The acting Fulbright Commission Board’s mass resignation this past Wednesday marks a significant moment for education abroad. The board, via a Substack post, cited alleged Trump administration interference in the award process, claiming that the Department of State sent rejection letters to candidates whose applications featured DEI keywords that Trump banned via recent executive order.
These included subjects such as gender studies, climate change, and history, which has largely changed as a field and now prioritizes identity categories over a substantive study of human civilization. The statement claimed that “injecting politics and ideological mandates into the Fulbright program violates the letter and spirit of the law” that Congress established nearly eight decades ago.
To say that it is politically inappropriate misses the point. By law, the 12 board members serve three-year terms. This means all who resigned were Biden appointees — radical Democrats who abided by one of the most radical administrations in the nation’s history.
It seems that many Americans expecting to get sent abroad fully-funded while holding profoundly critical views of our nation now might not fit in the puzzle.
The Fulbright program has historically been a beacon of American exceptionalism. It was formally established via the Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961, and it holds 61 Nobel laureates, 89 Pulitzer Prize winners, and 40 heads of state in its ranks of alumni.
Yet, the Fulbright program has adopted many of the same progressive tendencies that have befallen other elite educational institutions in this country, leading to a reappraisal of the ideal type of candidate. One increases their chances of an award with an identity-based personal statement or a stated interest in activism over appeals to traditionally conservative American values.
Fulbright is just one of many nationally competitive scholarships that have been subject to scrutiny in recent years. Take last year’s cohort of Rhodes Scholars: According to the Rhodes Institute, the class of 2024 featured zero identified conservatives and a woefully disproportionate number of women. Though denigrating the vision of a private trust raises its own problems, Fulbright is publicly funded, meaning that its mission should align with the priorities of the currently defined national interest.
The program’s express purpose is academic advancement and the promotion of American influence abroad, not to serve as an incubator for policy elites aligned with the post-2020 “message.” Thus, questioning the commission’s integrity becomes an obligation.
Each acting president appoints the board, so it’s unsurprising for it to align with the administration’s interests and prevailing cultural currents. Conservatives have observed a decadeslong march by progressive academics through elite institutions, promoting a monoculture and marginalizing conservative viewpoints. Where does the buck stop?
As someone whose life was profoundly shaped by international exchange, I hope this development does not spell the end. I just hope that of the many called, the few who are chosen reflect the best and brightest aspects of American cultural life.
Consequently, we now face a prime moment to closely audit programs where bureaucratic bloat obscures guiding principles. Why not send our best and brightest abroad?
ENTIRE FULBRIGHT BOARD RESIGNS, ACCUSING TRUMP OF UNDERMINING PROGRAM’S INTEGRITY
A bustling, vibrant, and strong American culture naturally proliferates globally when we lead by example. Fulbright has strayed from that purpose and from its namesake’s original vision.
Hopefully, the Fulbright Board resignations and subsequent appointments will prompt a shift to meritocracy, rather than promoting the exchange of American mediocrity.