Proposed Recission of the International Education Programs Regulations

The commenter, identifying as a scholar and former Title VI center director, opposes the proposed rescission of the International Education Programs Regulations. They argue that the regulations provide a necessary stable framework for building long-term national capacity in foreign languages and international research, which would be undermined by a shift toward short-term, shifting priorities.

The commenter, a former Fulbright recipient and Director for a National Resource Center, opposes the proposed rescission of the International Education Programs Regulations. They argue that deregulation would shift educational responsibilities to private contractors, increasing costs and compromising the quality and accessibility of programs like Title VI and Fulbright-Hays.

A concerned citizen, who previously served as a Director of a National Foreign Language Resource Center, opposes the proposed rescission of the International Education Programs Regulations. The commenter argues that the current regulatory framework allows for modernization without the need for total deregulation, which they claim would create a dangerous regulatory vacuum and destroy long-term educational infrastructure.

The commenter, an educator with 20 years of experience, opposes the rescission of the International Education Programs Regulations. They argue that programs like the Critical Language Scholarship and Fulbright are essential for preparing a skilled workforce for government and business needs.

A university professor and historian opposes the rescission of the International Education Programs Regulations, arguing that the Fulbright-Hays program is essential for advanced research, cultural exchange, and US diplomacy. They highlight how the program has personally enabled their career and provided vital funding for doctoral-level research.