Proposed Recission of the International Education Programs Regulations

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.

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 commenter argues that clear, consistent, and stable regulations are necessary to maintain the integrity and efficacy of international education programs. They oppose the rescission because they believe programmatic regulations are vital for producing experts and protecting the infrastructure from political interference.

The commenter opposes the proposed rescission of the International Education Programs regulations, arguing that the regulations ensure applicants are evaluated on scholarly merits rather than administrative discretion. They express concern that removing these rules will create uncertainty, decrease transparency, and diminish the credibility of U.S. academic programs globally.

The commenter, a former Teaching Fulbright recipient, opposes the rescission of the International Education Programs Regulations. They argue that the existing regulations ensure fair competition, expert review, and the long-term stability necessary to build critical language and cultural expertise for national security and diplomacy.

The commenter, an experienced administrator in international education, opposes the rescission of the Title VI programs regulations. They argue that the current rules ensure fair competition and transparency, and that the Department should revise specific outdated provisions rather than eliminating the regulations entirely.

The commenter opposes the proposed rescission of the International Education Programs Regulations, arguing that it would remove essential procedural safeguards and academic oversight. They express concern that the change would undermine transparency, accountability, and the ability of academics to produce evidence-based scholarship.

The commenter, a director at the University of Michigan, opposes the rescission of the International Education Programs Regulations. They argue that removing clear competition rules will decrease transparency, create administrative confusion, and potentially harm the preservation of less commonly taught languages.

The commenter, an area studies outreach coordinator at the University of Michigan, opposes the rescission of the International Education Programs Regulations. They argue that the current rules provide necessary transparency and accountability, and that a wholesale rescission creates uncertainty, risks the funding of less commonly taught languages, and lacks evidence of improved administrative efficiency.

The commenter, a historian and former Fulbright alum, opposes the rescission of the International Education Programs Regulations. They argue that the current regulations are essential for ensuring transparency, fair competition, and scholarly integrity in the selection of high-quality international scholarship.