Tigert had predicted:



14 Tigert to Hume, 14 May 1946, University of Florida Archives, Office of the Dean, Graduate School,
Series 46a: box 5, Foreign Students 1946-52.

15 Henry Schmitz, "Implications of Geographic Restrictions on Enrollments in State Colleges and
Universities," Higher Education 3, no. 14 (1947): 2.

16 Ibid., 2-3.

17 Tigert was the first student from his native state of Tennessee to be selected for the prestigious Rhodes
Scholarship, which provided for two years of study at Oxford University in England. University of Florida
Office of the President, "John J. Tigert," http://www.president.ufl.edu/pastPres/tigert.htm (accessed June
2005).









After this war, there are going to be new worldwide interests. Education is going to
have to expand in order to give us an understanding of the other civilizations of the
world, their geography and our relation with them...Not until we can learn to
understand and love each other (the peoples of the world) thoroughly through
education-and I don't mean education in schools alone-can we bring about a
permanent peace.18

Tigert's sentiments were consistent with the idealism of the time and reflected those of

Senator J. William Fulbright, who described the importance of the Fulbright Act in terms

of achieving international goodwill and world peace.19 These goals for peace and

understanding would inform President Tigert's work with foreign students in general, and

with those from Latin America in particular.

In addition to the hope of worldwide understanding and peace, Tigert envisioned

the academic and economic benefits of a relationship between Latin America and Florida.

With the creation of the Institute of Inter-American Affairs (IIAA) in 1930, Tigert had

successfully strengthened the university's ties with Latin America and its connection to

international education endeavors. During the 1930s and 1940s, the IIAA continued its

growth and gained international recognition. In 1941, the IIAA was awarded the

prestigious FIDAC Medal, given on behalf of veterans of World War I allies to

institutions making the greatest contributions to Latin America. The university was

selected for the honor alongside the University of California and Columbia University. In

the Birmingham Age-Herald, Tigert was commended for his foresight: "He knows that






18 Edith Pitts, "Reminiscences of Three University Presidents," University of Florida Archives, Manuscript
Collection 50, Edith Pitts Papers (no date), 200. Ms. Pitts served as executive secretary to UF presidents
Tigert, Miller and Reitz.

19 Theodore M. Vestal, International Education, Its History and Promise for Today (Westport, CT: Praeger,
1994), 22.









while the South may be only the shank end of a continent on a map of North America, it

is the heart of a whole hemisphere on a map of the Americas together."20

Tigert was clearly committed to the idea of international education and believed

that American higher education institutions must share their wealth of knowledge with

other countries for a benevolent purpose. Tigert articulated his belief in the merits of

American education to assist developing nations in a 1943 letter to the director of the

National School of Engineers in Lima, Peru:

I am convinced that the greatest contribution that our nation can make toward a
permanent world peace is by sharing our scientific knowledge and ideas with those
of other lands, thereby assisting them in a larger development of their own
resources and-enabling them to bring about a greater measure of prosperity within
their own borders....21

Tigert's comments foreshadowed the later national developments of U.S. President Harry

S. Truman's "Point Four" programs, which funded such technical assistance to

developing countries. Despite Tigert's stated commitment to the importance of

international education, however, he remained ambiguous in defining the importance of

foreign students at the University of Florida.

One explanation for Tigert's ambiguity resulted from the need for funding from the

Board of Control and their lack of support for foreign student endeavors. Board of

Control member T.T. Scott strongly disapproved of Tigert's requests for funding the

IIAA and its student scholarships. In response to Tigert's presentation of the university

budget in 1945, Scott interrupted, shouting:



20 John Graves, "This Morning," Birmingham Age-Herald, October 14, 1941. Available in University of
Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P7c: box 14, Genre Files 1928-1947.
21 Tigert to Laroza, 19 November 1943, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P7a:
box 18, Center for Latin American Studies.









Ask him about his give away program! Here is a list of scholarships he has just
recommended, after I have warned him time and again that he must stop spending
state money for this purpose, and he still insists on bringing all of these 'dagoes' to
the university. He wouldn't do as much for a lot of good Georgia boys.22

This pointed criticism underscored at least one outspoken board member's feelings about

supporting foreign students and providing them with financial incentives to attend

Florida's higher education institutions. Scott's outburst also demonstrated a resistance

within Florida, still very much a conservative Southern state, against the presence of

foreign students and the resentment towards requests of state monies to fund "give

aways" to foreigners. The issue of Latin American student scholarships was also included

in a legislative committee investigation of "wasteful expenditures" that were "beyond

reason," as Scott charged.23 The tensions between the UF president and the Board of

Control exemplified what Craufurd Goodwin and Michael Nacht have described as the

resistance that public institutions faced when requesting funding for foreign student

programs from their governing boards and state legislatures.24 With the decision in 1946

to restrict foreign student enrollment along with out-of-state students, it was clear that

Florida's Board of Control members were unconvinced of the importance of educating

foreign students as a means to creating world peace, particularly if that meant at the

exclusion of Floridian, or even other Southern, students.25


22 Edith Pitts, "Reminiscences of Three University Presidents" as quoted in Osborn, John James Tigert,
266. The Board member's name is not mentioned in Osborn but is discussed in more detail in Pitts'
manuscript.

23 Ibid., 155.

24 Craufurd D. Goodwin and Michael Nacht, Absence of Decision (New York: IIE, 1983), 27.

25 Hank Drane, columnist for the Jacksonville newspaper The Florida Times Union, characterized the
conservative political outlook that persisted in Florida after World War II: "At the time, Florida was
experiencing rapid growth but it was still essentially a rural state in its character and philosophical leanings.
Although a big percentage of the growth was being registered in the southern part of that state, that area
was fragmented politically. The political clout was far greater in North Florida with its conservative









Although Tigert believed in furthering international endeavors at UF, he did not go

to great lengths to oppose the Board of Control's decision to limit foreign student

enrollments. Since this was an unparalleled time of great expansion at the university, and

the board controlled the university's purse strings, Tigert needed to choose his battles

wisely. Tigert was apologetic as he explained the enrollment restrictions in a reply to a

French student seeking admission:

Because of the overcrowded conditions at the University of Florida by returning
veterans, we have been forced to restrict admission for the first time. Since the
University of Florida is supported by State appropriations, we feel sure you will
understand that our first obligation is to former University students returning from
the service and to graduates of Florida high schools.. .Under these circumstances
we have been forced to close admission to all foreign students.26

As the situation was unpredictable, Tigert suggested that the student inquire again about

admission in one year. Tigert's emphasis on the word 'forced' and his explanation of the

university's obligation to in-state students reveals the influence of the Board of Control

and the importance of adhering to the state institution's mission of teaching, research, and

service to provide for the interests of the state first and foremost. This tension between

the state governing body's nativist tendencies and the UF president's desire to increase

the university's global reach was one that continued in the years ahead. Echoing Tigert's

statements and calling it the "worst time in the history of student exchange," John F.

Martin, Director of the Inter-American Institute, wrote a similar letter to a hopeful

Portuguese student and suggested he reapply in March or April of 1947.27


viewpoint and strong ties to the South." Hank Drane, Historic Governors (Ocala, FL: Ferguson Printing,
1994), 124.

26 Tigert to Antoine, 10 August 1946, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P7b:
box 9, General Correspondence 1946.
27 Martin to Dias da Fonseca, 3 June 1946, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series
P7a: box 18, Center for Latin American Studies, misc.









By March of 1947, however, the Board of Control's prohibition on new foreign and

out-of-state student enrollments remained, as the university struggled to keep pace with

returned veterans, many of whose wives were now requesting admission.28 By this time,

faculty members began to speak out in support of foreign students joining their programs.

In April of 1947, Herbert Wolf, Head of the Department of Horticulture, and Harold

Hume, Dean of the College of Agriculture, wrote to the Dean of the Graduate School,

Thomas Simpson, seeking the admission of several horticulture students from China.

Requesting that the students also be awarded fellowships, Wolf and Hume reasoned that

the Chinese students should be supported on the principle of aiding a war ally as well as

for the positive future benefit of the university:

If it would be possible for us to offer fellowships to a few of these students, it
would be a very practical means of helping in the agricultural rehabilitation of our
war ally, and we could probably learn some things which would be profitable to
29
us.

Wolf and Hume's rationale, one advocating for the foreign student out of goodwill and

mutual benefit, proved compelling for Simpson; he wrote to President Tigert the next

day. In his letter to the president, Simpson suggested that it would be profitable to host

the Chinese students and furthered his point by quoting an article from the March 1947

edition of Higher Education titled "Implications of Geographic Restrictions on

Enrollments in State Colleges and Universities:

If a university can keep its graduate school open to outstanding students from other
states and other nations, it is not in too great danger of becoming local or



28 Simpson to Sundaram, Embassy of India, 28 March 1947, University of Florida Archives, Graduate
School, Office of the Dean, Series 46a: box 5, Foreign Students 1946-52.

29 Wolf and Hume to Simpson, 7 April 1947, University of Florida Archives, Graduate School, Office of
the Dean, Series 46a: box 5, Foreign Students 1946-52.









provincial, however rigid the exclusion may be in undergraduate levels of
instruction.30

Concluding his letter to Tigert, Simpson questioned whether or not the Board of Control

would look favorably upon the request to admit these Chinese students given the

enrollment restrictions. Simpson's letter to Tigert reveals that international students were

defined not only as a means to provide international goodwill but also to avoid the

trappings of provincialism and to increase the university's international reputation. That

Tigert did not reply to the faculty member's letter is evidence of the president's

reluctance to raise the issue of foreign student enrollments with the Board of Control.

Despite the enrollment restrictions, however, three new international students did gain

admission to the university. The annual survey of foreign student enrollments, The

Unofficial Ambassadors, reported that 24 foreign students attended UF in 1946, with 27

reported at the conclusion of 1947.31 The Board of Control's enrollment restrictions

would not be officially lifted until the coming of the next UF president, J. Hillis Miller.

During the spring and summer of 1947, two major changes took the university in a

new direction: President Tigert retired and women were granted admission to the

university. Tigert announced his retirement in the spring and by midsummer, the Board

of Control appointed J. Hillis Miller as the university's new president. The summer of

1947 also brought the university's most radical change to date with the announcement






30 Simpson to Tigert, 8 April 1947, University of Florida Archives, Graduate School, Office of the Dean,
Series 46a: box 5, Foreign Students 1946-52. The journal Higher Education was a publication of the
Higher Education Division of the United States Office of Education.

31 Committee on Friendly Relations Among Foreign Students, The UnofficialAmbassadors (New York:
Committee on Friendly Relations, 1946, 1947).









that women would be admitted.32 Upon completion of the 1947-48 academic year,

student enrollment had reached a record 9,787 students.33

Re-Opening the Door to Foreign Students, 1948-1949

The University of Florida's fourth president, J. Hillis Miller, was born in Virginia

and earned his A.B. and M.A. from the University of Virginia before receiving his Ph.D.

in psychology from Columbia University. Specializing in counseling and personnel

administration, Miller became Dean of the Psychology department at Bucknell University

in Pennsylvania. After serving as president of Keuka College in New York, Miller spent

five years as the State of New York's Associate Commissioner of Education before

becoming UF's top administrator.34

President Miller's outlook on the role of higher education in world affairs echoed

that of his predecessor John J. Tigert in his call for scholars to work towards international

understanding:

It is the function of higher education to invade more effectively the field of
international relations... Thus far in the development of world civilization,
international relations have not brought peace upon earth. The best minds of the
country must address themselves to the problems of effective relationships between
nations in order to give some promise of security to the human race.35

At Miller's inauguration on March 5, 1948, George D. Stoddard, President of the

University of Illinois, gave the first keynote address. Stoddard's speech, entitled "The

Role of Education in International Affairs," underscored the importance of the university


32 Osborn, John James Tigert, 489.

33 Adams, "A History of Higher Education in Florida," 204.

34 University of Florida Archives, "J. Hillis Miller," hlp \ \\ \ .uflib.ufl.edu/spec/archome/Miller.htm
(accessed June 2005). Pitts, "Reminiscences of Three University Presidents," Miller Chapter 1, 1-2.

35 J. Hillis Miller, "Higher Education and the Problems of this Decade," The Educational Record 32, no. 4
(1951): 335-349.









to create the "fostering of understanding and good will among the nations."36 Miller's

inaugural address, however, "Higher Education-The Balance Wheel of Progress in the

State of Florida," concentrated on issues relevant to serving the state's interest: "I make

no apology for turning to domestic and local affairs in discussing my subject."37 With an

audience that included Florida Governor Millard F. Caldwell and his cabinet as well as

members of the Board of Control and the Florida Legislature, Miller focused on the

urgent need to expand the university's facilities to keep pace with the projected

enrollment increases of the next decades. Miller's speech laid the groundwork for his six-

year plan for the university, which requested approximately $17.5 million in building

construction costs. Since a majority of these funds needed to come from the state, it is no

surprise that the new president's speech concentrated on local issues.

Although Miller focused on the needs of the university and its importance to the

future benefit of the state, he did not neglect the international aspect of the university

entirely. Nearing the end of his address, Miller pledged many significant goals for

expanding UF's international aspects:

We shall endeavor to build here extensive collections of books pertaining to Florida
history and to Latin America, with particular reference to the West Indies. We shall
seek to have the University designated as one of the depositories for the United
Nations. We shall exhaust every possibility of erecting an Inter-American building
on this campus through the cooperation of our neighboring countries to the South,
and we shall seek in every possible way to solicit support for our Inter-American
Institute.38




36 The I~.1 ..ii. i of Joseph Hillis Miller as President of the University of Florida (Jacksonville: Drew
Press, 1948), 13.

37 Ibid., 50.

38 Ibid., 57-58.









Perhaps aware of the difficulty of convincing the state of Florida legislature to pay for

these international goals, Miller continued:

Although we recognize that these expenditures are legitimate charges against the
State, we shall not hesitate to solicit support from private sources to the end that the
cultural program of the University may keep pace with our great educational,
research, and technical programs.39

Miller's allusion to the need for financial support from outside sources demonstrates his

awareness of the importance of philanthropic foundations, such as the Carnegie, Ford and

Rockefeller Foundations, to fund a significant portion of international education

endeavors at American universities and colleges.

Absent from Miller's declaration of international education goals for the university,

however, is any mention of foreign students or their role within the university. This

omission is consistent with President Tigert's lack of a definitive statement to the

university and the state of Florida regarding the importance of foreign students. Although

Miller did not directly address foreign students or their significance in his inauguration

speech, he was aware of the detriment that closing the university's doors to non-

Floridians caused. Considering Miller's experience in the state of New York and at

Columbia University, an institution with one of the highest numbers of foreign students

in the country, it is likely that Miller found a great contrast between the international

atmosphere of his previous institution and the lingering nativist attitudes in the state of

Florida. By 1948, the Board of Control loosened its enrollment restrictions due in large

part to Miller's advocacy, as Edith Pitts, Miller's executive secretary, explained:

[Miller] felt that the policy of a great state in limiting its higher educational
facilities to residents only was so provincial as to reflect on the state and its
leadership. When he recommended to the governing boards that they lift the


39 Ibid., 58.









limitations and let all who would and could qualify [be] admitted regardless of
residence, they readily approved.40

As a result of Miller's cosmopolitan outlook and his ability to convince the board to lift

the geographic restrictions on enrollments, thirty foreign students enrolled at UF for the

1948-49 academic year, second in the state to the University of Miami, which hosted

fifty-eight students from other countries. The presence of foreign students across the

nation continued to grow, as nearly 20,000 international students were enrolled in

American higher education institutions during the same year.41 The admission of new

foreign students during Miller's inaugural year provided a promising new start for the

future of the university's foreign student program. As the Miller presidency continued,

however, the pattern of ambiguity from the university's top administrator towards foreign

students re-emerged.

The Foreign Student "Problem," 1949-1950

In February of 1949, President Miller received a letter from a discussion group of

six UF faculty and administrators concerned with the "broad problem of foreign students

on the campus of the University of Florida."42 The group outlined common problems that

foreign students experienced, including difficulty finding part-time work and housing,

social isolation, and racial discrimination. Problems resulting from the presence of

international students on campus were also mentioned, including: the students' lack of


40 Pitts, "Reminiscences of Three University Presidents," Miller Chapter 1, 26.

41 Committee on Friendly Relations Among Foreign Students, The UnofficialAmbassadors 1948 (New
York: Committee on Friendly Relations, 1948), 10.

42 Discussion group to Miller, 14 February 1949, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President,
Series P10a: box 7, Committee on Foreign Students. The group consisted of John F. Martin, Director of the
Inter-American Institute; W.M. Wise, Dean of Student Personnel; Harry R. Warfel, Professor of English;
A.L. Funk; Associate Professor of Social Sciences; James L. Wilson, Assistant Professor of Freshman
English; and Sam Jennings, Secretary of the Interior of the Student Body.









sufficient English skills, determining the distribution of out-of-state tuition waivers, lack

of adequate foreign student housing and counseling services, and the formidable

challenge of "changing group attitudes" of American faculty and students towards

foreign students. The discussion group wanted not only to raise awareness of these

problems, but also to make recommendations for future action. The group suggested that

the president appoint a committee to study these issues in greater detail. The questions

must have resonated with Miller; less than three weeks later, he established the

Committee to Study the Problems of Foreign Students.43

The articulation of these foreign student problems was the first known occasion

that these concerns were brought to the attention of a UF president. In requesting better

coordination of services to foreign students, the faculty group recognized that these

sojourning students had different needs than domestic students. However, this discussion

also set the stage for characterizing foreign students in terms of the problems rather than

the benefits that they brought to the university. This characterization continued at UF in

the years ahead as the number of students from other countries increased at the university

and these issues persisted, leading some to conclude that the problems of foreign students

were inherent with their presence rather than with the university's administration of its

foreign student program.

As the conversation regarding foreign students at UF progressed, the concerns

listed in the group's report resurfaced to varying degrees. The problems of racial

discrimination and of changing group attitudes, in particular, warrant closer examination



43 Wise to Miller, 9 May 1950, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P10a: box 7,
Committee on Foreign Students. This letter to Miller indicates that the committee was established on
March 3, 1949.









within the local and national context of the University of Florida in 1949. Regarding

discrimination of foreign students, the group concluded:

There are relatively few foreign students at the University of Florida whose skin is
dark enough to cause them to have difficult social problems during their stay here
on the campus. However, there are one or two who do feel this is a problem and,
depending on the admission policies of the University, there may be more in the
future.44

The group urged closer consideration of the subject because it might lead to "some cause

of concern and embarrassment on the part of both the University and the students

involved." 45 Although this statement minimizes the overall impact of racial

discrimination for the majority of foreign students, it illustrates a powerful irony: the plea

for understanding and goodwill towards those who were foreign was not extended

towards their fellow Americans with darker skin.

One example of this contradiction can be found with John F. Martin, Director of

the Institute of Inter-American Affairs. Martin had lived abroad for twenty-five years in

Argentina and several other Latin American countries. Despite his experiences overseas

and his support of foreign students at UF, his views on race were consistent with the

segregationist policies of the time. In response to a request from the Coordinator of Inter-

American Affairs in Washington D.C. to publish an article from an African-American

author in UF's Latin American journal, Martin responded:

As Negroes are barred from the University of Florida, I do not feel justified in
opening the columns of one of our publications to a Negro author for the purpose of
adding to his professional and, incidentally, social prestige. And that you may not


44 Discussion group to Miller, 14 February 1949, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President,
Series P10a: box 7, Committee on Foreign Students.

45 Ibid., 1. For an insightful article detailing the history of desegregation in Southern higher education
institutions, see Peter Wallenstein, "Black Southerners and Non-Black Universities: Desegregating Higher
Education, 1935-1967," History of Higher Education Annual 19 (1999): 121-148.









be misled into thinking that I am shielding myself behind the University's attitude,
I may say that personally I am a firm believer in white supremacy.46

Martin's statements were especially candid, but he was not alone in this contradiction

between supporting the inclusion of foreign students while at the same time maintaining

that African-Americans were inferior to whites.47 Perhaps the most prominent national

example comes from J. William Fulbright, the U.S. senator from Arkansas who gained

worldwide respect and admiration for his work towards international exchange and

understanding. Fulbright biographer Randall Bennett Woods explains, however, that

Fulbright was also an "indisputable" racist who "saw no contradiction between his views

on international affairs and civil rights."48

While the impression of the UF faculty discussion group was that the majority of

UF's foreign students did not experience racial discrimination, the contradiction between

American democratic ideals of freedom for all and racial segregation was likely quite

apparent to foreign students. As Norman Kiell explained in the results of his 1951

national survey of Indian students, the dilemma that foreign students faced in this

environment was a double blow:

The realization of our racial problem hits [foreign students] especially hard: first,
because it is so strikingly inconsistent with the democratic traditions they have
associated with the United States; and second, because for many of them-those
from India, China, and Africa in particular-it has meant personal humiliation.
Thus observing our racial double standards and sometimes being on the receiving
end of discriminatory practices, these young people often come to the conclusion


46 Martin to Robey, 6 January 1944, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P7a:
box 18, Center for Latin American Studies, Misc.
47 Upon receiving a copy of Martin's letter, President Tigert insisted that Martin send a telegram to the
recipient explaining that his statements were to remain confidential.
48 Randall Bennett Woods, Fulbright: A Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 115,
119.










that there is no democracy in the United States worthy of the name, or worthy of
1 49
emulation.

Keill's findings contradicted the often-stated belief that by hosting foreign students, the

U.S. would automatically endear them to the nation's democratic principles.50

Nevertheless, the rationale of educating international students for the purpose of

achieving foreign policy objectives became increasingly prominent during the late 1940s

and early 1950s. It would also be seen in later UF reports concerning the status of foreign

students on the campus.

In addition to the issue of racial discrimination, the UF discussion group mentioned

the "very complex and difficult" problem of changing the attitudes of the university

community in order to "give careful attention to the problem of foreign students on our

campus" and to "make an effort to better understand and appreciate these students from

other countries." Convincing the faculty to become more accepting of foreign students,

if they were not already, was likely made a more formidable task in 1949, as the

legislature threatened all state employees, including university professors, with "loyalty

oaths." Among many detailed and personal questions ensuring the employee's loyalty to

democracy and rejection of communism, the oath asked: "Have you ever studied or

attended a school in a foreign country?" and "Have you ever participated in politics, or in

a parade or demonstration of any kind in a foreign country?"52 Although the loyalty oaths



49 Norman Keill, "Attitudes of Foreign Students," Journal of Higher Education 22, no. 4 (1951): 189.

50 Liping Bu, Making the World Like Us (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003), 184.

51 Discussion group to Miller, 14 February 1949, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President,
Series PlOa: box 7, Committee on Foreign Students, 2.
52 "Communist Questionnaire Given [to] University Professors," Gainesville Sun, May 17, 1949. Available
in University of Florida Archives, Graduate School, Office of the Dean, Series 46a: box 7.









were eventually dismissed, the inclusion of questions regarding participation in foreign

education implicated that the study of and within other countries was suspicious, and

perhaps even un-American, in the view of the state legislature. The state's attempted

loyalty oath reveals the continued nativist tendency amongst those in the legislature,

which hindered the university's president ability to advocate for full support of

international endeavors on the UF campus. The loyalty oath that the Florida legislature

attempted to impose was also consistent with the national shift away from the idealism of

international education for peace and mutual understanding towards the need for America

to defend itself against communism. This was a change that would become more apparent

at UF and throughout the United States in the years to come.

Whither International Education at the University of Florida? 1949-1951

In June of 1949, President Miller validated the status of the newly formed

Committee to Study the Problems of Foreign Students with a presidential memorandum

to all university administrators.53 Miller articulated his goals for improving the conditions

of foreign students on the campus:

We are eager to iron out all problems which present handicaps or hindrances to our
foreign students and we also wish to give new and added emphasis to the very
important role which our foreign visitors can play in the total education picture.54

Although Miller recognized the "very important role" of foreign students, he did not offer

a rationale as to why these students were important to the larger university community or

the state and left the value of these students in ambiguous terms. However, the

memorandum announced an important step towards addressing the needs of foreign


53 Miller memorandum, 22 June 1949, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series PlOb:
box 5, Numbered Memoranda, no. 30.

54 Ibid.









students, with the appointment of a part-time Counselor to Foreign Students for the 1949-

50 academic year. Considering the president's academic background in psychology and

counseling, it is not surprising that he made the appointment of a foreign student

counselor a high priority. By the fall of 1949, Miller released another administrative

memorandum to announce a foreign student counseling service for all non-Latin

American students, which was to be headed by J. Ed Price, of the Office of Student

Personnel.5 Latin American student counseling and administration continued to be

handled out of the Institute of Inter-American Affairs. Miller's memorandum also

indicated that the Committee to Study the Problems of Foreign Students would soon

announce its recommendations to address foreign student issues.

On February 10, 1950, J. Ed Price submitted to Dean of Student Personnel Max

Wise a report culminating the work of the committee entitled "Whither International

Education at the University of Florida? A Presentation of Some Realities of Program and

Policy." In his cover letter, Price presented a positive outlook for increased support of

foreign students at UF: "The student body, faculty, and administrative contacts I have

experienced convince me that cooperation, not antagonism, will be easy to obtain."56 At

the focus of the twenty-page report were the following questions: What were the

objectives sought for each foreign student who attended the University of Florida and

how were these objectives to be obtained?57 Since interest from foreign students

continued to increase, Price recommended that the university assess its plan for foreign


55 Miller memorandum, 10 September 1949, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series
PlOb: box 5, Numbered Memoranda, no. 33.
56 J. Ed Price, 10 February 1950, "Whither International Education at the University of Florida?" University
of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series PlOb: box 14, Reports, Foreign Students, 1.

57 Ibid., 13.









students in order to "set forth clearly its objectives, and to labor honestly and critically for

the actual fruition of stated objectives."58 This statement preceded many of the national

calls for universities and colleges to define the purposes of their foreign student programs

from international student educators such as Cora Du Bois, Edward Cieslak, and Howard

Wilson.59

The report detailed eight "starting points" from which to make collaborative

decisions about UF's foreign student program. Among the recommendations, two aimed

at making foreign student admissions more selective to ensure the success of the foreign

student and to enhance UF's academic reputation. First, the report suggested that only

"superior individuals" proficient in English be admitted. Second, the foreign student

needed to show proof of sufficient funds and an adequate hospitalization insurance policy

before obtaining admission. Other suggestions aimed at improving administrative

procedures, including the creation of a booklet about UF to send in response to inquiries

and the improvement of UF's relations with government agencies such as the Department

of State and Immigration and Naturalization Services. Other recommendations centered

on ways to ease the foreign student's adjustment to campus life, which included:

developing a foreign student orientation, endowing an emergency fund for students in

financial distress, designating a formal committee on foreign student matters, and






58 Ibid., 11.

59 Cora Du Bois, Foreign Students and Higher Education in the United States (Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education, 1956); Edward Cieslak, The Foreign Student in American Colleges: A
Survey and Evaluation ofAdministrative Problems and Practices (Detroit: Wayne University Press, 1955);
Howard E. Wilson, Universities and World, 111 ,1 (New York: Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, 1951).









coordinating foreign student administration in one unit rather than separate services for

Latin American and non-Latin American students.60

In addition to these eight starting points, the report also outlined the national status

of foreign students. The number of international students on American campuses

continued to rise dramatically, from less than 10,000 in 1930 to nearly 27,000 by 1949.61

Consistent with this growth, Price reported that the number of foreign students at UF

increased from 13 students in 1930, representing .5% of the student body, to 103 in 1949,

representing nearly 1% of total students.62 Although the total number of students enrolled

in American higher education institutions also increased dramatically, up from 1,154,000

in 1930 to 2,456,000 in 1949, the expansion of the foreign student population called for

universities to devote careful study and unique resources to meet the needs of these

students from other countries.63 Price recognized this context:

The increased college attendance has resulted in each institution's working under
the severe handicap of inadequate facilities, both in personnel and physical plant.
Justifiable and desirable as they may be, the special services created for the foreign
student must be weighed carefully.64

Price's cautionary statement illustrates his recognition of the opposition, seen previously

within the Board of Control, to designate resources to a select group of students who

comprised only one percent of the total student body. This statement further indicates that

without a clear definition from the UF president regarding the value of foreign students,


60 Price, "Whither International Education...?" 18.

61 Institute of International Education, Education for One World 1948-49 (New York: IIE, 1949), 14.

62 Price, "Whither International Education...?" 10.

63 Ibid., 13.

64 Ibid., 9.









advocates for these students continued to encounter resistance from those more

concerned with meeting the needs of the state above all else.

In a step towards clarifying the purpose of foreign students at UF, the "Whither

International Education" report significantly articulated two rationales for why foreign

students were important to the university. First, the report stated that Americans

benefited from the foreign student just as much, if not more, than the foreign student

himself:

The presence of foreign students on the campus is a tremendous asset to the faculty,
to the student body, and to the State of Florida. That the foreign student is an asset,
that he can contribute even more to us than we give to him, is a truth which should
be emphasized continually by the University.65

This rationale of the foreign student as an asset recalled those of the post-World War I

era, which aimed at world peace and goodwill through mutual exchange and

understanding. The suggestion that the foreign students' importance be "emphasized

continually" was perhaps a call for President Miller to articulate a statement to the

university community and the State of Florida.

Second, the report emphasized that the foreign student presence ensured that the

nation maintained its competitive edge, a rationale that became increasingly persistent as

the country moved towards the Cold War:

If it is to be realistic, the college or university must visualize its program of
education for foreign students as an integral, vital part of the national and
international scene. When the universities and colleges of Europe are rehabilitated
and re-staffed, will the United States continue its world leadership in higher
education? The answer to that question is going to depend, to a great degree, on
how well our colleges and universities succeed in their work with each foreign


65 Ibid., 1-2.









student who comes to the United States to study in the institutions of higher
learning.66

This rationale of the role of foreign students and international education as key to

maintaining the United States' dominance resonated with government and administrative

officials more than that of peace and goodwill. As Hans de Wit has suggested, these

rationales were often interconnected, as was the case in the UF report, but one remained

the dominant catalyst for gaining federal support and funding:

Although peace and mutual understanding continued to be a driving rationale in
theory, national security and foreign policy were the real forces behind
[international education's] expansion and with it came government funding and
regulations.67

The inclusion of both rationales in the "Whither International Education" report

demonstrates what Emma Schulken defined as the "basic duality" between idealistic and

pragmatic motives. This duality, as Schulken contended, ultimately led to relative

inaction on the part of universities to achieve their goals with foreign student programs.68

In May of 1950, Dean Wise sent the "Whither International Education" report to

President Miller. Wise advocated swift administrative action on the report's suggestions,

noting that the only recommendation with a dissenting vote was that of combining all

foreign student services within one unit.69 Wise also advised Miller to allocate funds for

personnel and operational costs to improve the foreign student program. The issues raised


66 Ibid., 8.

67 Hans de Wit, Internationalization of Higher Education in the United States and Europe: A Historical,
Comparative, and ConceptualAnalysis (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002), 25.

68 Emma Walker Schulken, "The History of Foreign Students in American Higher Education from its
Colonial Beginnings to the Present" (PhD diss., Florida State University, 1972), 207.

69 John F. Martin, Director of the Institute of Inter-American Affairs, objected to the idea of combining
Latin American students with non-Latin Americans. No reason was reported. One other committee
member also submitted a dissenting vote (H.S. Wolfe) but only on the basis that he was not present at the
discussion and thus he did not feel informed enough to make a decision.









in the report were of such "insistent urgency" that Wise encouraged the president to take

action before June 1, 1950.70 Miller's response did not come until mid-July, however,

when he approved all of the committee's recommendations. The president explained that

the first priority was to act upon the recommendation to place all foreign student

counseling in one unit, as it was "most important that the official advice concerning

immigration and university regulations be correct and consistent."71 For the remaining

seven recommendations, Miller acknowledged that they were "desirable" but did not

offer a specific plan of action. Instead, the president announced the appointment of a sub-

committee, the "Committee on Foreign Students," to implement the recommendations of

the larger committee's report. Six faculty members were assigned to the task.72

Therefore, President Miller did not follow the recommendation to define foreign students

as an asset to the university nor did he designate any immediate resources to these

students. The naming of an additional committee to study the needs of UF's foreign

student programs also reveals the disinclination of the president to act quickly on foreign

student matters. As a result of the reluctance of the university's top administrator towards

defining the role of international students, the stage was set for further characterization of

this group as a problem when the numbers of foreign students continued to increase and

these issues persisted.






70 Wise to Miller, 9 May 1950, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P10a: box 7,
Committee on Foreign Students.

1 Ibid.
72 The Committee on Foreign Students consisted of: J. Johnson, Martin, Price, Larry Variel, J.L. Wilson,
and W.S. Wolfe.









Return of the Foreign Student "Problem," 1951-1952

As the work of the Committee to Study the Problems of Foreign Students and its

newly created sub-committee progressed, the issue of English language proficiency was

raised as a major concern. In March of 1951, the Secretary of the committee, J.L. Wilson,

wrote to the Registrar and the University Examiner to advocate for better assessment of

foreign student applicants' English skills. According to Wilson, the committee felt that

the "lack of knowledge of English is one of the most pressing of the many problems

connected with new foreign students."73 Wilson's characterization of the foreign student

as a problem is indicative of the larger sentiment that foreign students brought with them

a multitude of problems that the university then had to sort out on their behalf. Cora Du

Bois, author of Foreign Students and Higher Education in the United States, discussed

the national prevalence of this characterization in quoting the statement of a higher

education official with "considerable experience" regarding foreign students:

Have we created the "problem of the foreign student" more or less on purpose, in
our own image? Have we, by adopting the running presumption that the foreign
student must be a quivering mass of problems, encouraged a jungle-growth of a
great, loose-jointed apparatus in this country which makes problems inevitable?74

Du Bois' inclusion of this comment reveals the national prevalence of characterizing

international students as aggravations and suggests that this depiction had more to do

with the university's administration of foreign student programs than with the students

themselves. The question of the foreign student "problem" was one with which the UF

committee and its newly appointed sub-committee continued to struggle.



3 Wilson to Johnson and McQuitty, 15 March 1951, University of Florida Archives, Office of the
President, Series PlOa: box 7, Committee on Foreign Students.

74 DuBois, Foreign Students and Higher Education in the United States, 32.









In November of 1951, a year and a half after President Miller appointed the Sub-

Committee on Foreign Students to enact the recommendations of "Whither International

Education," the committee announced its findings.7 Committee Chairman, Harry Warfel,

wrote to President Miller regarding the unanimous approval of the recommendations

made in the 1950 report. Warfel stated three recommendations, the first of which was

identical to Miller's previous decision that all foreign student counseling be placed in one

unit. The second and third recommendations offered suggestions that stemmed from

those previously stated: to enlarge the current duties of the Director of Latin-American

Student Affairs to make the office available to all foreign students and to place this office

within the Dean of Student Personnel. The sub-committee's progress after a year and half

to make only three recommendations, two of which were extensions of previous

suggestions, implies that neither the committee nor the president gave the work top

priority. However, Dean Wise (also Chairman of the larger Committee to Study the

Problems of Foreign Students) welcomed these suggestions, as he described to President

Miller:

In previous correspondence with your office, I have drawn your attention to the
serious problems which exist in the University's handling of the problems of
foreign students. In my opinion, the recommendation of the Committee offers a
major step in the solution of these problems.76

Dean Wise's statement regarding the situation of foreign students differs from Wilson's

regarding the "many problems connected with new foreign students." For Wise, it was

the university's inadequacy to address the problems of foreign students that led to all


75 Warfel to Miller, 21 November 1951, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series
PlOa: box 7, Committee on Foreign Students.
76 Wise to Miller, 1 December 1951, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P10a:
box 7, Committee on Foreign Students.









other difficulties rather than the problems being inherent to presence of foreign students

themselves. The point that Wise made is significant in that he seemed to be the only

administrator to place the responsibility onto the university administration rather than the

foreign students. Similar to his previous suggestion in 1950 that the president act

immediately on the "Whither International Education" recommendations, Wise again

called Miller's attention to the immediate need for solutions to the university's problems

in addressing foreign student needs and concerns.

Two months after Dean Wise's letter, President Miller submitted a memorandum to

all administrative and academic councils announcing both the retirement of John F.

Martin, Director of Latin American Student Affairs, and the creation of a foreign student

adviser position.77 While the search began for a full-time adviser, the duties were split

between the School of Inter-American Studies and the Office of Student Personnel.78

Across the country, other universities and colleges similarly recognized the importance of

a specialist to coordinate foreign student services. By 1952, there were 1,029 full-time

foreign student advisers on American campuses, a significant increase from only 400 in

1948.79 The necessity of a full-time adviser was apparent to Acting Dean of UF's

Graduate School, C.F. Byers, who wrote to Miller: "The problem of admission and

academic placement of graduate students from outside the United States is becoming





7 Although Martin opposed the combination of Latin American student services with those for other
foreign students, it is not known if the announcement of his retirement is connected to the announcement of
the creation of an adviser for all foreign students.

8 Miller memorandum, 8 February 1952, University of Florida Archives, Graduate School, Office of the
Dean, Series 46a: box 5, Committee on Foreign Students.

79 Cieslak, The Foreign Student in American Colleges, 93.









increasingly important and is more difficult to handle."80 Byers' description of the

growing foreign student problem reveals that by late in the 1951-52 academic year, the

recommendations to improve the university's administration of its foreign student

program were not effectively in place. Byers' statement echoes that of Committee

Secretary Wilson, who had also defined foreign students as a growing problem. The

persistence of this depiction of international students as a problem largely resulted from

the inaction of the university's top administrator to clarify the direction of the foreign

student program and to enact the recommendations of his appointed committees. Without

decisive administrative guidance, those involved with foreign students-whether in the

classroom, in research labs, or in counseling offices-came to associate these students

with the challenges that surrounded their presence on campus. With President Miller's

eventual creation of the position of adviser to foreign students, however, improvements

upon the university's foreign student program soon became evident.

The Adviser to Foreign Students: Years of Progress, 1952-1955

In August of 1952, two years after the committee recommended creating the

position, Ivan J. Putman was hired as UF's first Adviser to Foreign Students. Unlike

many universities that designated a faculty member to advise foreign students part-time,

President Miller selected an individual with an academic background in foreign student

counseling for the full-time position. Putman had earned his Ph.D. from Miller's alma

mater, Columbia University, and completed his dissertation on the admission and

academic performance of Columbia's international graduate students. During the first

three years of his work, Putman issued detailed reports about foreign students at the


80 Byers to Miller, April 29, 1952, University of Florida Archives, Graduate School, Office of the Dean,
Series 46a: box 5, Foreign Students 1946-52.









University of Florida. These reports, submitted to the president and other administrators,

reveal many insights about the status of foreign students at the University of Florida in

the early 1950s. In his first report summarizing the 1952-53 academic year, for example,

Putman described the importance of the foreign student adviser to contribute to

worldwide peace and mutual understanding:

His principal objective is to help facilitate the kind of exchange which will be of
maximum benefit to all parties concerned in terms of understanding among peoples
and development of individual capacities to contribute to human welfare
throughout the world.81

Although the nation as a whole was no longer in the midst of postwar idealism, Putman's

statement reveals the persistence of the rationale for international students as one of

fostering peace and goodwill, particularly among foreign student advisers.82 Putman's

omission of any foreign policy objectives for hosting international students is indicative

of his idealistic perspective about his new job in particular and the role of foreign

students in general.

Putman described his manifold duties as foreign student adviser, including:

coordinating responses to application inquires, receiving new students, hosting

orientations, coordinating counseling services, arranging for contacts with Americans,

offering assistance with scholarship and financial aid information and serving as a

resource for American students wanting to study abroad. Putman devoted a section of his

1952-53 report to "Relationships with Foreign Students," in which he noted that there

were "initial problems" during the transition period with Latin American students who



81 Ivan J. Putman, "Annual Report of Adviser to Foreign Students, 1952-1953," University of Florida
Archives, Office of the President, Series PlOb: box 14, Reports, Foreign Students, 3.
82 Bu, Making the World Like Us, 161.









felt "abandoned" as a result of the merger of all foreign student services.83 Putman

reported, however, that in a short amount of time this feeling subsided. By the spring of

1953 he had received an average of 20 to 30 student visits per day, up from only four or

five in the fall semester.84 The university hosted 207 foreign students that fall and 197 the

following spring. Although these figures seem to suggest UF had a total of 404 students,

further examination reveals that Putman likely counted each student every semester

rather than conducting an academic year tally. The figure of 262 foreign students at UF

for 1952-53, as reported in the Institute of International Education's national foreign

student survey, Educationfor One World, is perhaps a more accurate total because the

survey required students be counted by the academic year rather than by each semester.

The University of Florida's 262 foreign students surpassed in number all other Florida

higher education institutions, with the University of Miami's 231 students a close second

and Florida State University's total of 48 foreign students a distant third.85 Out of the

national tally of 33,675 foreign students, the state of Florida's 648 foreign students

ranked first in number among the Southeastern states, while the state of New York

ranked highest in the nation with 6,044.86

Putman explained the progress that his office, staffed with a full-time secretary and

part-time graduate assistant, had made on several of the recommendations from the 1950

"Whither International Education" report. These improvements included discussions with

the Registrar's Office to overhaul the admissions process, the creation of an information


83 Putman, "Annual Report of Adviser to Foreign Students, 1952-1953," 4.
84 Ibid.

85 Institute of International Education, Education for One World 1952-53 (New York: IIE, 1953), 26.

86 Ibid., back cover.









bulletin to foreign students, and the improvement of orientation services. Putman and his

wife arranged to meet each student at the station or airport upon arrival, and his goal was

to host each student for dinner at least once during the year.87 Putman was clearly

committed to ensuring that every foreign student felt welcome at the University of

Florida.

In addition to welcoming these students from abroad, Putman also addressed their

problems. Resulting from a series of group interviews with UF's international students

throughout the semester, Putman summarized three areas of commonly experienced

foreign student concerns: lack of contact with American students, difficulty with

orientation and registration procedures, and the need to improve their English skills.88

Putman summarized the outcomes of the group interviews: "One of the most interesting

results of these meetings was the interest of the group of foreign students in the fact that

such a meeting had been called. An appreciable number of them commented that they

were glad to be consulted."89 This remark underscores the importance of the foreign

student adviser, who counseled the foreign students from their first arrival in town until

the end of their sojourns. Putman's description of foreign student concerns also echoes

Dean of Student Personnel Max Wise's earlier assertion that the problems of foreign

students were not inherent to the students themselves, but rather a result of the lack of

administrative procedures to address adequately the students' unique needs.





87 Putman, "Annual Report of Adviser to Foreign Students, 1952-1953," 6.

88 Ibid., 20.

89 Ibid.









The reports of the Foreign Student Adviser from 1953-54 and 1954-55 reveal two

years of progress within UF's foreign student program. In his 1953-54 report, Putman

stated that the new admissions procedures enacted during the previous year reduced a

number of academic problems. Further, the quality of the foreign students' academic

work seemed to be improving.90 Admissions policies had become more selective for

students from other countries. Even though the number of applicants increased, UF

admitted only 191 foreign students for 1953-54, compared with 262 from the previous

year.91 The recurring issue of inadequate English skills was addressed with the creation of

the English Language Institute, which began in the summer of 1954. An information

bulletin for foreign students was published and put to use successfully, serving as a

model for other universities.92 An International Student Organization (ISO) including

both foreign and American students was started with the hopes that it would be

"successful in increasing student interest in international affairs generally."93 Despite the

potential of the International Student Organization, Putman cited that contacts between

American and foreign students remained rather minimal and that this was an area with

room for improvement. Putman described the ISO's plan to start a Community Advisory

Group to involve more American students and residents of Gainesville. Putman hoped

this plan would remedy the foreign students' feeling that locals took "little or no interest





90 Ivan J. Putman, "Annual Report of Foreign Student Adviser, 1953-54," University of Florida Archives,
Series 136, Committee on Foreign Students, 3.

91 Institute of International Education, Education for One World, 1953-54 (New York: IIE, 1954), 22.
92 Putman, "Annual Report of Foreign Student Adviser, 1953-54," 3.

93 Ibid., 24.









in them or their countries."94 Even if socialization between American and foreign

students at UF was not commonplace, evidence suggests that some aspect of the foreign

students' presence was accepted as part of the larger UF community. For example, a

Latin American student group's homecoming float won first prize in the 1953

homecoming parade.95 Putman also recounted the situation of a married foreign student

couple from Transjordan, Mr. and Mrs. Wasfi Hijab, who had quadruplets during their

studies in Gainesville. Organizations within the community provided donations and

financial help, and the Hijabs even gained semi-celebrity status when a milk company

offered them an advertising contract. Further, Putman became legal guardian to the

children to "avoid income tax complications" resulting from the milk ad contract.96

For the 1954-55 academic year, Putman reported new enrollment trends such as the

slight decline in Latin American student numbers, which he attributed to more selective

admissions, and the increase in non-Latin American foreign students from the Middle

East and south Asian countries. Other trends included the increase of graduate foreign

student enrollment while undergraduate numbers remained about the same.97 These

trends mirrored those in the national arena, as reported in the Institute of International

Education's national survey of foreign student data, Open Doors. Although Canada

remained the largest foreign student nationality attending U.S. institutions, the report

noted significant gains within the previous five years in the number of students from


94 Ibid., 28.

95 Ibid., 26.

96 Ibid., 19.

97 Ivan J. Putman, "Annual Report of Foreign Student Adviser, 1954-55," University of Florida Archives,
Series 136, Committee on Foreign Students, 3.









Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and Colombia.98 The majority of foreign students on

American campuses were undergraduates but the report noted that some countries,

including India, the United Kingdom, the Philippines, and Thailand, sent an "unusually

high" percentage of graduate students.99

Putman described his satisfaction with the increased academic performance of the

foreign student group; the undergraduate foreign students, with an average GPA of 2.29

for the spring of 1954, surpassed the overall university average of 2.13.100 Contributing to

these academic accomplishments were the "increased effectiveness" of the new

admissions standards, the enhancement of English instruction, and the improvement of

foreign student and academic advising.101 Putman concluded that 1954-55 was a "very

satisfying year" but cautioned against complacency:

We have found that there are limits to what the office can accomplish and we are
close to the saturation point a good part of the time, if not past it. This is disturbing
in view of the fact that much more could be done with considerable profit to all
concerned. However, even as things stand, foreign students are generally having a
good experience at the University of Florida, and their presence is making more of
a contribution to the education of our own native students. There is every indication
that these improvements will continue to develop.102

Putman's mention of reaching the "saturation point" foreshadowed what was to come in

the years ahead, as the university continued its rapid expansion and the nation plunged

deeper into the Cold War.




98 Institute of International Education, Open Doors, 1954-55 (New York: IIE, 1955), 7.

99 Ibid., 9.
100 Putman, "Annual Report of Foreign Student Adviser, 1954-55," 5.

101 Ibid.
102 Ibid., 11.









New Definitions for Foreign Students at the University of Florida, 1955-1957

Putman indeed faced the dilemma of increased demand and lack of resources

shortly after his 1955 report. Another foreign student report did not appear until three

years later. During the three years between Putman's foreign student status reports, many

changes took place within the university's administration. President Miller died suddenly

on November 14, 1954 and the Board of Control named Vice President John S. Allen as

interim president.103 On March 22, 1955, the board appointed J. Wayne Reitz-UF's

Provost of Agriculture-as the fifth president of the University of Florida and the first

former faculty member to be named to the post. Born in Kansas, Reitz had received his

education from various institutions: Colorado State University (bachelor's), University of

Illinois (master's), and the University of Wisconsin (Ph.D.). Reitz became a professor of

Agricultural Economics at UF in 1935 and was later named as Provost of Agriculture in

1949 upon his return to academia after working for the USDA.104 With his strong interest

in Latin American agricultural research and his service on the executive board for two

Costa Rican institutions, Reitz held promising connections to international education. In

his inauguration speech, moreover, Reitz recognized the importance of the American

university to world affairs. Unlike presidents Tigert and Miller, who emphasized the

university's international role in creating goodwill and world peace, Reitz placed the

university's global role firmly within the context of defeating communism:

America has risen to a place of unusual leadership in the modern world, so
suddenly that we are having great difficulty in assuming these new and enlarged
responsibilities... We must better understand the history, culture, and psychology of

103 University of Florida Archives, "J. Hillis Miller," http://web.uflib.ufl.edu/spec/archome/Miller.htm
(accessed June 2005).
104 University of Florida Archives, "J. Wayne Reitz," http://web.uflib.ufl.edu/spec/archome/Reitz.htm
(accessed June 2005).









the people with whom we work and relate ourselves... The American democratic
way of life, with whatever weaknesses it may have, needs to be set out in clear
contrast to the diabolical features of communism and other forms of government
which destroy the minds and souls of men.105

Reitz's statements reflected the national scare of the Cold War and the perceived threat of

communism, which now overshadowed the rationale of international education for world

peace and goodwill, as Hans de Wit noted.106 Although Reitz called attention to this new

role for the university in world affairs, he made no mention of foreign students. This

omission is consistent with the administrative ambiguity towards publicly defining the

role of international students which former presidents Tigert and Miller also

demonstrated.

Although his inauguration speech did not address foreign students directly, in the

spring of 1956 Reitz issued a presidential memorandum to all faculty members regarding

foreign students.107 The memorandum served to update former President Miller's

statements in 1949 regarding foreign student policies. The memorandum also

summarized the current functions of the Foreign Student Adviser. In this document, Reitz

made two important statements regarding the status of foreign students and how they

were to be treated at the University of Florida. Reitz first emphasized the need to hold

foreign students to the same academic and admissions standards of American students.

Second, Reitz stated that faculty members must encourage foreign students to return

home upon graduation so that these students remained "focused on the needs and



105 Pitts, "Reminiscences of Three University Presidents," 50.

106 De Wit, Internationalization of Higher Education in the United States and Europe, xviii.

107 Reitz to Faculty, 25 May 1956, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P14a: box
31, Foreign Students & Visitors 1955-67.









problems of their home countries and ways in which they can most effectively contribute

to their solution."108

It is significant that Reitz issued such guidelines to all faculty members, as his

statements gave legitimacy to the presence of foreign students. These statements also

provided insight into how the university president viewed international students and their

place within the larger university. According to Reitz, foreign students were not to be

singled out from domestic students. The president's second statement indicating that

foreign students must be encouraged to return home, armed with the new knowledge

gained from their studies in the U.S., suggested that it was the foreign students, not the

university, which had the most to gain from their academic sojourns. The statements from

President Reitz were also consistent with the national concern of returning foreign

students to their home countries so that they could become "ambassadors" of goodwill,

and more importantly, of the American democratic way of life.

In response to Reitz's memorandum, the new Chairman of the Committee on

Foreign Students, Nicholas Chotas, reported to the president on the committee's recent

discussion of plans for an International House.109 The proposed building would provide

not only accommodations but also bring American and foreign students together in a

community living environment. The idea for an international house had originated with

President Tigert's plans for an Inter-American House in the 1930s. Since more than half

of UF's 207 foreign students in 1956 were from non-Latin American countries, Chotas

reasoned that the housing area should be open to all foreign students as well as American


108 Ibid.

109 Chotas to Reitz, 21 November 1956, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series
P14a: box 31, Foreign Students & Visitors, 1955-67.









students. Similar to the statements in "Whither International Education," the rationale

Chotas presented echoed the late 1940s sentiment of international exchange for goodwill

and mutual understanding. Furthermore, Chotas also provided a rationale that foresaw

positive consequences:

It is not inconceivable that a constructive exchange in daily living on the University
of Florida campus between foreign and United States students today could
favorably affect international policies between countries when today's students
become tomorrow's policy makers.110

The president's reply to Chotas' request was not encouraging: "While I am sure that the

ideas expressed by the committee have much merit, there does not seem to be anything

that we can do about this matter in the immediate future."111 Reitz did not offer any

indication as to why their request could not be met, but he suggested that the committee

approach the planning board of the new student union building to inquire about any

additional space in the developing plans. Without much support from the president,

however, the hope for an international house proved difficult to realize. The student

union was built without space for an international house or meeting area.112 President

Reitz's denial of the International House request contrasts sharply with his earlier

memorandum to the university community, which legitimized the presence of these

students at UF. Reitz's response indicated that although foreign students were rhetorically

important to the university, when it came to allocating financial resources, foreign

students were not a priority.


110 Ibid.

111 Reitz to Chotas, 27 December 1956, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series
P14a: box 31, Foreign Students & Visitors, 1955-67.
112 The creation of an "international house" or dormitory designated for the interaction of foreign and
American students continued to be debated throughout the years. The goal would be achieved finally in
2002, with the designation of the Weaver Hall dormitory as the "Weaver International House."









The Adviser to Foreign Students: Towards the Saturation Point, 1957-1958

In the fall of 1957, the university welcomed its "largest and most varied" group of

foreign students in its history, with a total of 315 students from 57 countries. The

Committee on Foreign Students Chairman Nicholas Chotas announced the news in a

letter to all faculty and staff in which he appealed to them to reach out to these "highly

selected and promising individuals" by inviting them to dinner, a picnic, or the beach. 113

In June of 1958, Chotas reported to Harry Philpott, the newly appointed Vice President,

on the accomplishments of the year and the future plans for the Committee on Foreign

Students. Chotas indicated that the response of the faculty and staff to his request was

"heartening" but the extent of participation had not been determined.114 Philpott's

response to the report was complimentary:

As a newcomer to the administration... I have been tremendously impressed by the
provisions made for our foreign students. It is quite clear that the University of
Florida has one of the finest programs in this respect to be found in any institutions
in the United States.115

While UF's vice president considered its foreign student program to be exemplary, the

Adviser to Foreign Students, Ivan Putman, was reaching his breaking point. Reporting

228 foreign students to the Open Doors survey, UF ranked first in the state of Florida and

thirtieth in the nation of all U.S. institutions hosting international students.116 In the 1958

report of the Adviser to Foreign Students, Putman's exasperated tone was considerably



113 Chotas to Members of the University Faculty and Staff, 18 November 1957, University of Florida
Archives, Office of the President, Series P14a: box 31, Foreign Students & Visitors, 1955-67.
114 Chotas to Philpott, 5 June 1958, P14a: box 31, Foreign Students & Visitors, 1955-67.

115 Philpott to Chotas, 1 July 1958, P14a: box 31, Foreign Students & Visitors, 1955-67.

116 Ivan J. Putman, Adviser to Foreign Students announcement, 26 June 1958, University of Florida
Archives, Office of Academic Affairs, Series 2a: box 56, Foreign Students 1958-1973.









less positive than his earlier accounts. Describing his report as "frank and personal,"

Putman explained the reason for the three-year gap: "There simply has not been time, and

there is not now time, to issue the fairly comprehensive reports which I prepared in 1953,

1954, and 1955."17 Because of his increased workload, Putman could no longer meet

every student at the station upon arrival. In order to maintain his role as counselor to

foreign students with an open door policy, Putman stated that he struggled to complete

the numerous administrative tasks required of him. The lack of adequate personnel placed

considerable strain upon Putman and his meager staff of two secretaries, a graduate

assistant, and two part-time student assistants. His requests for additional staff during the

summer months went unanswered, and the morale within Putman's organization was

considerably low:

We have been fortunate in having devoted and hard-working staff people who have
accepted the pressure of over-work and crowded conditions with good grace.
However, they have understandably grumbled when they have seen others, often
with higher ratings and better salaries, sitting around with less to do and less
responsibility.118

Putman urged for the appointment of a full-time Assistant Foreign Student Adviser and

for the provision of a more adequate space than the room currently shared with the

Student Personnel Records office. Unless changes were made, Putman stated that he was

"not willing to go on doing this much longer" nor was he willing to ask his staff to

"continue working with as much pressure and as little recognition" as they had

received.119 Putman's exasperation at the lack of attention from the top administrators


117 Ivan J. Putman, Report of the Adviser to Foreign Students 1957-58, University of Florida Archives,
Office of the President, Series P14a: box 31, Foreign Students & Visitors, 1955-67, 1.
118 Ibid., 8.

119 Ibid., 9.









demonstrates what international educators Edward Cieslak, Homer Higbee, and Craufurd

Goodwin and Michael Nacht noted regarding the low status assigned to the work of

foreign student advisers and their inability to influence administrative policy.120

Concluding his report of 1958, Putman stated a very different rationale from that of

his first report in 1953, in which he had emphasized the mutual benefits of cultural

exchange for its own sake. The importance of the nation's foreign policy interests now

depended upon the success of foreign students:

The stakes of our country, and therefore of our University, in the international area
are high, and we can therefore not afford to do a half-way job with these students
from abroad who are tomorrow's leaders in their countries. 121

As Putman made the case to university administrators, the shift in rationale from his first

report was indicative of the larger changes taking place in international education towards

the role of international students. In the 1963 book, The Foreign Student: Whom ,/ h/l We

Welcome?, Maurice Harari characterized this "Cold War cultural diplomacy" as

involving the "belief that training foreign students here is a way of making friends for the

United States in the Cold War."122 This conception of diplomacy was very different from

that of the late 1940s when mutual benefit and goodwill rather than improving the

nation's image abroad was first emphasized as a rationale for the support of foreign

students. The purpose of foreign students on American campuses was no longer a matter




120 Edward Cieslak, The Foreign Student in American Colleges (Detroit: Wayne University Press, 1955),
25; Homer Higbee, The Status of Foreign StudentAdvising in U.S. Universities and Colleges (East
Lansing: Michigan State University, 1961), 41; Goodwin and Nacht, Absence ofDecision, 8
121 Putman, Report of the Adviser to Foreign Students 1957-58, 12.

122 Maurice Harari, The Foreign Student: Whom Shall We Welcome? (New York: Education and World
Affairs, 1964), 4.









of extending an offer of mutual exchange to make a more peaceful world, but rather one

of national defense interests.

Despite Putman's characterization of foreign students as key to the future of the

nation, a significant shift from his previous rationale, President Reitz did not take

immediate action upon the foreign student adviser's requests. A response finally came

three months later, when Vice President Harry Philpott wrote to Nicholas Chotas,

Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Students, to discuss the issues Putman raised in

his report. Philpott revealed that President Reitz had decided to name yet another faculty

committee to provide guidance on the current state of foreign students at the university

and then to assess this group's needs.123 That Reitz did not reply personally to the issues

Putman raised is indicative of the ambiguous presidential response towards foreign

students demonstrated throughout this study. Similar to President Miller before him,

Reitz chose not to take immediate action upon the recommendations of concerned faculty

members and staff regarding the foreign student program. Reitz's lack of a response to

the foreign student adviser's criticisms reveals the difficulty for the university president

to act upon the needs of the foreign student program within the context of the state

university's various constituencies. Moreover, even when foreign students were defined

as a way to ensure national defense, that this rationale was not enough to move the

president into action illustrates the strength of the public institution's mission to serve the

interests of the state above all else.





123 Philpott to Chotas, 9 December 1958, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series
P14a: box 31, Foreign Students & Visitors, 1955-67.














CHAPTER 4
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

From 1946 to 1958, the University of Florida moved from severe restrictions on

foreign student admissions to hosting larger foreign student numbers than could be

adequately handled. Although University of Florida presidents John J. Tigert, J. Hillis

Miller, and J. Wayne Reitz articulated beliefs in the importance of the university's role in

world affairs and international relations-whether for peace and goodwill or to ensure the

defeat of communism-the role of foreign students was not defined as essential to the

university's overall mission.

Tigert, serving as president during UF's greatest expansion, faced strong opposition

from the Board of Control to provide any state resources for foreign students. Despite the

resistance within the state, Tigert made significant contributions to the university's

international endeavors during his nineteen years as president. Most notable had been his

creation of the Institute of Inter-American Affairs in 1930. When the Board of Control

restricted foreign and out-of-state student admissions in 1946, however, Tigert chose not

to advocate for their inclusion due to the need to concentrate efforts on accommodating

returning World War II veterans and to ensure the Board's approval of necessary

construction funds. President Tigert's ambiguousness towards foreign students during

this period likely resulted more from the struggle to keep pace with domestic student

expansion than from any personal disregard for the importance of these sojourning

students. In fact, one year after his retirement Tigert accepted an offer to serve as one of

two Americans on a commission to study higher education in India. During his year spent









throughout India, Tigert observed the country's universities and suggested reforms for

improving the quality of their higher education system.'

Tigert's successor, J. Hillis Miller, brought numerous improvements to UF's

foreign student program during his presidency from 1948 to 1953. At the suggestion of

concerned faculty members, Miller established a formal committee to study the problems

of foreign students in addition to sending a presidential memorandum to the university

community regarding the organization of services to these students. With his background

in counseling at Columbia University, Miller recognized the need for a designated

professional to administer the foreign student program and named Ivan Putman as

Adviser to Foreign Students in 1952. Although the Miller years improved the

organization of the foreign student program at UF, the university's top administrator

reacted slowly, if at all, to the recommendations of his appointed committees. In his

inaugural address, in which he made "no apologies" for concentrating on state and local

issues, Miller set the stage for his reluctance to define the role of international students

and his concentration on serving the interests of the state of Florida first and foremost.

Considering Miller's untimely death, it is difficult to speculate as to whether he would

have eventually clarified the role of foreign students at the University of Florida or if he

would have remained at a standstill in regards to defining their potential contributions to

the university, the state, and the nation.

The administration of the University of Florida's fifth president, J. Wayne Reitz,

continued from 1955 until 1967. During his tenure, President Reitz successfully

strengthened Tigert's legacy of interest in Latin America and expanded the Institute of


1 George Osborn, John James Tigert: American Educator (Gainesville: University Presses of Florida,
1974), 493-500.









Inter-American Affairs into the Center for Latin American Studies.2 Reitz also furthered

Miller's statements about foreign students in an updated memorandum to the university

community regarding policies towards these students from abroad. In this document,

Reitz called for international students to be held to the same standards as domestic

students and emphasized the need to encourage foreign students to return to their home

countries upon completion of their degrees. Reitz's sentiments were consistent with the

larger shift in rationale at the federal level for the need to host foreign students. Unlike

his predecessors Tigert and Miller, who had described the importance of international

education in terms of world peace and understanding, Reitz characterized international

education as a means of defeating communism and ensuring the spread of democracy.

However, even when foreign students were defined as essential to the future defense of

the country, as evidenced in the final foreign student adviser report of 1958, the

university president did not respond to the call to provide more resources to serve these

students. Rather than offer a personal response to Putman's report, Reitz again named a

faculty committee to study the "problems" in greater detail.

Although Reitz differed from his predecessors in his outlook on the aims of

international education, Reitz was similarly concerned with facing pressure from the state

of Florida legislature regarding the expansion of the foreign student program. By 1966,

when the 746 students from other countries comprised more than three percent of UF's

student body, Reitz suggested enacting a quota to limit foreign student enrollment to no


2 Similar to President Tigert, Reitz also continued international education activities upon retirement. Reitz
served in numerous educational positions throughout Latin America and Thailand and later agreed to
become Director of the UF Council for International Studies in 1975. University of Florida Office of the
President, "J. Wayne Reitz," hip \ \\ \\ .president.ufl.edu/pastPrez/reitz.htm (accessed June 2005). Reitz
to Marston, 23 May 1975, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P13a: box 73,
International Studies and Programs.









larger than three percent. Reitz advocated for this "arbitrary ceiling" in order to "preserve

the important place of foreign students on our campus" by avoiding potential conflicts

with the legislature:

If we allowed the number to get too large, there could possibly be repercussions
which would result in placing restrictions which we would want to avoid. In other
words, by exercising internal management, if you will, we might avoid external
criticism from the standpoint of the legislature, when it is so generally recognized
that our pressure from students in the state is so great.3

Reitz's cautionary statement reveals an explanation for the ambiguous administrative

response to foreign students evidenced throughout the twelve-year period of this study

and in later years at the university. For presidents Tigert, Miller, and Reitz, international

students rhetorically held an "important place" on the campus, yet their presence was not

to grow so large as to awaken the nativist tendencies of the state legislature.

In making their administrative decisions, these three UF presidents juggled the

demands of various constituencies within the university, the state, and the nation. Faculty

members who advocated for foreign students first characterized the students' importance

in terms of achieving peace and mutual understanding and later as a means to ensure the

future success of the United States. Some faculty members defined foreign students as a

growing problem, while others lamented the university's inability to address these

students' needs. State legislators and Board of Control members, directly and indirectly,

influenced the ambiguous response of the UF presidents in their resolve to serve the

needs of the state and its residents first and foremost. Nationally, federal officials became

increasingly involved in foreign student programs after World War II and provided

funding to higher education as never before. Through international exchange programs


3 Reitz to Bryan, 29 April 1966, University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series 2a: box 56,
President's Report on Foreign Students.









funded by the Fulbright and Smith-Mundt Acts, federal officials aimed to gain support

from American-educated future foreign leaders.

The history of international students at the University of Florida from 1946 to 1958

reveals the complexities of foreign student programs in state-sponsored, public

institutions. The University of Florida presidents during this period struggled to

accommodate UF's rapid growth while also meeting the demands of its various

constituencies with competing agendas. On the one hand, these university presidents

needed to expand UF's international reputation and participate in the new "world role" of

universities in international affairs, an effort increasingly supported by the federal

government. Conversely, the university presidents also recognized the need to serve the

interests of the state of Florida in order to maintain relations with the university's main

funding source, the state legislature and its accompanying Board of Control. As the door

to foreign students opened wider at the University of Florida from 1946 to 1958, the

administrative decisions made during these years sent ambiguous messages to

international students about their desired contributions to the university, the state, and the

nation.

This study contributes to a greater understanding of the literature on foreign

students, which repeatedly calls for higher education institutions to define their purposes

for hosting these sojourning students to their respective academic communities first and

foremost. In the case of the University of Florida, three successive presidents were

ambiguous in defining the value of international students to the institution itself as well as

to its outside constituents. Although committees to study the needs of foreign students

were formed, the president often reacted slowly, if at all, to his committee's









recommendations for improving UF's accommodation of foreign students. The

development of UF's foreign student program also proves useful to the argument of

Craufurd Goodwin and Michael Nacht, who suggested that universities have not

successfully gained support for international student programs from their state

legislatures because they have not defined for themselves the potential contributions that

foreign students could make to the university and the state. Without this definition, state

legislators considered funding foreign students to be "simply wrong" and at the expense

of its residents rather than an overall benefit to the state. 4

In addition to illuminating the dynamics between public university administrators

and their state legislatures, this thesis also contributes to an understanding of the larger

history of American higher education after World War II. The development of the foreign

student program at the University of Florida exemplifies what historians John Thelin,

Christopher Lucas, and Roger Geiger characterized as a period in which the nation's

colleges and universities were adjusting rapidly to new roles and expectations within

American society. This study of the University of Florida reveals an institution that found

itself welcoming foreign students yet not so much so that the needs of the state felt

threatened. As a result, presidents Tigert, Miller, and Reitz neither ignored foreign

students entirely nor did they define explicitly the value of these students to the

university, the state, or the nation.

A recent initiative in the Florida legislature suggests that the debate about the

importance of international students continues. The Student Financial Assistance bill (HB

21), which passed in the Florida House of Representatives in 2005, would have denied


4 Craufurd D. Goodwin and Michael Nacht, Absence ofDecision: Foreign Students in American Colleges
(New York: Institute of International Education, 1983), 26.









financial assistance to certain classifications of international students and re-directed the

funds to state residents. Although the bill did not reach the Florida Senate, the measure

reveals the continuing debate regarding the desirability of supporting international

students in the state of Florida. Nationally, in 2004 the number of international students

on American campuses (572,509) declined for the first time since 1972. In response,

international student advocates have called for federal reforms of the numerous visa

restrictions placed upon foreign students in the wake of September 11, 2001. Until

university administrators are able to define clearly the purposes and value of international

students to American higher education, the future status of these students from abroad

will remain uncertain.5

























5 Florida House of Representatives, Student FinancialAssistance, HB 21, 2005 sess.,
hup \ %\ \ .myfloridahouse.gov/default.aspx (accessed June 2005). Institute of International Education,
Open Doors 2004 (New York: IIE, 2005). House Committee on Education and the Workforce, "Testimony
of Lawrence H. Bell Before the Subcommittees on Select Education and 21st Century Competitiveness,"
March 17, 2005, ihp \\ \ \\ .nafsa.org/content/PublicPolicy/NAFSAonthelssues/Issues.htm (accessed June
2005).

















APPENDIX
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AT UF AND IN THE U.S., 1946-1958





International Students at UF, 1946-1958


300


250


200


E 150
C
100


50


0


Total int'l students


1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958
year


Figure 1. International Students at UF, 1946-1958. (Source: Institute of International
Education, Educationfor One World, 1946-1953 and Open Doors, 1954-
1958).












International Students in the U.S., 1946-1958


50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000

30,000

E 25,000
a 20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0


Total int'l students


year



Figure 2. International Students in the U.S., 1946-1958. (Source: Source: Institute of
International Education, Educationfor One World, 1946-1953 and Open
Doors, 1954-1958).















LIST OF REFERENCES

Adams, Alfred. "A History of Public Higher Education in Florida: 1821-1961." EdD
diss., Florida State University, 1962.

Alexander, Richard R. "A Smooth Transition: Racial Integration at the University of
Florida, 1954-1958." Unpublished typescript, University of Florida, 1995.

Allaway, William H., and Hallam Shorrock. Dimensions ofInternational Higher
Education: The University of California Symposium on Education Abroad.
Boulder: Westview Press, 1985.

Baldwin, Nancy. "Cultural Adaptations of International Student Wives at the University
of Florida" PhD diss., University of Florida, 1969.

Bardis, Panos D. "Attitudes towards Dating among Foreign Students in America."
Marriage and Family Living 18, no. 4 (1956): 339-344.

Bruegger, A.T., and B.H. Atkinson. "Cherchez Les Differences." Journal of Higher
Education 27, no. 6 (1956): 297-300.

Bu, Liping. Making the World Like Us: Education, Cultural Expansion, and the
American Century. Westport, CT: Praeger Press, 2003.

Burn, Barbara. "Higher Education is International." In Dimensions ofInternational
Higher Education, ed. William Allaway and Hallam Shorrock. Boulder: Westview
Press, 1985.

Cieslak, Edward. The Foreign Student in American Colleges: A Survey and Evaluation of
Administrative Problems and Practices. Detroit: Wayne University Press, 1955.

Committee on Foreign Students. Records. Series 136, University of Florida Archives.

Committee on Friendly Relations Among Foreign Students. The Unofficial Ambassadors.
New York: Committee on Friendly Relations, 1928-1953.

Committee on the University and World Affairs. Report on the University and World
Affairs. New York: Ford Foundation, 1960.

Coombs, Philip. The Fourth Dimension on Foreign Policy: Educational and Cultural
Affairs. New York: Harper & Row, 1964.









De Wit, Hans. Internationalization of Higher Education in the United States of America
andEurope. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002.

Diggins, John Patrick. The Proud Decades: America in War and Peace. New York:
W.W. Norton & Company, 1988.

Drane, Hank. Historic Governors. Ocala, FL: Ferguson Printing, 1994.

Du Bois, Cora. Foreign Students and Higher Education in the United States. Washington,
DC: American Council on Education, 1956.

Education and World Affairs. The University Looks Abroad: Approaches to World
Affairs on Six American Universities. New York: Walker and Company, 1965.

Forstall, Richard L. "Florida Population of Counties by Decennial Census, 1900 to
1990." U.S. Bureau of the Census.
http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/fll90090.txt (accessed June 2005).

Forstat, Reisha. "Adjustment Problems of International Students." Journal of Sociology
and Social Research 36, no. 1 (1951): 25-30.

Frankel, Charles. The Neglected Aspect of Foreign Affairs. Washington DC: Brookings
Institution, 1965.

Geiger, Roger L. Research and Relevant Knowledge: American Research Universities
Since World War II. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Gellman, Irwin F. Good Neighbor Diplomacy: United States Policy in Latin America,
1933-1945. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979.

Goodwin, Craufurd D. and Michael Nacht. Absence ofDecision: Foreign Students in
American Colleges. New York: Institute of International Education, 1983.

Graves, John. "This Morning." Birmingham Age-Herald. October 14, 1941. Available in
University of Florida Archives, Office of the President, Series P7c: box 14, Genre
Files 1928-1947.

Harari, Maurice. The Foreign Student: Whom ./hi/ll We Welcome? New York: Education
and World Affairs, 1964.

-- Global Dimensions in U.S. Education: The University. New York: Center for
War/Peace Studies, 1972.

Higbee, Homer. The Status ofForeign Student Advising in United States Universities and
Colleges. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1961.

Humphrey, Richard. "Cultural Communication and New Imperatives." Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 335 (1961): 141-152.









Inauguration of Joseph Hillis Miller as President of the University of Florida.
Jacksonville: Drew Press, 1948.

Institute of International Education. Education for One World. New York: Institute of
International Education, 1948-1954.

-- Open Doors. New York: Institute of International Education, 1954-present.

Johnson, Walter, and Francis J. Colligan. The Fulbright Program: A History. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1965.

Keill, Norman. "Attitudes of Foreign Students." Journal of Higher Education 22, no. 4
(1951): 188-194, 225.

Kerr, Clark. "Global Education Concerns of Higher Education for the 1980s and
Beyond." In Expanding the International Dimension of Higher Education, ed.
Barbara Burn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980.

Lucas, Christopher J. American Higher Education: A History. New York: St. Martin's
Press, 1994.

McCarthy, Kevin. Fightin' Gators: A History of University ofFlorida Football.
Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2000.

Mestenhauser, Josef. "Portraits of an International Curriculum." In Reforming the Higher
Education Curriculum: Internationalizing the Campus, eds. Josef Mestenhauser
and Brenda Ellingboe. Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1998.

Miller, J. Hillis. "Higher Education and the Problems of this Decade." The Educational
Record 32, no. 4 (1951): 335-349.

Morris, Richard. "National Status and Attitudes of Foreign Students." Journal of Social
Issues 12, no. 1 (1956): 20-25.

Naser, Abdallah Omar. "The Relationship Between Academic Achievement and
Demographic and Language Variables for Male Foreign Students at the University
of Florida." Master's thesis, University of Florida, 1964.

National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. "The Land-Grant
Tradition." http://www.nasulgc.org/publications/Land_Grant/land.htm (accessed
June 2005).

Olsen, Lionel, and William Kunhart. "Foreign Student Reactions to American College
Life." Journal ofEducational Sociology 31, no. 7 (1958): 277-280.

Office of Academic Affairs. Series 2a, Administrative Policy Records, University of
Florida Archives.






88


Office of the Dean. Graduate School. Series 46a, Administrative Policy Records,
University of Florida Archives.

Office of the President. J. Hillis Miller. Series PlOa & PlOb, Administrative Policy
Records, University of Florida Archives.

-- J. Wayne Reitz. Series P14a, Administrative Policy Records, University of
Florida Archives.

-- John J. Tigert. Series P7a & P7c, Administrative Policy Records, University of
Florida Archives.

Osbom, George. John James Tigert: American Educator. Gainesville: University Presses
of Florida, 1974.

Peterson, James A., and Martin H. Neumeyer. "Problems of Foreign Students." Journal
of Sociology and Social Research 32, no. 4 (1948): 787-792.

Pitts, Edith. Papers. "Reminiscences of Three University Presidents." Manuscript
Collection 50, University of Florida Archives.

Proctor, Samuel. "The University of Florida: Its Early Years, 1853-1906." PhD diss.,
University of Florida, 1958.

Ruther, Nancy L. Barely There, Powerfully Present: Thirty Years of U.S. Policy on
International Higher Education. London: Routledge, 2002.

Sanders, Irwin, and Jennifer Ward. Bridges to Understanding: International Programs of
American Colleges and Universities. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.

Schmitz, Henry. "Implications of Geographic Restrictions on Enrollments in State
Colleges and Universities." Higher Education 3, no. 14 (1947): 1-3.

Schulken, Emma Walker. "The History of Foreign Students in American Higher
Education from its Colonial Beginnings to the Present." PhD diss., Florida State
University, 1972.

Sellitz, Claire, Anna Lee Hopson and Stuart Cook. "The Effects of Situational Factors on
Personal Interaction between Foreign Students and Americans." Journal of Social
Issues 12, no. 1 (1956): 33-44.

Smith, H. Alexander. Report to Accompany HR 3342. Senate Reports, 80th Cong., 1, no.
811.

Smith, M. Brewster. "Some Features of Foreign-Student Adjustment." Journal of Higher
Education 26, no. 5 (1955): 231-241.






89


Tabariasl, Khosro. "A History of International Students at Ball State University, 1945-
1980." PhD diss., Ball State, 1987.

Thelin, John R. A History of American Higher Education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 2004.

Tonkin, Humphrey, and Jane Edwards. The World in the Curriculum: Curricular
Strategiesfor the 21st Century. New Rochelle: Change Magazine Press, 1981.

University of Florida. "UF's Beginnings." http://www.ufl.edu/history/1853.html
(accessed June 2005).

University of Florida Archives. "J. Hillis Miller."
http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/spec/archome/Miller.htm (accessed June 2005).

-- "J. Wayne Reitz." http://web.uflib.ufl.edu/spec/archome/Reitz.htm (accessed
June 2005).

University of Florida Graduate School. Proposal to the United States Department of State
for an Inter-American Cultural and Scientific Center. Gainesville: University of
Florida, 1961.

University of Florida Office of Institutional Research. "Total Enrollment for University
of Florida from 1905-2003." http://www.ir.ufl.edu/factbook/enroll.htm (accessed
June 2005).

University of Florida Office of the President. "J. Wayne Reitz."
http://www.president.ufl.edu/pastPrez/reitz.htm (accessed June 2005).

-- "John J. Tigert." http://www.president.ufl.edu/pastPres/tigert.htm (accessed June
2005).

Vansant, Flora. "The International Student in the University of North Carolina." EdD
diss., University of North Carolina Greensboro, 1985.

Vestal, Theodore M. International Education: Its History and Promise for Today.
Westport, CT: Praeger Press, 1994.

Vyasulu, K. Usha. "International Students on the University of Florida Campus: Analysis
of Their Strongly Held Attitudes Toward U.S. Nationals." master's thesis,
University of Florida, 1975.

Webb, Neil D. "Fifty Years of Building the University of Florida, 1925 to 1975."
Gainesville: self-published, 1997.

Weidner, Edward. The World Role of Universities. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.






90


Wilson, Howard E. Universities and World Affairs. New York: Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, 1951.

Wilson, Howard E., and Florence H. Wilson. American Higher Education and World
Affairs. Washington DC: American Council on Education, 1963.

Woods, Randall Bennett. Fulbright: A Biography. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 1995.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Leigh Ann Bauer Osborne received a Master of Arts in Education, in social

foundations, from the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. She received Bachelor

of Arts degrees in French and English from the University of Florida in 2000. In the

summer of 1999, she studied abroad in Avignon, France. She has worked at the

University of Florida International Center since 1998. In her current position as Study

Abroad Advisor, she assists UF students in making their study abroad plans.