Proposed Recission of the International Education Programs Regulations

Melissa Torres, President and CEO of The Forum on Education Abroad, opposes the proposed rescission of the International Education Programs Regulations. She argues that the regulations provide essential operational clarity and quality standards for programs like Fulbright-Hays, which are critical for student career readiness and U.S. economic competitiveness.

The Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) opposes the wholesale rescission of the International Education Programs regulations without a clear replacement framework in place. They argue that a predictable regulatory framework is essential for institutions to maintain the deep language and area expertise necessary to serve national interests and congressional intent.

The German Studies Association (GSA) opposes the proposed rescission of regulations governing the Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs. They argue that these regulations are essential for maintaining the integrity of area studies, protecting endangered languages, and ensuring a stable basis for institutional investment and peer review.

The Modern Language Association (MLA) opposes the proposal to rescind regulations governing the Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs. They argue that the existing regulatory framework is essential for maintaining long-term investment in language and area studies and provides a stable basis for higher education institutions to compete for grants.

An emeritus professor of history from the University of Idaho opposes the rescission of the International Education Programs Regulations. The commenter argues that these programs are essential for supporting foreign language instruction, area studies, and international research, which are critical for national security and State Department needs.

The Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies (ASEEES) opposes the proposed rescission of regulations governing Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs. They argue that the existing regulatory framework is essential for maintaining a stable infrastructure for area studies, language instruction, and peer-reviewed grant processes.

The Joint National Committee for Languages (JNCL) and the National Council for Languages and International Studies (NCLIS) oppose the proposed rescission of international education program regulations. They argue that removing these regulations would eliminate clear selection criteria and peer review processes, potentially harming applicants, national security interests, and the transparent distribution of federal funds.

The American Historical Association opposes the proposed rescission of regulations governing the Title VI International Education Programs and Fulbright-Hays Programs. They argue that the proposal lacks evidence of administrative burden, threatens transparency and accountability, and creates uncertainty for institutions that rely on these programs for international research and language study.

The commenter opposes the proposed rescission of the International Education Programs regulations, arguing that the current rules provide essential predictability and continuity. They contend that removing these regulations would undermine the success of these programs in promoting U.S. "soft power" and supporting the study of other languages and cultures.

The commenter, a former Fulbright US. Student Program Grantee, opposes the proposal to rescind the regulations governing International Education and Fulbright-Hayes Programs. They argue that the program provides life-changing opportunities for students and that diminishing its regulatory structure would harm international exchange and the country's ability to foster global collaboration.