The NSEP Debate

Overview

The National Security Education Program or Boren Program was created through the National Security Education Act (proposed by Senator Boren) in December 1991. NSEP provides funding (scholarships, fellowships, grants) to students and institutions of higher education. The primary aim of NSEP is to "address the need to increase the ability of Americans to communicate and compete globally by knowing the languages and culture of other countries"[ASA News, Volume XXVII, January/March 1994]. However, some argue that NSEP has objectives different from its primary goal. 

Many US scholars of Africa have raised issues regarding NSEP. One of the arguments is that NSEP does not promote academic interest but national security instead. The NSEP Administration is located in the Department of Def ense (DOD), i.e. the Secretary of Defense is responsible for selecting students and area of studies. Moreover, the Center of Intelligence Agency (CIA) is part of NSEP Board of Directors. Therefore, NSEP is funded and managed by both DOD and CIA. According to the Association of Concerned African Scholars (ACAS), NSEP funding for students of Africa represented only 9% of fellowships and scholarships in 1994-97, which showed in part the low interest these agencies have in this region [http://www.prairienet.org/ACAS/nsep97.html]. Many scholars have demanded the NSEP Administration to be transferred to the US Department of Education but they have not been heard until today. Still according to ACAS, the NSEP service requirement of 1992 allowed students receiving scholarships and fellowships to work either in a higher education institution or any federal agency. But since 1996, students are required to work in a federal agency dealing with national security and can only work in a higher education institution if no government job is available.

Another argument some US scholars of Africa made is that the connection with military and intelligence agency is a threat for academic based research. First, it can threaten the independence of scholars from political pressure and government interest. It can also affect access to research by rising suspicions in Africa about good intentions of US African studies and scholars. Finally, it can put student life at risk when abroad. As a result, ASA and organizations such as the Association of African Studies Programs (AASP) and the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) showed strong opposition to NSEP. For instance, AASP passed a resolution in 1993 supporting NSEP transfer to the US Department of Education. More recently, the Directors of Title VI National Resource Centers for Africa passed a resolution in November 17, 2001 supported by ASA Board Resolution of April 7, 2002. On April 27, 2002, MESA board of Directors reaffirmed their opposition to the current location of NSEP Administration and expressed their concern about the real goal of a new Pilot program, the National Flagship Language Initiative (NFLI-P) since academic programs and government agencies are directly linked. 

The strong mobilization of African and other area studies groups demonstrates the deep concern NSEP has created and indicates a continued need for transparent discussions about the program. 
 

Motion of the African Studies Association Board of Directors, November 16, 2008

During its Fall 2008 Board Meeting, the African Studies Association Board of Directors voted unanimously to reaffirm its April 7, 2002 motion endorsing the November 17, 2001 resolution of the Directors of Title VI National Resource Centers for Africa.

Motion of the African Studies Association Board of Directors, April 7, 2002

During its Spring 2002 Board Meeting, the African Studies Association Board of Directors voted unanimously to endorse the November 17, 2001 resolution of the Directors of Title VI National Resource Centers for Africa.

Motion of the Directors of Title VI National Resource Centers for Africa Passed unanimously November 17, 2001

We, the directors of the African Studies Title VI National Resource Centers, at our meeting during the 2001 annual meetings of the African Studies Association, vote to reaffirm our previously stated position to oppose the application for and acceptance of military and intelligence funding of area and language programs, projects, and research in African studies.  We note, too, that the African Studies Association has taken a similar stance.

We believe that the long-term interests of the people of the United States are best served by this separation between academic and military and defense establishments.  Indeed, in the climate of the post-Cold War years in Africa and the security concerns after September 11, 2001, we believe that it is a patriotic policy to make this separation.

This separation ensures that U.S. students and faculty researchers can maintain close ties with African researchers and affiliat ion with and access to African institutions without question or bias.  Such separation, we believe, can produce the knowledge and understanding of Africa that serves the broad interests of the people of the United States, as well as our partners in Africa.  We continue to welcome, in our classes, language training, and programs where we promote knowledge about Africa, all students and visitors from all private and public organizations and all agencies of the U.S. government.

We, the members of the Association of African Studies Programs (AASP) at our 1993 Spring Annual Meeting, unanimously join the African Studies Association, Middle East Studies Assocation, the Latin American Studies Association, the South Asian Council of the SSRC, the Association of Concerned Africa Scholars, the Association of Asian Studies, the Boards of the Social Science Research Council and American Council of Learned Societies, and other scholars in seeking to separate foreign language and area studies in the United States from military, intelligence, and other security agency priorities and programs.  We believe that long-term interests of the peoples of the United States are best s erved by this separation. 

Specifically, we reaffirm our conviction that scholars and programs conducting research in Africa, teaching about Africa, and conducting exchange programs with Africa should not accept research, fellowship, travel, programmatic, and other funding from military and intelligence agencies or their contractual representatives - for work in the United States or abroad. We are concerned especially about the Department of Defense (DOD) National Security Education Act (NSEA, "the Boren Act") and the new Central Intelligence and National Security Agencies Critical Language Consortium.  We call on our colleagues to abstain from these and similar funding initiatives and consortia of security agencies.  These military and intelligence programs violate the integrity of the scholarly process and will hinder our relationships with African colleagues and collaborators, embarrass African universities and governments, and, thereby, decrease U.S. access to scholarly information in African studies.

We also believe that the broader interests of the people of the United States are served best by Africanist scholarship and programs oriented to goals, issues, and regional foci which are determined openly using academic and broader public priorities, not in secret or for the narrower priorities of military, foreign policy, and intelligence agencies. 

We are not opposed to U.S. government funding of African studies.  Indeed, African studies by far is the poorest of the world area studies and urgently needs an increase of funding for activities in the U.S. and in Africa.  Therefore, we urge the U.S. government to increase its funding for African studies and linkages through agencies and institutions outside the security agencies. 

Enactm ent: We ask that our AASP Chairperson forward a copy of this resolution to all parties in paragraph one, the Association of American Universities, National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant College, Association of State Colleges and Universities, National Independent College Association, Assn. of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, relevant members of the Administration and Congress, the Chronicle for Higher Education, relevant members of the military, intelligence, and other security agencies, and others he deems relevant. 

Passed unanimously by all members in attendance, March 31, 1993, Washington, DC.

[Note: At meetings of the AASP in most years from 1994-2001, members have been asked if they wanted to revisit, amend, or reconsider this resolution.  The membership declined to reopen the issue but to allow the 1993 resolution to stand.]