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.

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.

A former Fulbright grant recipient and educator opposes the rescission of the International Education Programs Regulations. They argue that these programs are cost-effective tools for diplomacy, knowledge exchange, and providing valuable career experiences for US students.