Proposed Recission of the International Education Programs Regulations

A faculty member at George Washington University opposes the proposed full rescission of the International Education Programs Regulations. The commenter argues that removing the regulatory framework undermines transparency, hinders long-term institutional planning, and avoids necessary public notice for potential changes to grant structures.

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.

Christopher Adams, a study abroad program administrator, expresses concern that rescinding regulations without clear replacement guardrails could harm transparency and academic autonomy. He urges the Department of Education to pair any deregulation with specific commitments to multi-year planning, peer review, equity for smaller institutions, and measurable outcomes.

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.

The commenter, a former director of a Title VI National Resource Center and Foreign Language Area Studies awardee, opposes the rescission of the International Education Programs (IFLE). They argue that the program is vital for national security, cultural understanding, and preparing a global workforce, and that its removal would leave the country with a less-informed citizenry.