Fulbright in New Zealand

Front Cover. Includes black and white photograph of Mt Cook taken from Lake Matheson Road

Today the Fulbright Programme is familiar worldwide as a unique means of fostering cultural and educational exchange between the United States and other nations. The Fulbright agreement between the United States and New Zealand governments was signed in 1948 and in the four decades since hundreds of teachers, professors, research scholars, students and others from both countries have benefited from this bi-national arrangement.

To celebrate the 40th anniversary of Fulbright in New Zealand Joan Druett has drawn on the reminiscences of more than 600 past alumni to write this fascinating and lively account. The book outlines the history of the United States/ New Zealand programme and allows American and New Zealand Fulbrighters to speak for themselves, recounting their experiences, both humorous and serious, in one another's countries.

Fulbright in New Zealand is a special book about a special subject. It will be read with pleasure and interest not just by those involved in the Fulbright Programme but by all who believe that better international understanding can mean a more united world.

Cover Photo: Looking at Mt Cook from Lake Matheson Road. (Communicate New Zealand)

Back free endpaper, includes black and white half-portrait photograph of the author, Joan Druett, sitting in a cane chair

Joan Druett, who was born and raised in New Zealand, is a graduate of Victoria College of the University of New Zealand and Christchurch Teacher's College. She has lived and travelled in many parts of the world, including North and South Aumerica, Europe, the Middle East, mainland China and South-East Asia. Her husband Ron, an Englishman, is a souvenir of one of these jaunts. They live in Hamilton, New Zealand, and have two sons.

Joan gave up teaching in 1984 to write fulltime. Exotic Intruders, her account of the acclimatisation of plants and animals in New Zealand (Heinemann, 1983) won the PEN and Hubert Church Awards for Best First Book of Prose in 1984.

In 1986 a Fulbright Writer's Fellowship made it possible for her to travel to the Hawaiian Islands and New England to study whaling history at the great American whaling museums. Since then she has published several articles on the topic of women on whaleships in the Pacific in the nineteenth century. Subsequently she has extended this research to the whaling museums and libraries of Tasmania and New South Wales, Australia. She is still working on Petticoat Whalers, the full-length account of the whaling women, which utilises this extensive material. Her novel Abigail, will be published simultaneously in New York, London and Aukland at the end of 1988. Photo: Rod Wright.

ISBN 0 473 00602 2

titlepage

FULBRIGHT in New Zealand FULBRIGHT in New Zealand Joan Druett NEW ZEALAND-UNITED STATESEDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONAll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. First published 1988New Zealand-United States Educational Foundation P.O. Box 3465 Wellington New Zealand © 1988 First published 1988 ISBN 0 473 00602 2 Typeset by Wordset Enterprises Limited, Wellington Designed by R & B Graphics Edited by Anna Rogers Printed by Kings Time Printing Press of Hong Kong in association with Bookprint Consultants, Wellington.

Contents

Acknowledgements 7 1 A Love Affair with New Zealand 9 2 A Kiwi on the Campus 26 3 Captain of the Chalkies 39 4 The Last Living Moa 52 5 A Return Air Ticket and a Little Prestige 65 6 A Process of Global Enlightenment 74 7 The Other Side of Sunrise 91 Appendices —Number of Participants by Country 104 —Board of Directors — New Zealand Members 105 —Board of Directors — United States Members 106 —New Zealand Research Scholars and Lecturers 107 —New Zealand Graduate Students 109 —New Zealand Exchange Teachers 114 —New Zealand Educational and Vocational Development Grants 115 —New Zealand Cultural Grants 116 —United States Research Scholars and Lecturers 117 —United States Graduate Students 121 —United States Exchange Teachers 123 —United States Cultural Grants 124 Bibliography 125

Note

In 1986, in preparation for the 40th anniversary of Fulbright in New Zealand, the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (under contract to the New Zealand-United States Educational Foundation) began to trace all past grantees in order to find out what had happened to them since the time of their award and also to invite them to contribute anecdotes and recollections of their time in New Zealand or the United States.

The purpose was dual:

To obtain subjective material for this history of Fulbright in New Zealand. To obtain statistical data as an aid to formulation of future policy.

The Report on the Fulbright Survey (February 1988) was prepared by Geraldine McDonald, Pam Kennedy and Barb Bishop.

Acknowledgements

A book which has as its subject a programme of such goodwill must, in the research and writing processes, rely on the goodwill of others.

Firstly, I must thank Eric Budge and Laurie Cox, the two Executive Directors of the Foundation in New Zealand, for their constant helpfulness, courtesy and patience. The book could not have been written without the time and attention they gave so unstintingly. I also must thank past and present secretaries: Doreen Galbraith, Jane Rice and Carolyn Douglas.

I also owe gratitude to the staff of the New Zealand Council for Educational Research who were so knowledgeable and pleasant during the huge task of sorting out the questionnaires as they arrived and then in the collation of the subjective material that provided so much of this account. Geraldine McDonald, Pam Kennedy, Barb Bishop and Ellen Meiklejohn were also unfailingly helpful and forthcoming with the objective material which forms the bulk of their survey. Then I must also thank the members of the Board, particularly Frank Corner, Baron von Kohorn, Bill Renwick and Geraldine McDonald, who made time to see me, read three drafts and gave much helpful advice and comment.

Then there were those who communicated what the Fulbright philosophy means to their concept of New Zealand as it is now: Judith Fyfe, Brendan Smyth, James Mack, Ken Keith, Jim Traue, Jock Phillips and Maurice Cave in Wellington, and David Mitchell, Bruce Dixon, Mary Gordon and John Jensen in Hamilton. Bob Clark took the time to see me during a busy visit from Auckland. I also must thank those who took time to write: Earl Dennis, Connie Hall, Sonia Gernes, E. P. Y. Simpson, Gwynneth Hall, Marie Dulihanty and Sandra Myres.

I must also thank, deeply and sincerely, the 662 past alumni who filled in the questionnaire and sent it back, along with anecdotes, clippings, articles, reminiscences, comments, photographs, jokes, letters and even poetry. This book could not have been written without them.

Joan Druett February 1988

Chapter 1 A Love Affair with New Zealand

"I didn't come to New Zealand because I was too happy. I came because of a dim sense that things had gone wrong. I was a little bored, a little restless, my writing often stalled, my thoughts muffled by small failures, small disappointments, attempts at love that failed . . . I wanted to view life through other eyes, to become aware of those assumptions that are the unseen cause of most of our failures, each of us as sure of our rightness as we are sure that June is the realm of summer days, and that birds fly south to escape the winter storm.

Learning to see again is a subtle thing, I've found. It's the fact that vegetables have different names and fruits I've never seen before fall from the trees in profusion (feijoa, tamarillo, pepino) ... It's the Maori novels I've been reading in which tradition is more important than progress. It's hiking in a jungle that is snakeless and cold and learning that camellias are a 'winter flower'. . . .

It is late September as I write this, and spring is what I'm spying on. There is a blush of flowers everywhere - magnolias, iris, rhododendrons higher than the house. This is no longer an anomaly I've come to accept the daffodils of August, the falling leaves of May. When letters from South Bend drift into my mailbox on paper thin as froth I think of you all there on the other side of sunrise, waking on a day that for me is already past. I think of the fire that is beginning to ignite those little maples near the campus post office and of the bushes that will soon flame along St Mary's Lake. I remember that next autumn I too will be walking down the long avenue of oaks, that russet-gold will be the right colour for October as it has always been. But I hope there will be a twinge of strangeness in it all."

Sonia Gernes, Fulbright lecturer, 1986

"Education is a slow-moving but powerful force. It may not be fast enough or strong enough to save us from catastrophe, but it is the strongest force available."

Senator J. William Fulbright

Prominent among the activities designed to foster international understanding and mutual goodwill is the Fulbright Programme, officially known as Public Law 584 of the 79th United States Congress. The Fulbright Act,

named after Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, who sponsored it through Congress, was signed by President Truman on 1 August 1946. It authorised the United States Government to enter into agreements with countries owing money on Lend-Lease during World War 11 or from the sale of United States surplus property at the end of the war, to spend these funds for educational exchanges between the United States and the countries concerned.

"Looking back, the educational exchange programme seems inevitable. Certainly, it crystallised hopes and needs, and was a response to pressures, widely felt as World War II ended. There was a passionate hope among all peoples that greater knowledge and understanding of one another could help assure peace. There was, too, a hunger among scientists and scholars to renew communications almost totally destroyed by war. Further, for Americans and perhaps for others, the war had ended a long period of isolationism, and the desire was strong to bring into their lives and classrooms knowledge of the countries and peoples overseas."

'International Foreign Exchange', Board of Foreign Scholarships, 1966

This new act was a trend-breaker in many ways, significantly different from previous overseas scholarships. Firstly, it put the exchange of teachers and scholars on a truly international basis. Secondly, larger funds were available than for any earlier programme. The act also initiated a programme that was definitely a two-way exchange, providing grants for study in the United States as well as for Americans to study abroad. It was truly bilateral — or

SENATOR FULBRIGHT

James William Fulbright was born in 1905, in the town of Sumner, Missouri. Educated at the University of Arkansas, he then, as a Rhodes scholar, studied and received another degree at the University of Oxford. After completing a law degree at George Washington University, he was admitted to the District of Washington bar, and served for a year as a special attorney in the United States Department of Justice. He taught at George Washington University from 1935 to 1936 and then at the University of Arkansas from 1936 to 1939. He was President of that university from 1939 to 1941.

A member of the Democratic Party, Fulbright was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1942, and to the Senate in 1944. When he rose in the Senate to introduce his bill in late September 1945, Senator Fulbright displayed the political skill that his experience as a congressman, university president, law school lecturer and Rhodes scholar had given him. He had spent four years in Europe, three of them at Oxford, and had a driving awareness of the basic similarity of European culture and the links between the United States and the rest of the world. He knew, from his subsequent years at George Washington University and the University of Arkansas, how political pressures and educational needs are often at war with each other. His work as a congressman had laid the foundations of the acceptance of the United Nations in the United States.

Fulbright brought to the Senate not only a deeply held commitment to the ideals of international education, but also a profound recognition of the miseries that had been wrought by the War Reparations after World War I. It was the combination of these two concerns that led him to introduce the legislation that would use the debts of war to finance the pursuit of peace and international understanding.

Black and White photograph of Senator Fulbright 'bi-national' — based on formal exchange agreements between the United States and each participating country, and was administered in each of these countries by a bi-national foundation or commission set up under the terms of the agreement.

Another unique requirement of the act was that the programme, although administered by the government, was under the supervision of a Board of Foreign Scholarships, consisting of distinguished men and women appointed by the President from the academic and cultural world, as well as the government agencies immediately concerned. This Board was so designed to give assurance in the United States and abroad that the programme's essential character would be educational and non-political. Today, the 12 appointees of this Board select all Fulbright grantees and establish the policies and procedures for the programme in the same manner as they did first in 1947.

The initial meetings of the Board in 1947 and 1948 shaped other basic principles which now characterise the programme. One of the most significant was that it would rely heavily on private co-operation. Further, it was agreed that exchange grants would be awarded to teachers, professors, research scholars and students on merit alone: there would be no means tests. That merit was to be judged not only on academic or professional standing, but also on the applicant's ability to be an ambassador for his or her country. The goal of increasing mutual understanding was to be considered as important as that of furthering individual scholarship.

Both in the United States and abroad the announcement of the programme awakened immediate interest and inspired many requests for further information. Many of the eligible governments made it known that they wished to negotiate agreements. The Republic of China (then on the mainland) was the first country to sign an agreement, in November 1947. New Zealand was the fifth.

The agreement between the United States and New Zealand Governments was signed on 14 September 1948. The original agreement, together with an amendment which came into force on 9 March 1949, provided for the setting up of the United States Educational Foundation in New Zealand, which, under the general direction of the Board of Foreign Scholarships and the Department of State in Washington, administered the Fulbright programme in New Zealand.

John S. Service, First Secretary at the United States Embassy in Wellington, was the first Acting Chairman, and he, with Armistead Lee, who was then Second Secretary, did most of the work for the United States Embassy on the early negotiations. Armistead Lee did a lot of the legwork and his New Zealand secretary, Gwynneth Hall, drafted many of the communications to Washington on these negotiations.

Then, in February 1949, Earl A. Dennis, Public Affairs Officer at the United States Embassy from 1949 to 1951, arrived in New Zealand with, as he described it, 'the principal assignment of getting the Fulbright Exchange Programme under way':

Earl A. Dennis. Black and White photograph of Earl A. Dennis

"The first, unofficial but extremely effective acting Executive Secretary of the Educational Foundation was my USIS secretary, Marie Luom. For some six or seven months after my arrival in New Zealand ... Marie and I were the Foundation staff. It took some time for the New Zealand Department of Education to give up Eric Budge, and in the meantime Marie and I had a tremendous amount of work to do to prepare for the arrival of the first contingent of American students, professors and research scholars who would be hoving into sight in time to begin the academic year beginning March 1950.

Housing in Wellington was very difficult at that time and to assist this invasion of American academics was a real challenge. How great we did not know until later. My wife, daughter and I came to New Zealand on very short notice from the United States Department of State.... We therefore came without our household effects and depended on renting furnished quarters of persons who had ‘gone home’ for the year, or who for other reasons rented their homes temporarily. As it turned out we lived in five houses and two hotels during the two and a half years we lived in Wellington. I developed a real antipathy for the Shaw Savill liner Dominion Monarch (a beautiful ship) because as I sat in my office in the Government Life Insurance Building and watched the Dominion Monarch cruising slowly towards

ERIC G. BUDGE In November 1971 the American Ambassador, Mr Franzheim, and George Laking, Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, were joint hosts at a luncheon in Wellington's Hotel Waterloo. The occasion was the presentation to Eric Budge of a distinguished Service Award from the Board of Foreign Scholarships in Washington. Eric Budge was also retiring after 22 years of serving the United States Educational Foundation in New Zealand. He was the longest serving Director in the world. He had a great deal to look back on, on that November occasion. He had welcomed, farewelled and supervised 490 New Zealanders who had gone to America, and 414 Americans who had come the other way. The job had certainly had variety: he had dealt with graduate students, university lecturers, research scholars and teachers, in occupations ranging from accountancy to zoology, and the rewards, both tangible and intangible, had been great. He saw a new awareness in New Zealand universities, a consciousness of the developments in America and their ramifications and many advantages. Before the start of his tenure there were scarcely any American-trained academics in New Zealand, but at the end American or American-trained people were on the staffs of most departments in New Zealand universities. Attending to the needs of Fulbrighters who had come at the start of the American academic year and getting New Zealanders away by September for the northern semester could be hectic at times, but the personal rewards were great too. Eric's great attention to detail, and his willingness to help grantees won him many friends. During two brief visits to the United States (in 1954 and 1964) he was a guest in the homes of many of them. It was busy but immensely enjoyable — because, as he modestly says, Fulbrighters are such first-rate people.

Black and White photograph of Eric G. Budge the pier it probably had my landlord on it returning from his six month trip ‘home’ and I knew we would have to move again."

In mid-1949 Eric Budge was offered the job of Secretary. He was well qualified for the position, which he held until 1971. Most of the grantees would be coming to or going from the constituent colleges of the University of New Zealand, and as Assistant to the Officer for Higher Education Eric Budge knew all the senior administrators and was fully informed about the activities of their institutions. At an earlier stage, in the Department of Education, he had handled the exchange of teachers with other parts of the then British Empire.

The men and women who served on the Boards of the various Foundations were all distinguished in various fields. Each Foundation has a separate executive agreement with the United States, and is always bilateral, composed of distinguished national cultural leaders and educators and Americans from the United States Embassy and the resident American community. The Foundations, which administer the educational programme impartially and in keeping with the needs and interests of each participating country, work closely with the co-operating agencies in the United States in the day-to-day operation of the programme.

Here, from Earl Dennis, are the names of the first members of the Foundation Board ‘to the best of my knowledge and Ralph Vogel's recorder’:

"Honorary Chairman, Ambassador Robert E. Scotten Temporary Chairman, John S. Service, First Secretary, American Embassy Henry Miller, Wellington Representative of Firestone Tire and Rubber Company Armistead Lee, Second Secretary, American Embassy Osborne Watson, Commercial Attache, American Embassy Clark Fahling, Wellington Representative of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company Sir David Smith, Retired Supreme Court Justice and Chancellor of the University of New Zealand Sir Howard Kippenberger, Retired Major-General of New Zealand Forces in North Africa and Italy in World War II and National President of the New Zealand Returned Servicemen's Association, and World War II historian Frank Callaghan, Head of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research."

The negotiations had stressed that New Zealand should have a material role in the setting up of the bi-national Foundation, but, as Earl Dennis recalled,

"It took the calm, influential and judicial voice of Sir David Smith to put on the record that this was, indeed, a bi-national programme. For example: The selection agency in the US had recommended an American research scholar (a professor of entomology at the University of Hawaii) for a research grant in New Zealand to do research on a rather obscure and not terribly important family of insects (the Psyllidae). In the Board discussions as to the Foundation's decision to award the professor a grant, a New Zealand member asked, ‘What possible value could research of this type be to New Zealand?’

After everybody else had his say Sir David made the clinching statement, and established the principle then, and henceforth, that the Fulbright exchange is a bi-national programme. It ran something like this:

‘Gentlemen, it is my feeling that if the recommending agency in the US has seen fit to recommend Professor X for this grant, who are we to judge the value of his research on the basis of our country alone?’ Professor X was awarded the grant. This is only one example of many, when Sir David's wise and judicial mind laid down some fundamental principles which governed future operations of the foundation programme."

Along with Sir David Smith, the other two initial New Zealand directors of the Foundation Board were Major-General Sir Howard Kippenberger and Frank Callaghan. Former Executive Secretary Eric Budge explained why the two men were chosen:

"Major-General Sir Howard Kippenberger was, I understand, appointed as one of the three initial directors of the Foundation Board on the basis that as the Foundation owed its origins to World War II it was appropriate to include one of the country's most distinguished soldiers of the war and one who, as Editor-in-Chief of the War Histories Board of the Internal Affairs Department, was still concerned with the effects of the conflict. Sir Howard had practised as a solicitor in Rangiora between the wars. He took a keen interest in the Foundation's activities and perhaps because of his legal training his observations were always to the point. He remained on the Board until his death in 1957 when he was replaced by Air-Vice Marshal Sir Arthur Nevill.

The other initial New Zealand member, Frank Callaghan, was permanent head of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. His background was in botany but he had acquired a wide knowledge in many scientific fields and was very helpful in assessing the relatively large number of applications in those fields, especially in the early years.

The DSIR put forward proposals to have US research scholars and its officers from time to time applied for awards to go to the United States, but he was quite neutral when this happened and let the facts speak for themselves. He remained on the Board and its Screening Committee until 1969."

The selection of candidates for exchange grants was the result of several screening processes. In the United States enrolled students applied through their Campus Screening Committees, which forwarded suitable applications to the Institute of International Education in New York, while those not enrolled could do this of their own accord. The Institute's National Screening Committee reviewed all applications, sending those it recommended to the Bi-national Commissions or the United States Embassies abroad. The Bi-national Commissions submitted the applicants for whom satisfactory placements could be made in each country to the Board of Foreign Scholarships, and the Board made the final selections.

American teachers, lecturers and research scholars were selected in a similar way, except that no campus or state committees were involved. For teachers, the Office of Education, not the Institute of International Education, was involved as the preliminary screening committee, and for lecturers and scholars, the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils.

The selection of New Zealand grantees, in effect, reversed the processes. The Foundation in New Zealand was the first screening committee. It sent its recommendations to the appropriate contract agency (the Institute of International Education, or the Office of Education or the Conference Board) and to the Board of Foreign Scholarships. The Board made all the final selections and awarded the grants.

Eric Budge described the early days of Fulbright in New Zealand:

"The American students all received a maintenance allowance as a single person, payment of tuition fees, and reimbursement up to a certain amount for incidental expenses plus a travel allowance for field projects.

Applications were selected by the Institute of International Education in New York as the State Department's agent. The Foundation had the final say but in practice we accepted all those we could place with confidence and graduate status at one of the university colleges or occasionally elsewhere. Research scholars were in the programme from the outset. I believe we were the first to feature them, with programmes sent to the State Department listing perhaps three or four openings at university colleges for one or two awards as lecturers and perhaps twenty openings for five or six awards as research scholars.

If approved by the State Department, which usually happened, they would be sent to the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils in Washington, which would advertise them and send the papers of the best applicants back to the Department to be sent on to us for our choice.

Most of the Foundations settled for visiting lecturers to help out with their problems in getting good quality staff at their universities. In time some would learn that the Fulbright programme was not able to and would not want to induce good quality staff to go to indifferent institutions.

We had the problem of the different academic year. The majority of the Fulbright Foundations are in the Northern Hemisphere and New Zealand would have been the first in the Southern Hemisphere.

It did not occur to the State Department in Washington that New Zealand might have a different academic year and the 1949 batch of US graduate students were sent down in September. That is, except for Lois Brean, a student from Maine who had been in touch with Victoria University College in Wellington and insisted that as classes would begin in March she would arrive there late in February 1950. Earl Dennis commented that people from Maine were always very precise. She lost out, however, as the other students had their awards extended with a virtual holiday until March.

The students both ways soon adjusted, but it was not so simple especially for American senior people thinking of coming as university lecturers. For them March was an odd time to start and they would usually have to be back at their home institution by early September, whereas the New Zealand institution would want them to stay until October or perhaps November. However, this problem was solved to a large extent, incidentally.

It was a requirement that senior grantees be based at an approved university institution. But the Colleges of the University of New Zealand were mostly teaching institutions with only a handful of staff engaged in research which earned recognition outside New Zealand. On the other hand, scientists of world rank were asking the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils in Washington about the possibility of coming to research laboratories under the control of the New Zealand Government's Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Department of Agriculture. The leading laboratories were the Grasslands Division of the DSIR headed by Dr Bruce Levy who was probably the world leader in his field; the Ruakura Animal Research Station headed by Dr McMeekan, who, among other things, had built up a herd of identical twin calves which provided untold research opportunities, and the Wallaceville Animal Research Station where Dr Cunningham was also a world figure.

When Frank Callaghan heard about these individual approaches he suggested that the Foundation state a case. The State Department accepted the arguments and the three research laboratories were approved as were other laboratories when the occasion arose.

I doubt whether the significance of this approval was recognised at the time, but it had most beneficial effects in several ways.

In the first place, the grantees coming to the laboratories could forget about the New Zealand academic year, so timing a visit became so much simpler. Secondly, it soon became obvious that the offer of a research award with the prospect of publishing papers of consequence was much more attractive than a lecturing appointment. This meant that the university colleges could, in many fields, not only overcome the problem of the different academic year, but also get better applicants by asking for research scholars rather than lecturers. And thirdly, as things developed, the US grantees, whether at research laboratories or at university colleges, of their own accord and with the Foundation's encouragement, saw most of the New Zealanders in their fields throughout the country. And they were normally very willing to give occasional lectures in those areas in which they had special knowledge. A condition of considerable mutual ignorance gradually changed to a state of considerable mutual respect.

Initially I was quite unenthusiastic about science grantees hobnobbing together in their labs. This seemed to have little to offer in terms of Fulbright goodwill, compared with sending a visiting lecturer who would probably associate with hundreds. I was seldom wrong in my judgement, then, but I certainly was, in this case.

They were mostly quietly spoken people, some a little shy, but of considerable stature well beyond excellence in their field, and somehow one felt better for having met them. Reports from their host institutions were most complimentary, always, not only about their research work but also about the way in which they had fitted in socially with others at work and the area in which they lived. When I visited the institutions and asked people about them, their eyes softened as they replied.

I have told the State Department officers at conferences that these research scholars never put a foot wrong as Fulbright grantees.

There were too many to mention but a typical one was Professor Merton Love who came from the University of California at Davis, perhaps the leading Agricultural College in the United States. He was one of five grantees brought down to give papers at the Sixth International Grasslands Conference held in Palmerston North, in 1956. He was based for his nine month stay at Lincoln College, where he became a kind of benevolent godfather. Scientists there and on the Soil Conservation Council had been agitating fruitlessly for years for a high country research station. His enthusiastic report resulted in the birth of a Tussock Grasslands and Mountain Lands Institute. Its name and functions have changed in the course of time, but its activities are now controlled by Professor O'Connor, a New Zealand Fulbright scholar from Lincoln who took his PhD at Davis.

Professor Love was a Rotarian and so had a double duty to go out and meet people. He must have spoken to hundreds.

I referred to Professor Love as a typical grantee. He was one of a procession of senior grantees from Davis, which would have sent more than any other university in the United States, all of them in a field related to farming. Farming was then very much the life blood of the community, and agricultural scientists from around the world wanted to be at Grasslands, Ruakura, Wallaceville, Soil Bureau, Massey University College and Lincoln College. Grassland specialists, soil scientists, foresters, biologists, microbiologists, entomologists, parasitologists, veterinarians, etc. came as Fulbright grantees and most gave at least as much as they got. The gain to New Zealand is not measurable but it must have been considerable.

The Foundation's firm policy of offering awards in our strongest fields had full support from sponsoring institutions though it did run counter to the State Department's desire for an even spread throughout all fields. And some of the American members of the Board wanted grantees to be brought down in areas where New Zealand was well behind. We soon found out that good grantees are seldom interested in areas of weakness. However the scholars who came were certainly not confined to the pastoral and agricultural field. Lecturers and research scholars in fields outside agriculture and other sciences included accountancy, adult education, American history, architecture, criminology, dentistry, economics, education, engineering, geography, German, home science, law, library science, literature, mathematics, medicine, physical education and religion.

The Conference Board of Associated Research Councils assessed the academic standing of the grantees accepted by the various Foundations. This Foundation was listed in the top bracket. This meant that the grantees coming to New Zealand were regularly rated as highly as those going to Great Britain."

It is difficult now to imagine a time when ‘Fulbright’ was not yet a household word, yet, as Doreen Galbraith, Personal Assistant to the Executive Secretary/Executive Director from 1949 to 1983, recalls,

"In those early days we worked under very trying conditions attached to the American Embassy — lack of office space and a terrific amount of paper work, so different now — and the pressure was terrific and there was always the mad rush to catch the Pouch to the State Department. However, it was all rather exciting; they were very happy days in those early years before the Embassy moved off to The Terrace and we were left high and dry in Government Life on our own."

And what about those first American Fulbrighters? How did they feel about coming to New Zealand — and how did the New Zealanders they met feel about them?

Doreen Galbraith. Black and White photograph of Doreen Galbraith by the sea

It was a surprise, perhaps, to find that many Americans thought that New Zealand had a kind of mystique. Fulbright researcher James McEnteer wrote of this attitude in an article titled ‘The Playing Fields of Eden’, published in the New Zealand Listener of 17 October 1987:

"Tourists aside, the Americans who fall under the spell of Kiwi magic and feel compelled to visit New Zealand are of three basic types: the gold diggers, the space travellers and the utopians ...

The gold-digging tradition is the oldest of the three. By 1797 the Yanks, as sealers and whalers, had arrived in force. As the Oxford History relates, it was an American sealer, O. F. Smith, who ‘discovered’ Foveaux Strait in 1804. By 1839 about 80 American deep sea whaling ships plied New Zealand waters. Americans established businesses ashore too; men like William Webster, who ran a large-scale timber milling operation in the Coromandel in the 1830s....

Gold diggers are a prosaic and predictable lot compared to the American space travellers.... Yankee space travellers characteristically have only the vaguest notion of how or what or even where New Zealand really is. But it is precisely this lack of information which attracts them here; space travellers seek adventures in the Great Unknown."

If an American in 1987 can find New Zealand ‘the Great Unknown’ then New Zealand in 1949 must have seemed an adventure indeed. The trailblazers found a small country, one-fifth the size of Texas, a string of islands more or less the shape of Japan, but with a population that numbered only 1,725,267. Furthermore, New Zealand, most disconcertingly, reversed everything: faucets, light switches, the rules of the road, the seasons. For many of the Americans the overwhelming sensation on arrival was that they had stepped back 40 years — not ‘space travel’, but ‘time travel’. There were frontier-style wooden houses and shops with awnings, in rows along dusty roads, and there was a frontier-like dependence on what the land provided.

‘New Zealanders may be the most hospitable people in the world,’ wrote one American. New Zealanders were also perhaps the most obsessed with watching and taking part in sport. They were fanciers of horse-flesh, too, and seemed oddly willing to hand over their hard-earned cash to a strange institution, the totalisator. They also played a totally mystifying game called cricket, and gave up countless hours of sleep to follow the progress of their teams on radio. It was a land of milk tokens, Aunt Daisy and two kinds of radio, of roll-your-own smokes and athletes who advertised alcohol and tobacco. New Zealanders were royalty-watchers, too — and those Americans who were here in 1953 became royalty-watchers too, although not necessarily from choice. ‘Wherever we went,’ wrote one, ‘SHE was there and we waited and waited . . .’ New Zealanders, too, were complacent about what they thought of as a happy racial situation, but many of the Americans wondered. ‘Pakeha and Maori,’ wrote one. ‘Together and yet maybe not...’

‘One of life's great experiences’ — Professor Elmer Scholer with National Park personnel at the top of Craigieburn, 1965. Black and White photograph of Professor Elmer Sholer with National Park personnel at the top of Craigieburn in 1965

And then there was the 40-hour week. At that time it dominated conversations — and lives. Shopping had to be done on overcrowded Friday nights instead of on leisurely Saturday mornings. Instead of supermarkets and drugstores there were crowds of little dairies, groceries and butchers' stores, and even the labels were written in a different kind of English. Of all the problems, however, transportation was perhaps the worst. Many Americans found they had to buy a car, and the problem was how to afford one.

Cars in New Zealand at that time were unexpectedly expensive. Those who wanted new cars had to produce overseas funds as a proportion of the price. Because of this, second-hand cars were often even more expensive than new ones, and ancient cars were kept on the road. ‘Future grantees,’ wrote one American in his report, ‘should be told more about the availability of automobiles, the cost, the rate of depreciation, driver's licence requirements, and the requirements in regards to change of steering.’

Wives and families had to make adjustments as well. They found a world of kindergartens at the age of three, school at five, free milk and apples at ‘morning teatime’, school dental nurses, broadcasts to schools, school uniforms, single-sex schools in the cities, and accrediting for University Entrance. ‘Pounds, shillings and pence,’ wrote one Fulbrighter, ‘remained a mystery to the end.’

"Then there were the male adjustments: pub crawls and smoko, even when the job in hand was urgent. One Fulbrighter described the ‘six o'clock swill’ as ‘an exciting and impressive custom’. Then there were the holidays, camping and beaches at Christmas. Fred Addicott, a 1957 research scholar, and his family have recollections of a camp in Queenstown, and their arrival in a cold and drenching rain.

"The best booking that we had been able to get turned out to be a thoroughly saturated square of turf on which we then struggled to set up the modest tent lent by Day's Bay friends. By the time the tent was up and reasonably secure we were cold, wet and not in the most cheerful of moods. As we gathered inside to consider how we might arrange ourselves for a night on the soggy grass, a camp neighbour appeared at the doorway and said, ‘Here, I thought you might be able to use this.’"

‘This’ turned out to be a glowing portable kerosene stove. Other campers gave the family hot drinks and dried their wet sleeping bags. ‘Thirty years later,’ Fred Addicott writes, ‘the memory of that visit and those thoughtful and helpful South Islanders is still warm in our hearts.’

"It is my impression," said 1953 Fulbright scholar Kling Anderson, "that New Zealanders and Americans have much in common. They believe in the same things and are striving for the same major attainments. Differences in our ways of life are mostly limited to the relatively unimportant, minor, things, and are overwhelmed by the similarities. Each nation can contribute much to the knowledge and culture of the other, and, therefore, emphasis on such exchanges as these Fulbright Scholarships needs to continue or even increase to strengthen the bonds of understanding between us."

Howard Critchfield was in New Zealand in 1947, before the programme here started, as a visiting lecturer in geography at Canterbury College. He was ‘picked up’ by the scheme and given his return fare home, and notes with pride that he was probably the first Fulbrighter to arrive in this country. The first to be brought out to New Zealand, however, was Dr Olaus Murie, as Earl Dennis explained:

‘Seven months of summer work in the Antarctic was arduous, demanding and a great personal as well as professional experience’ — J. B. Treves. Black and White photograph of four men, including J.B. Treves, standing and talking in an Antarctic setting

"With John S. Service acting as temporary chairman of the Foundation, one American grantee, Olaus Murie, a distinguished American naturalist and high-ranking officer of the Wilderness Society, had already been awarded an Education Foundation grant and had already arrived in New Zealand before I arrived. He was investigating the population of American elk (wapiti: 20 of this species had been donated to the Government of New Zealand by President Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt in 1909). This population was released in the Sounds area of the South Island and Murie was already there, with a small party of New Zealand wildlife experts. Murie was active in the environment movement in the US and many of his opponents here considered him pretty far left, politically. This was seized upon by certain elements in New Zealand (who had their own Communist problem with Messrs Barnes and Hill of the Longshoremen's Union). They dubbed Murie a Communist, which was echoed by the rising pro-McCarthy faction in Washington and between the two factions gave the Foundation in Wellington and the Department of State here a hard time, for a while. It blew over. Murie was certainly not a Communist and was not in the South Island to capture and take home with him a few pairs of Notornis — a supposedly extinct species of bird which had just been discovered alive and well in the South Island. The anti-Murie group in New Zealand had gone so far as to accuse him with that intent."

If Dr Murie was aware of this controversy, he did not seem to let it affect his project here, or stop him from talking to as many New Zealanders as he could. Fiordland is perhaps the wettest piece of real estate in the temperate world; it also has the unenviable record of 48 gales per annum. ‘More rain and nasty weather than I could have anticipated anywhere in the world,’ he told reporters. His team companions were, he said, ‘a great bunch of people.’ His wife, too, spoke to the media, in the Fulbright tradition that was only just starting, and gave a talk on radio.

Geologists, too, were happy to experience New Zealand landscape and weather. Coming here did a geologist's record no harm at all, for New Zealand geomorphology is famous — 'There is no way I could ignore that scenery in my profession,' wrote one — and Professor Cotton at Victoria University College had a world-class reputation. One American geologist, Charles Rich, came for a nine-month grant and stayed on for four and a half years. Then, in 1962, he was back for an Antarctic Expedition.

‘My graduate students,’ reminisced 1955 scholar Harry Schwarzweller, ‘used to say that one of the requirements for getting a PhD with Schwarzweller was to patiently see his New Zealand slides.’ One of these students, Tom Lyson, developed more interest than mere diplomacy demanded. Exactly 30 years later he was awarded a grant himself, and went to teach in the very same New Zealand city. ‘I'm very pleased about that,’ Schwarzweller wrote. ‘It somehow suggests to me a continuity — in my love affair with New Zealand.’

Chapter 2 A Kiwi on the Campus

" I came from a white, middle-class, Anglo-Saxon monoculture. Working, living and playing in a multi-cultural mixed society was a big change. However, one thing is sure — there are as many societies and cultures in the USA as there are grains of sand on a shore. I met only a few ...

New Zealand speech was too fast, pitched too high and had too much alien slang for easy comprehension. Acquiring an American accent was a necessary self-defence. Between three months when novelty had worn off and 12 months when one was accepted into the community was the most difficult. Thoughtful criticism was usually supported, and no offence was taken. Compared to my companions I was very short of money; however everyone made allowances and was exceedingly generous ...

Food, clothes, theatre, sports, travel, homes, the superb college facilities compared to New Zealand, the change of seasons, fall colours, dogwood trees in spring, computers (I visited Penn. State's huge basement computer bank — one of the first), politics — it was McCarthy communist hunting, Nixon's first controversial TV ‘apology’." Helen Hughes, Fulbright graduate student, 1952

"The Fulbright programme is an antidote to stereotyping; it removes our national blinkers." L. Maurice Cave, Fulbright graduate student, 1955

"The more opportunities for cultural exchanges the better for the mental health of the world. Touristing provides only a superficial picture of a country. One needs to live in a community for a time to really gain an understanding of a country and its people." W. David Barney, Fulbright researcher, 1962

"As a young adult this award made me more sensitive to my own society. It has allowed me to move easily between the two countries throughout a whole career, to teach, hold office, publish and consult as readily in the United States of America as in New Zealand." Dame Marie Clay, Fulbright graduate student, 1951

"This experience was a watershed in my life, personally and professionally. It set me in new directions and was influential in providing me with a very satisfying career." Dame Jean Herbison, Fulbright graduate student, 1961

"At the start, my expectations were limited and not clearly defined due to lack of knowledge of what might be possible. After a short time in the States, from my study, research project work at the clinic, and contact with eminent people in the field, I became more aware of what was possible. I was fully extended intellectually for the first time." Olive Chapman-Taylor, Fulbright graduate student, 1954

The programme was first publicised in the New Zealand University Calendar of 1952. ‘About twenty travel grants,’ it read, ‘will be made annually to New Zealand citizens of either sex who intend to study for at least one academic year in the United States and who undertake to return to New Zealand when their studies are completed.’ It then gave details of the allocations: 11 to graduate students, three to research scholars ‘of some professional standing’, and three to visiting professors ‘who have been or expect to be invited to teach at an American university’.

The following paragraph made it very clear that the award was purely a travel grant and could be given only to an applicant who anticipated ‘securing a Scholarship in an American university or of otherwise arranging for his support while in the United States’. No award could be made without this surety — ‘The Foundation has no dollars.’ However, the belief was expressed that any New Zealand graduate ‘with a first class academic record’ could get a suitable scholarship quite readily, and the Foundation declared itself willing ‘to offer advice about Scholarship aid on request’.

This, in fact, is what happened. The hopeful scholar or student applied to the Foundation for advice, and Eric Budge obliged. The system worked very well indeed. In the years up to 1969 454 New Zealanders travelled to the United States on a Fulbright Travel Award. Eric Budge explained:

"Advising students was quite a task at first. The University of New Zealand at that time set out in its calendar the overseas institutions, graduates of which would be granted ad eundem status automatically. For the United States there were four: Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Columbia. I saw nothing incongruous in this at the time.

The Embassy's collection of US university catalogues and publications listing institutions were available to me and before long were located in my office.

Initially most of the applicants were students in engineering and science. And although those with personal defects were excluded, it was taken for granted that in the university atmosphere they would be going to, those with high scholastic ability would fit in best.

They were mostly first class honours material and seemed to have little difficulty in getting scholarships. There may have been a few but I can't remember any that we selected failing to get a scholarship or a teaching assistantship which suited those who had an academic career in mind.

I told them that institutions like Massachusetts Institute of Technology or California Institute of Technology received applications from all over the US and Europe and elsewhere so it would be wise to apply also to a few others. One student who had received the offer of a worthwhile scholarship from all ten to which he had applied, asked for help in the elimination process.

Virtually all of our early students did very well and this had fortunate results in various ways. I had no doubt that their professors would be very willing to have New Zealanders so I referred later grantees to them. And they would doubtless be writing back to their own student friends, and in due course those planning an academic career returned to their New Zealand institutions to teach.

There were broader advantages also.

The predominance of student applicants in science and engineering probably related to the fact that instruction and research in some fields in these areas necessitated extremely heavy expenditure in equipment which few countries outside the US could undertake.

As for other fields, it is necessary to remember that New Zealand got its educational background mainly from England, with some elements from Scotland. In 1949 probably most of the senior academic staff at the colleges of the University of New Zealand were British-born graduates of British universities or New Zealanders who had done post-graduate study in Britain.

When their most promising students asked for advice about advanced study overseas they would naturally suggest Oxford or Cambridge or one of a few other British universities rather than US universities, of which most had little knowledge.

However once the programme began with New Zealanders going to US universities and Americans coming from them, it became much easier for would-be applicants to get reliable worthwhile information, in most cases for themselves or else from grantees whose names and addresses were supplied by the Foundation.

Within a few years good quality applicants covered most fields.

While the scientists of the DSIR and the Department of Agriculture were eagerly welcoming the first US grantees, from whatever university they came, some senior university administrators needed convincing about applicants who had no connection with Harvard, Yale, Princeton or Columbia. However the policy of offering awards in areas in which we were strong made it easier to select first class candidates, and before long it was accepted that a Fulbright award almost guaranteed a successful visitor.

This reluctance now seems ludicrous. In 1949 the University of New Zealand was awarding a handful of degrees at PhD level, while US universities were awarding about 6400. Most states of the US had at least one university, and some had several, which covered all fields of learning to a level at least as good as anything in New Zealand — and there were a few as good as anywhere in the world, including Great Britain. The young accepted this more easily than those of us who were older, and before long we were getting strong applicants in virtually all fields.

Previously, no encouragement had ever been given to give grants to applicants wanting to study a European language. The view was that French students should go to France, and so on.

Early in 1963 the State Department sent a letter to the Foundation to the effect that it was supporting the Seventh International Conference on Modern Languages and Literature, to be held in New York in August and if suitable applicants were available it would try to arrange for a semester's teaching for them at one of the universities. The Foundation nominated Dr Paul Hoffman, an Austrian born lecturer in German at the Victoria University of Wellington, for whom the State Department secured a semester at the University of Illinois, Urbana. Dr Hoffman expressed considerable interest in visiting German universities coming or going and was told that he could visit both ways if he could get extra leave and paid for any extra fare. After a very successful time at Urbana (he was offered a permanent post) he brought in his final report which stated that the teaching of German at Urbana was far superior to anything he had seen on his visits to Germany.

He was appointed Professor and Chairman of the Department of German at Victoria while he was at Urbana and a little later he expressed a wish to have a US Fulbrighter in his department.

The question of recognition of US qualifications came up when US graduate students expressed a wish to take a New Zealand degree, usually a Master's but in some cases a PhD. As few qualified under the Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Columbia criteria their cases had to be considered on their merits. I was asked to evaluate the particular university at first, but it was decided before long that Fulbrighters would be accepted unless there was some good reason to the contrary."

Alison Hanham, a Fulbright teacher in 1950, described the process from the other side:

"Applying for the Fulbright Travel Grant was daunting. Getting a visa was even worse. We had to be fingerprinted, solemnly swear not to overthrow the government of the United States by force or live by prostitution (what a hope!) and attest that we did not approve of Communism. There was a space on the form for one's police record, which was filled by a stamped ambiguous statement ‘police report not available’. A life-size negative of a chest x-ray had to travel with us and was on no account to be folded or creased. My fellow-passenger, Pauline Murphy, and I pinned them up on our cabin wall and were disgusted when finally a US customs officer threw the precious nuisances into a trash can with barely a glance."

In those early years most Fulbrighters, both Americans and New

Connie Hall. Black and White photograph of Connie Hall on steps leading up to British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines plane Zealanders, travelled between the two countries by sea. They were known as ‘the boat people’ (which meant something different then) and this method of travel had several advantages. Firstly, it provided an opportunity to meet other Fulbrighters before arrival in the host country. Secondly, it allowed time to adjust to a different climate, a different clock and a different culture. Many of the New Zealanders disembarked at the Panama Isthmus, flew to Miami and went on from there to the host institution by Greyhound bus. All this was very new and exotic, a stimulating start to an exciting experience. Even more exotic, however, was the journey by air.

One of those who flew to the United States was Connie Hall, who, in 1949, was one of New Zealand's first Fulbrighters. The Foundation had planned to send her by sea but because of a hitch in her visa application (despite the exchange of over 90 documents via the embassy) she missed the boat and had to fly. ‘Instead of sailing in a four-berth steerage cabin I flew for three days and nights to New York, in unimagined luxury with full sleeping accommodation of bed, sheets, blankets.’ The plane, a DC6, belonged to British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines.

‘You might be interested to know,’ she wrote, ‘that there was a dressing room for women in the tail of the plane, with toilet and, I think, shower, banquette seating, a large mirror and vanity stool.’ The female passengers repaired there before going to bed, changing into nightdress and dressing gown before sidling down the curtained corridor to their berths. ‘In the morning as I sat brushing out my plaited hair I was amazed to see it all rise in the air to its full length, as in those hitherto improbable cartoons. Those planes flew a lot lower than today's airliners, and we had been through a severe electrical storm during the night. Static electricity in my hair kept it erect as I drew it back into its usual style. When I travel now,’ Connie added, ‘it's a nostalgic memory.’

Another New Zealander to fly was Margaret Ranald, who went in 1952. One of her stops was at Nadi in Fiji, where dinner was served Empire-style by Fijian waiters in black ties and formula sulus. In the middle of the night the plane refuelled at the tiny mid-Pacific atoll of Canton Island (‘How did the pilot find it in the dark?’) and then the entire complement on board the plane had a whole day in Honolulu, to give the flight crew the required break.

By whichever means the New Zealanders arrived, they found that taking up a day-to-day existence in the United States was like a trip forward in a time machine. Provincialism and post-war austerity were abruptly behind them, and they were faced with a bewilderment of side salads, iced water with meals (‘Americans must have the best-flushed kidneys in the world,’ wrote one Kiwi), tea bags, sliced bread, green peppers, supermarkets, fast food, soda fountains, sky-writing and squirrels. All the clothes they took were too warm to wear indoors in winter. One young Kiwi consulted a doctor in a state of alarm because her skin had gone so scaly. He diagnosed a down under reaction to central heating, and prescribed a bottle of bath oil. The machines alone were a revelation; as one New Zealander wrote, these dominated life in all its everyday aspects: ‘they would feed you, warm you, inform you and convey you.’

The American people were an equal eye-opener. Because her Fulbright travel grant allowed her to travel in a better class than she could have afforded herself, Alison Hanham met a steel millionaire on a train. When he heard her story he dug in his billfold and beamingly presented her with a 20 dollar bill. ‘I fully expected him to be a white-slaver,’ she confessed. ‘But he was just a generous American.’

‘Americans are foreigners,’ wrote one New Zealander, ‘who happen to speak English,’ but other New Zealanders would have debated that statement. Margaret Ranald was informed when she enrolled at UCLA that she would have to take an English proficiency test, because she was a foreign student — ‘With considerable difficulty I convinced officialdom that my native language was indeed English.’

One New Zealander, Bruce Ferrand, found out for the first time that ‘I had an accent’. It was dangerous, furthermore, for Americans and New Zealanders to assume that they shared the same vocabulary, when such words as ‘fortnight’ (two weeks) are unknown in the States. ‘Streetcar’ and ‘elevator’ held hazards, too, and grown men were apt to bridle if the ‘hood’ of their ‘automobile’ (car) was called a ‘bonnet’. ‘Cheerio’ was guaranteed to send the audience into fits of disbelieving hilarity. Even an effort to buy a ball of string was doomed — ‘String?’ one American was reported as saying, ‘Man, it's twine.’

When Kenneth Cumberland was lecturing at the University of Wisconsin in 1951 a student complimented him on his ‘mighty good English’. Another New Zealander had communication problems when he filled out a form for a driving licence. ‘Weight?’ the clerk enquired, and the Fulbrighter ‘declared in ringing tones, "Eleven stone seven!"’ Then, in the contretemps that resulted, 14 pounds somehow became mislaid, and thenceforth he carried a document that declared he weighed no more than 147 pounds.

These hiccups in conversation were matched by other misconceptions. Alison Hanham found that she always seemed to be explaining that, ‘firstly, New Zealand was not under despotic British rule, secondly that New Zealand Maoris were not confined to the hills, and, thirdly, that an enlightened Social Security system did not mean that our government was rabidly Communist.’

American ignorance of the whereabouts of New Zealand also led to some strange and wonderful conversations. Mrs John Small stepped out into a street with a jaunty beret on her head, and was asked by an interested onlooker, ‘Do you come from France?’

‘No,’ she said.

‘From Germany, then?’ ‘No.’

‘Italy?’

‘No. I come from New Zealand.’

‘New Zealand? Ah, I knew you were over from that way somewhere!’ and her questioner departed, looking complacent.

And Roderick Bieleski, a 1960 Fulbright researcher, has a marvellous story to tell:

"At that time, my only experience of ‘overseas’ was Australia, and of the USA was what one saw in the movies. Two weeks after I began working in my new Los Angeles laboratory, I was still goggle-eyed at being in the Centre of the film industry, living next to film-stars (this was 1960, remember, when that meant something). This particular morning, I was the only soul in the laboratory. I vaguely wondered why, but kept at work — no one had thought to tell me that the laboratory had been loaned for the day to a film crew. Well, of course when the camera dolly, the sound equipment, the lights and the director's chair were wheeled into the laboratory, I was damned if I was going to look like the country boy. This was Hollywood, right? You had to expect this, right? So I carried on doing things with flasks and beakers as if no one was there. I was jerked out of this unreactive state when I saw a couple of the gophers headed towards my collection of carefully-collected, carefully-washed glassware. ‘Can I help you?’ Yes, they wanted various bits of scientific-looking and photogenic glassware, so I led them to the wash-up sink and let them select from the dirty stuff. But my shield of isolation had been broken. Back they came. ‘Can you help us get a this? And a that?’ Certainly I could: I knew that was what an authentic Angeleno would do. But then things got a bit more complex. Did I know of some solutions that would look scientific? After some discussion, and me showing them a few options, they decided that their needs were nicely served by the dramatic colour change which occurred when you tipped alkali into a bromophenol-blue-containing acid solution and stirred briskly. That should have been the end of it, but it wasn't. I'm not sure whether it was my rugged New Zealand features, or the freshly washed lab coat supplied by my wife that day, but when the Director said, ‘Fine, fine, fine’ it turned out he meant that he was not only satisfied with the visual impact created by my chemical magic, he was also impressed by my skill and panache in doing it. He didn't just want the chemicals, he wanted me. Would I, could I? I was damned if I was going to behave like a country boy. This was the movie capital of the world. It happened here every day. Stars were born every day. With an off-handed, manly, Kiwi shrug I said ‘Yup’, just like Coop. The lights were turned on, the cameras ground, I stirred photogenically, the solution changed colour (I didn't have to speak) and a satisfied Director let me retreat (slightly shell-shocked but not showing it) to my desk. Suddenly there was a flurry. ‘Migod, we've forgotten the release.’ Over came a very long document which, in a welter of fine print, assured the world that one Roderick L. Bieleski would have no claim whatsoever of any kind on the makers of the film, a very well known organisation. So died a career. But how many Fulbrighters, I wonder, have appeared in a publicity film, made by the US army, demonstrating the many fine opportunities available when you take a career with Uncle Sam?"

For New Zealanders, the American experience held as many humorous pitfalls as the New Zealand experience did for Americans, but there were other problems which had a much more serious impact.

Some New Zealanders found it hard to adjust to racial and social inequalities. America was a bad place to be a loser, several noted. The medical men disliked the inequalities of hospital care. Others had trouble adjusting to the pace of American academic life and the workload demanded. One complained of the ‘constant evaluation of what you were doing and saying and everything so damned serious’; another worked so hard that he came back with an ulcer. Other Kiwis, however, found that they were ‘very impressed with the work ethic of Americans generally, with its speed and drive’.

Racial problems could be upsetting. In 1957 Nada Beardsley went to a college that was ‘known for its integration policy and had many black students. While I was there the indoor basket team reached the All-American University semi-finals, held in North Carolina. Temple was asked to exclude negro team members — refused. The team was housed separately, and was booed by the spectators. One of my few sad memories is the sight of those tall fine men leaving the court in tears.’

It could be a challenge, also, to adjust from life in a quiet south Pacific nation to life in a dynamic and powerful world-leader. Those were the years of the Cold War, of NATO and SEATO and a National Chinese Government in exile in Formosa. With Eisenhower there was a boom in prosperity,

Eileen Cuff taught at an American junior high school during 1952. The photographs show her standing outside the school building and holidaying at Central City, Colorado.

Two Black and White photographs of Eileen Cuff. Left: Standing outside the school building of an American junior high school. Right: Walking towards camera up steps of a building in Central City, Colarado, with a small gathering of men and women standing in the background. in technological advancement. Then, with the election of Kennedy, there came a new mood of pride, patriotism and idealism. Popular sentiments swept the country, in waves of optimism and then despair, with the Cuban crisis and the assassinations of Kennedy and of Martin Luther King. Cities were plagued with crime and overcrowding, black protest was mounting — and then there was Vietnam.

The New Zealand Fulbrighters, despite their diffidence, were inevitably involved. John Watson, who was in the United States in 1962, noted that when his host country was embroiled in an international fuss interest in foreign visitors fell off. Further, during the Cuban crisis in the fall of that year, he found that his hosts needed constant reassurance and were much less interested in hearing about New Zealand. It was impossible not to be involved. In the 1960s many Kiwi students worked with social groups in school vacations; one of these, Christopher Withers, planted trees at a school for the blind in Mexico as a gesture of concern. Other New Zealanders met famous people — President Kennedy and Martin Luther King — and shared in the national grief when these men were killed. American triumphs were shared as well: the highlight for many of those who were there in 1969 was the exhilaration of putting a man on the moon.

Donald Wilson went to study in Chicago with the belief that the Capone era was over; like many New Zealanders, he thought that the stories of urban violence in America belonged to the movies. The Director of Admissions of International House asked him to visit when he arrived on the campus and he accepted the invitation as a kindly and hospitable gesture. Instead it turned out to be a kind of warning.

The Director sat Wilson down and said, ‘Do you carry a cosh?’

‘Why, no! I guess I never thought of it.’

‘Many people do, here,’ the Director said. In fact, he added, some carried swordsticks. Going out alone at night could prove most unwise. All times of day and night were dangerous, and it was stupid to go out of doors at all with less than 10 dollars in one's pocket; 10 dollars, it seemed, was the minimum beat-up fee. ‘If I did not have this when robbed,’ Wilson recounted, ‘I could expect a pistol beating for not having made the effort worthwhile.’ Worst of all, perhaps, was the fact that the advice was kindly meant. Life in that part of Chicago really was dangerous. It was one of the aspects of his stay, Wilson said, that he did not describe in his letters home to his wife.

He did, however, have one experience that was as positive as this one was negative, when he was invited to a holiday camp for overseas guests. ‘During the evening,’ he wrote, ‘I found myself seated on a sofa in front of a large fire.’ A Scots girl sat on one side of him, and a Japanese man on the other. It was impossible not to remember the stories of World War II and feel very uncomfortable about it.

Then, after a very long silence, Wilson decided to tell the Japanese how he felt. The Japanese agreed that he did not feel all that happy, either. ‘Soon we admitted to each other than we had fought against one another during the war, and then discovered that we had been in the same place at the same time — on opposite sides.’ The two men became firm friends, and they were sorry to say goodbye when the Japanese returned to Tokyo, four months later.

Whatever the occasional problems, the rewards of Fulbright tenure were very great, and they included professional rewards, after scholars returned to New Zealand. The Reverend E. A. Johnson, who became Archbishop of New Zealand, says ‘my subsequent position in the Church was largely due to the American experience and the qualifications I gained.’ Helen Hughes, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, attributes her very successful career directly to the Fulbright travel award which allowed her to study at Vassar in 1952. It is interesting, then, to speculate about the effect of the various Fulbright experiences on thinking in New Zealand.

An example of the way in which New Zealand was affected by the Fulbright can be found in the unlikely field of law. Anyone who watches television drama must be aware that the court scenes in British or American programmes are very different. Nevertheless R. O. McGechan, the Dean of the Faculty of Law at Victoria, was granted a Fulbright in 1950 to go to the States and study teaching methods. He observed the organisation of the law schools, legal writing programmes, student legal aid services and libraries, the financing of the schools and students' extracurricular activities; he watched courts in session and talked with law deans, judges, university administrators and students — and he returned with inspirations that changed the entire method of teaching law in New Zealand. Where students once learned the law by rote they now study by the case method. Where they could once earn their qualifications by last-minute cramming the night before an examination, they now have to demonstrate conscientious attendance at lectures and discussions.

This flow of ideas continues today. In 1986 Joseph Jaudon came to New Zealand on a Fulbright, and the Litigation Skills programme that resulted

Joe Jaudon. Black and White photograph of Joe Jaudon was due primarily to this visit. Because of his Fulbright award, too, the New Zealand Law Society has maintained close contact with the United States National Institute of Trial Advocacy, to the extent that its National Director has visited New Zealand and two New Zealanders, one of them a District Court judge, were invited to attend a training programme run by NITA at Harvard.

With this example, changes have happened as a direct result of a Fulbright grant or grants, but this is not always so. While it is logical that exposure to a foreign methodology will change the course of events, it is equally logical that the Fulbright Foundation cannot take sole credit, if only on the grounds that money had to come from other sources to finance a New Zealand Fulbrighter to the States in those first 20 years.

It must be remembered that the Fulbright then gave travel money only, although American Fulbrighters who came to New Zealand did get a stipend, in New Zealand currency, as Eric Budge explained:

"This was a maintenance allowance adequate enough to allow a grantee to live comfortably in New Zealand without being ostentatious. There was some feeling, including Embassy people and US grantees, that loud-mouth American tourists with too much money were a poor advertisement for the US.

As it was a maintenance allowance, the grant for lecturers, research scholars and exchange teachers varied according to the number of dependants brought with them.

There was also an allowance for reasonable travel relating to their project and students' fees were paid for them."

New Zealand Fulbrighters, however, had to find other sources of income, as described earlier in this chapter, and this help was often considerable, outweighing by far the fare money given by the Foundation. Because of this it was difficult to separate the effects of the award from the benefits of the scholarship that had paid a living allowance. ‘The New Zealand Fulbright was only a drop in the bucket,’ wrote one scholar. Others felt that the Fulbright gave prestige (‘It looks good on one's Curriculum Vitae’) but averred that they would have gone to the States anyway, though it was handy to have the fares paid.

The main disadvantage, for many of the New Zealanders, was the stipulation that they return home and work here for at least two years. It was a condition of accepting a Fulbright, but some thought the penalty out of proportion to the money received. The Foundation, over the years, has had to field some criticism in this respect — although this is unfair, since the restriction was a condition of receiving a United States visa, and not of the Foundation's making.

Many of the Fulbrighters who agreed to the condition misjudged how hampering it would be later on, for their Fulbright experience had changed them, too. They became accustomed to the challenge of working in America, to what New Zealander John Harger described as ‘the intense method of professional debate that was systematically encouraged in the university system regardless of position occupied by those exchanging ideas’. Harger says that while his personal gains were enormous, his professional career in New Zealand was actually hindered, for no one here understood his qualification. He was forced to take a job in Canada.

This was certainly not part of the Fulbright philosophy; as one American remarked, ‘The Fulbright programme is not meant to finance emigration.’ So, while the New Zealand Fulbrighters who did come back found that their experience had helped their career, ‘for anyone who returns from working overseas is respected and encouraged’, many others were forced to break the terms of their contract, either through personal inclination or because of their careers. Many of those who came back left again as soon as the two-year requirement was satisfied. As one of them put it, they could not cope ‘with the small town parochialism’ of this country.

Meantime, Eric Budge and his secretary Doreen Galbraith were working away at the continuing development of the Educational Foundation in New Zealand, helped by the Public Affairs Officer at the United States Embassy.

"I've never found out why some things happened [said Eric Budge] but I expect it was due to a feeling that using a foreigner was pretty risky. Earl Dennis was there to establish the programme. Though he was clearly American, he had Irish charm, and from a public relations point of view, bearing in mind the association with the universities and scientific organisations, he was an excellent choice as a front man.

When he left the Ambassador promoted the second in command to be Public Affairs Officer and Chairman of the Foundation Board.

Don Wilson was a newspaper man. He told me that his knowledge of education in the US was mostly limited to his own experience and that he knew even less about education in New Zealand, so he would have to depend entirely on me for everything related to the Fulbright programme.

And for the rest of my term, the Public Affairs Officer was never an educator and when there was an Assistant PAO he was not especially qualified in this area either. Evidently Wellington and Washington came to the conclusion that a foreigner could safely be left to run the programme without endangering American interests."

New Zealand Fulbrighter Roderick Bieleski paid tribute to Eric Budge, who did so much for the scheme in this country:

"One of the things that gave the Fulbright (in New Zealand) its special flavour was Eric Budge's attitude towards his Fellows. They were his family. He would get the old fellows together, once a year, to meet the new fellows; and I particularly remember the meetings in the old Grand Hotel in Princes Street, opposite today's Hyatt. His ‘piece de resistance’ always left the new chums weak at the knees. At some point in the proceedings, when things were really going well, with old friends and new acquaintances yabbering away indiscriminately nineteen to the dozen, he would clap his hands loudly and get everyone to settle in a ring. He would then go round the room, individual by individual, introducing each to the room, without any notes or any prompting. Spouses were introduced as well (though how would he go in today's de facto environment, I wonder?) and there were two-sentence potted biographies of what each had done and where each had been. It was not just an enormous feat of memory, extended as it was over more than a hundred people: it gave each humble Fulbrighter an idea of the true scope of a very fine scheme. Eric Budge was special."

Chapter 3 Captain of the Chalkies

" I did not have any clear set of expectations, rather a jumbled array of ideas and impressions, and an eagerness to become involved in as many ways as I could. Consequently I arrived armed with a wide range of educational resources, posters, pamphlets and booklets about New Zealand and New Zealand education. These, supplemented by the curriculum copies and syllabus outlines I brought, the numerous sets of slides depicting aspects of my school in New Zealand, various slides on outdoor education and camping, and the set of filmstrips, Maori tapes, booklets, blown-up photographs, and pre-recorded tapes of New Zealand children singing and speaking, provided me with a formidable arsenal with which to bombard American teachers and students about New Zealand and New Zealand educational patterns. I was also fortunate in enlisting the support of the New Zealand Embassy in Washington, DC, and the consulate in New York into supplying me with numerous posters, plastic souvenirs and tourist pamphlets about New Zealand. I was ready and prepared to launch an all- attack!" Bill Barrett, Fulbright exchange teacher, 1978

"I have no doubt that the opportunity to teach in the United States not only significantly broadened my general teaching experience, but enhanced my professional competence in a way that first made me a better teacher and second, earned me special recognition within the New Zealand educational system." Sir Wallace Rowling, Fulbright exchange teacher, 1955

Former Prime Minister Sir Wallace Rowling, who has twice been an ambassador for New Zealand — once as a Fulbright exchange teacher and the second time in an official capacity — is convinced that ‘the professional group with the most potential to produce a positive impact from exchange opportunities are teachers’. He has several reasons for his belief.

Firstly, teachers work with young people, who are receptive to new ideas. Secondly, teachers work with new groups of young people every year, so that the passed-on benefits of the Fulbright experience are almost endless. Teachers, furthermore, are trained both to observe and report accurately on what they see. Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, teachers have a recognised place in the community. They have a high profile, and have much more chance than, say, a research scholar, to meet and talk with the general populace in the area where they work and live.

It was logical that the Foundation should involve itself in some kind of teacher and educational development exchange; the word ‘educational’, is, after all, in the Foundation's name. The three New Zealand teachers in the 1949 programme were at the top of the grading, one of them President of the New Zealand Educational Institute. Although they were teachers, they had short trips in an observing capacity, like the Development Grants that came later. Two-way exchanges, where an attempt was made to match the New Zealand teacher with an American counterpart, began in 1950.

Mary Beard was a Fulbright exchange teacher in 1958:

"My exchange was probably ideal as my exchangee taught in my classroom in New Zealand and lived with my family. She became a very much loved member and a very close contact was kept with her until her death in 1986.

I will always be grateful for the opportunity I had to visit the USA under the scheme. It added immensely to my teaching experience and my international understanding. It opened up so many new horizons. I hope I was able to pass some of this on to my pupils in New Zealand. I'm sure that my US students still remember much about New Zealand. Some students became very interested in New Zealand rugby and developed their own version of the game!"

The Education Boards, which appoint teachers in New Zealand, appear to have preferred direct exchanges; it made things much easier in a time of teacher shortage. On the other hand, however, the heads and school committees often seemed reluctant to risk an exchange teacher, and preferred to ask instead for a long-term reliever for the year that the New Zealand teacher was away. There were times, as Eric Budge commented, when organising a direct exchange was difficult:

"It never bothered me that New Zealand teachers might have to spend a year in a mere village with few attractions. After all, New Zealand was a small place and many of us had grown up in villages. Moreover teachers who wanted any sort of promotion had to do a period of country service. On the other hand, I wouldn't have been able to agree to an arrangement that would have subjected a US teacher to spending a year, say, in Fordell, near Wanganui where I grew up among three or four hundred people. The arrangement would be too much a matter of luck and chance.

As things turned out, many of the US teachers were small town people who were shy and took time to get to know people. Some of these elected to stay in the same district for the whole period. But a formal all-over switch to direct exchanges was not really viable because, firstly, local education authorities in both countries would be most reluctant to accept direct exchanges of headmasters, and secondly, we couldn't have justified a

Catherine Landreth came to New Zealand on a Fulbright grant in 1959, to conduct research into pre-school studies at Victoria University. Hers must be one of the most unusual grants ever. Born in New Zealand in 1899, Catherine went to the States on a fellowship in 1925 and became an American citizen in 1942. She returns to New Zealand every year, for all her relatives are here; she has what she terms a 'two-country lifestyle'. When she came to New Zealand on an American Fulbright grant, the Prime Minister called her ‘still one of us’. The pre-schoolers thought they knew better, however — they called her the ‘Murrican lady’.

Black and White photograph of Catherine Landeth with a pre-school child.system whereby the recommended New Zealanders must come from a school in a town of reasonable size.

Another problem was that the Department of State and the United States Office of Education had no control over school systems which were controlled theoretically by each State, but practically at a local level. This meant that if exchanges were to be arranged they would have to start at the beginning of the US school year in September.

So the New Zealand teachers, who were usually more experienced and who expected to gain professionally and so were well motivated, arrived usually to have a week's orientation with the other teachers before the pupils arrived. The US teachers arrived here for the third term and usually were expected to teach as closely as possible to the pattern of the departed New Zealand teacher at least for the rest of the year.

Although the top New Zealand teachers were heads of city schools there were always large numbers of progressive young teachers as heads of two and three teacher schools who were very suitable for consideration as exchange teachers. The major disadvantage of this was that the American teachers tended to be less experienced, and yet the New Zealanders virtually always took the American teacher's job. The reverse was so only with high school teachers or when we had sent forward the papers of a specialist, say, in remedial reading — something we seldom tried because it was not likely that a match would be made.

However, there were worse problems. Some of those who were not measuring up in their own locality, especially in their social relations, may have decided that life would be simpler in a country like New Zealand where the pace was slower. It didn't work. The teachers were subject to the school principal and if they were not measuring up to the parents' expectations something had to be done about it."

There were, of course, many exceptions to this, but New Zealand teachers who took up a direct exchange found their own problems in the States. Accommodation was one of them. In many cases there was a straight swap of houses — and cars, even — along with the exchange of timetable, school duties and responsibilities, but one New Zealand who found himself in the predicament of finding no house at the end of his journey was John Dennison, who exchanged with a teacher from Springfield, Massachusetts. His opposite number did not have a property, but the problem was solved when Dennison and his family were invited to appear on television.

The host of the show asked Dennison what he needed most. John replied, ‘A house of our own,’ just before his two sons got their teeth stuck on two large 'gob-stoppers' that had been given them, all on camera.

Next day a woman phoned the Dennisons. She had seen the programme, had been amused and thought she had something interesting to suggest. Perhaps, she said, the family would like to come out and chat. She had a house, a delightful house, fully furnished, and she needed a house-sitter for a year. ‘Her daughter and son-in-law became some of our best friends,’ John said, ‘whom we have visited and had stay with us in New Zealand, and whom we write to regularly.’

Other exchange teachers had similar positive experiences, but there were problems. The overriding concern was the failure of grants to provide any real professional development for the participating teachers. Jack Cox, for instance, believed that ‘the award greatly enhanced [his] personal and professional skills, understanding and attitudes’ and he appreciated the Americans' ‘high sense of idealism’, but he also wished he could have observed more schools. Some New Zealanders, who were lucky enough to go to schools that had a tradition of hosting exchange teachers, were allowed to both learn and contribute ideas. Others, however, perceived a certain impersonality in their treatment. It would have been easier, says one, if the host school had taken more interest, or had even sent a guideline of what they expected of him.

It was all a matter of luck and administration. It came as a surprise to many New Zealanders to find that American schools are run by managers, not teachers. Ada Beatty, an American who came to New Zealand in 1954, found it wonderful that in New Zealand a head teacher could actually step in and teach if necessary. New Zealanders found it equally surprising that principals in the States were so firmly wedged behind their office desks. It was no guarantee of efficiency, some noted. One New Zealander declared that the school where he taught ‘had no systems of teacher support. The school was badly managed and good teaching was difficult to achieve.’

As with so much else about the United States, there was immense variation in standards and expectations. One New Zealander felt privileged ‘to be in a school in its first year of operating under the Basic Education Act (student learning objectives) and to be able to experience the advantages and disadvantages of this form of accountability.’ Another New Zealand educationalist was amazed to note, in Boston in 1980, that the school system had run out of money. Consequently ‘the schools were going to be closed for the year, several weeks early. A parent took the issue to court, which ruled that a school year meant a full school year and ordered the system to be kept open.’ The city complied, and paid for it by laying off all the garbage collectors, among other City Hall staff.

Not surprisingly, several New Zealanders found the staff of the schools where they taught jaded and cynical and the staff and students apathetic'. An American who came to New Zealand and was met at New Plymouth by more than 20 teachers, parents and civic leaders, remarked ‘I daresay my counterpart did not get such a welcome.’ One New Zealander learned to his alarm that his exchange counterpart had thrown in the towel and left New Zealand six weeks after the beginning of term, leaving his house unoccupied and his class with no teacher. It was, he noted ‘part of the magic diversity of American culture and attitudes’.

There were other problems, too. Biology teachers found it a challenge to do fieldwork when the classroom was 3200 kilometres away from the sea and there was a blanket of snow outside. Others were faced with pupils whose natural language was Spanish or Hebrew. Some found problems ‘adjusting to the acceptance of inferior academic standards by the students qualifying for graduation.’

‘When I went in 1957,’ one teacher wrote, ‘the discipline in New Zealand schools was relatively firm. Politeness to the teachers was expected and achieved, so the biggest shock to my system was the totally uninhibited junior high student who replied or spoke to me just as he would to his buddy. It took a few weeks for me to accept the informality and apparent rudeness.’ She noted that ‘nothing is general to all states’ and, in fact, ‘came back in a state of amazement that they ever became the "United" States.’

Another teacher, when visiting a school, asked the principal what he considered his greatest problem. The official replied, ‘Well, they sometimes drop too much litter in the halls.’ The New Zealander received this answer with some silent envy, but half an hour later the school was in an uproar. Some of the students had bombed the cafeteria with tear gas — ‘The principal did little other than wring his hands. His staff handled the emergency.’ Eileen Cuff found her class of ninth graders ‘wriggly, quarrelsome and generally difficult to manage. I was always conscious that I held things together by a very tenuous thread.’ She looked forward to the end of the semester, but was then informed that she would have the same class next year. She set a demanding series of projects that appealed to the intensely competitive American nature, and the pupils, despite themselves, became deeply interested, and even more so because they were directed to grade their projects themselves. They became even more severe on themselves than she was on them, she noted, and when she left the principal wrote, ‘Perhaps the best recommendation I can give is that I have urged her to remain with us.’

Diane Thomsen (Barton), a Fulbright teacher in 1979, received a similar letter, when she returned to New Zealand: ‘I have kept in touch with several of the students I sent you from my sophomore class last year. I like the way they talk about you. I sense that in your class it is quite possible to be a poor student — that is, vulnerable to an examination — but it is much harder to be a poor human being. When I talk to you I feel that you always find students more interesting than they really are.’

New Zealand hospitality, as more than one American Fulbrighter has said, is famous, and this enhanced the teaching exchanges for many Americans. The welcome was usually warm to the point of being disconcerting. One American, reminiscing about his first night in a Wellington hotel, noted his and his wife's surprise in the early morning when a ‘cuppa and

Diane Barton taught at San Carlos High in 1980.Black and White photograph of Diane Barton

Frederick T. Addicott's family ready for school in New Zealand, March 1957. Left to right: Don, Jean, John and David.Black and White photograph of Frederic Addicott's children standing outside in school uniforms. From left to right: Don, Jean, John, and David.biscuit’ were brought in. Then the maid eyed them both and demanded to know which one of them would be there next night! It was a fitting start, he said, to a memorable year. But for the requirement to return to his American school, he would have stayed in New Zealand. As it was, when he did get back to the States he became so disillusioned with his home system that he left teaching altogether.

John Windle and his family were met in New Plymouth on a day in 1982 when it was pouring with rain. ‘One young girl pushed through the crowd, handed a bunch of beautiful dripping wet daffodils to Rebecca, and said, "Here, Mrs Windle, some flowers straight from the paddock." No greeting could have touched us more deeply.’

There were other surprises for the American teachers who came here. One found it difficult to adjust to seeing pupils arrive barefoot in summer. The arrival of two ‘relocatable’ classrooms was even more surprising. And, of course, there were problems of idiom and accent: ‘A dainty little girl age eight began to tell me and the class about what fun she had dressing pigs. Her mother showed her how, she said. I was amazed! She talked at length and the class listened politely but without any surprise. Finally I asked her to print the word on the board and she wrote PEGS (clothespins).’

Many of the American teachers enjoyed the outdoor life and the opportunities for outdoor education. It was easy, one remarked, for ‘New

(Above and opposite) Maryanne Olson, Fulbright teacher in New Zealand, 1960.Two Black and White Photographs with Maryanne Olson in them. At top, Maryanne Olson and a man are performing a Maori dance, accompanied by a man playing guitar. The bottom photograph is a school photograph, showing Maryanne Olson with her class.

Black and White Photograph of Maryanne Olson in a classroom setting pointing at a map of New Zealand.Zealanders have such obvious pride in their country and the desire to share what they have.’ Another said pensively, ‘I still think the US should buy New Zealand and turn it into a national park and make the people park rangers.’ Others enjoyed the fact that their sons and daughters played rugby or took full part in school music, netball and swimming. The teachers often enjoyed coaching sports, too, despite the fact that those who did so in many American schools were paid for it, while in New Zealand it is not only unpaid but also expected. Indoor basketball and baseball automatically became the province of any visiting Americans. ‘Being "Yanks" we were all expected to be experts in the game,’ says Charles Cooke, who, in 1967, not only coached, but also skippered the teachers' side, as ‘captain of the Chalkies’. ‘To this day we have been envied by: my fellow teachers and administrators, all our friends, neighbourhood families, and last, but not least, all my fly-fishing friends.’

There were also various adjustments to be made in classroom work. Dr Foster Grossnickle, who came in 1960 to give demonstration lessons in arithmetic, travelling from Auckland to the Bluff, remarked, ‘I never appreciated the problem that a non-decimal coinage presents until I began teaching in this country.’ Maryanne Slack (Olson), who taught in Masterton that same year, wrote, ‘It was tough teaching swimming and learning pounds shillings and pence for math class, but I managed.’ She managed very well indeed; when she left her entire class went to the airport to see her off, and she had a complimentary police escort for most of the drive.

When Desmond Bodley returned from his Californian teacher exchange tenure he felt so revitalised that he set about establishing an Educational Travel Programme for teachers' college trainees at Auckland Teachers' College. Another teacher wrote that his Fulbright exchange was ‘probably the most stimulating year of my whole 40 years in the teaching profession’.

Eric D. Mann, who was an exchange teacher in 1955, had this to say:

"The intellectual and professional expansion I experienced was without doubt the single most significant event in all my professional and personal development. The effect was to ‘colour’ the rest of my career. The focus was the notion of ‘guidance’ or as it is better known today, ‘counselling’, to the extent that I was virtually to pioneer this in New Zealand secondary education."

Despite the lists of exchange teaching successes, however, there were perhaps too many disappointments. Wilbur J. Switzer, who came to New Zealand to teach geography in 1974, gained a great deal: ‘New concepts of fieldwork in geography, methods of teaching handicapped students, grade level achievements, and student achievement plus abundant knowledge about New Zealand ... Many academic opportunities have developed,’ he added, ‘as a result of the New Zealand experience, a number of these being special teaching opportunities at the senior college or university level. Our year in New Zealand provided an outstanding opportunity to gain personal insight into the physical and cultural landscapes.’ But ‘My teaching was underutilised due to the rigid staff arrangements at my host school.’

This was a time of grave staff shortages in New Zealand, and many busy heads could not spare the time from adjusting class numbers and timetabling to pay extra attention to visiting Americans. The decision by the board to phase out the teacher exchanges was probably inevitable. Once the basis of funding was changed, and New Zealanders could be paid United States dollar grants, Teacher Educational Development Grants seemed much more sensible.

In 1971 the Board of Foreign Scholarships in Washington decided that ‘most exchanges [should] be confined to persons in higher education and the professions.’ The New Zealand teacher Graham Cochrane, who went to the States in 1978, wrote that he thought he had been privileged. He was more fortunate than he thought: ‘Our exchange was perfect. While I believe a number have not been successful, it is disappointing to know the teacher exchanges under the programme no longer operate.’

There had been too little positive feedback from the scheme. The Fulbright teacher exchange programme continues to operate in many countries, but in New Zealand it was replaced with an enlarged Educational Development Programme. The last teacher exchange under the Fulbright programme in New Zealand was between Henry Ngapo and John Windle in 1982-83.

The Educational Development programme, by contract, was eminently successful. The purpose of these awards was to provide the opportunity for experienced members of the education service to observe developments in the United States and to discuss matters of common interest with colleagues. The recipient's experience was of an intensive tour, often whirlwind, always demanding and exhilarating, of a set length of time: at that stage, 180, 120 or 90 days. ‘As I remember it,’ said Eric Budge, ‘the State Department was very open-minded about whom it would take.

"But the general idea was to have teachers who had completed their professional training at a Teachers' College plus a few years' experience and who were young enough to absorb new ideas from what they would see in the US.

The Board agreed with my suggestion that the one or two awards we could afford should be offered to the Education Department to select from their top professional officers such as the Chief Inspector of Primary Schools, the Chief Inspector of Secondary Schools and colleagues in line for promotion to these positions.

I knew from past experience that few if any of these people had ever been overseas officially except perhaps to Fiji or Australia. On the other hand most of the top officers in DSIR or the Department of Agriculture who were receiving US research scholars had themselves been to the US or Great Britain.

On my visits to Washington the State Department and Office of Education people made it very clear that the New Zealanders were easily the best. They came from the cream of New Zealand teachers, they were skilful in quickly assessing what they saw — as was said about one of them, ‘he quickly separated the wheat from the chaff’ — and they were in an excellent position to introduce the fresh ideas they gained from their visits into New Zealand schools.

The State Department and the United States Office of Education arranged for the visitors who all came at the same time to elect a Group Chairman and it was usually one of the New Zealanders.

Their grants were combined Fulbright-Smith-Mundt awards with a maintenance allowance and full travel expenses paid by the State Department.

The only criticism I received was that we should be sending more. One was the best testimonial I have ever read about anybody. It ended, ‘If you ever have anybody like him again please send him with or without notice’."

Bryan Pinder held a Teacher Education Grant from September 1961 to February 1962. He described his experience:

"My itinerary took me to: the Chicago area and Champagne-Urbana, Illinois; Denver and Greely in Colorado; Salt Lake City and Roosevelt in Utah; Sacramento, the San Francisco area, the Los Angeles area and the San Diego area, in California; Las Vegas in Nevada; the Grand Canyon, Albuquerque and El Paso in New Mexico; Austin, San Antonio and Houston in Texas; New Orleans in Louisiana; Nashville in Tennessee; St Louis in Missouri; Cincinnati in Ohio; Williamsburg in Virginia; City of New York; the Boston area in Massachusetts; Albany, Syracuse, Buffalo in the State of New York; Detroit and Dearborn in Michigan (after a weekend in Toronto); Pittsburg in Pennsylvania; and Atlantic City.

My purpose in visiting educational institutions through the country was to seek light on numbers of educational problems I am concerned with in New Zealand.... Number of schools visited — 150 Number of universities, state colleges and private colleges visited — 21 Number of school districts visited — 40 Number of state board of education offices visited — 5 Number of country offices visited — 6 Number of private schools visited — 8 Number of classrooms visited (approx.) — 600-900 ...

My only regret was that, in some places, the tightness of my official schedule prevented me from getting to know some of the people I met as well as I would have wished; I would not have had it otherwise, however, as it was the very tightness of my schedule that gave me the opportunity to delve deeply into so many aspects of American education while at the same time leaving me free to explore cities and towns and make contact with a wide range of people.

... I tried to make the most of my opportunities and I never dreamed that I would have such a stimulating and intellectually and emotionally satisfying time."

Other educationalists had equally busy and impressive grants, and there were also the various research grants in education fields. It is difficult, of course, to say categorically that education in New Zealand has changed because of these various research and observation grants, but there is plenty of evidence that there were some profound effects. Marcus Riske, who went to the University of Illinois as a visiting lecturer in 1959, came back to take the first ever New Zealand third form class in New Maths, at Wellington Technical College. Horace Sayers, who had a Teacher Education Grant, returned from California in 1959 to chair the Physics Studies Committee, and the information and ideas he brought led to the revision of physics teaching in this country, through the introduction of PSSC physics. He became Superintendent of Education and Director of Secondary Education.

Other educationalists brought back methodologies and materials for teaching social sciences, an important move, for the social sciences are very strong in the States. Others brought back research techniques — in the analysis of teacher-pupil relations, in the process of learning to read. Brian Sutton-Smith, who had a research grant in 1952, established a place for study of play within studies of folklore and became a world authority on the play of young children; one could almost say that he helped to make the study of play academically respectable.

It was a two-way process. Ned Flanders, who came to New Zealand in 1957, brought a new research methodology for what happens in classrooms. Paul Burnham came to Canterbury in the field of educational testing at upper high school and undergraduate level, and Canterbury had him back a few years later. Currently there is great interest in out-of-school care, involving parents in special education, writing across the curriculum and developments in educational computing. The importance that the Foundation now places on the Educational Development Grants is illustrated by the fact that applicants are judged on their ability to influence the New Zealand school system on their return, and the means of dissemination which they would employ.

The word ‘education’ in the title of the Foundation is all-important. The Educational Development Grant is a special category, but the process of education is studied by other categories of Fulbright awards as well, in the interests of the future of the education processes in New Zealand. David Mitchell, a 1981 research scholar, wrote this in American Studies International, Winter 1982, Vol. XX, No. 2:

"I came to America because I wanted to meet and work with some of the researchers investigating infant development in the United States. I came, too, because I wanted to see how America's enlightened policy on special education was being implemented across the country.

The professional significance of my visit can be summed up in one word: stimulation. Having listened to several dozen excellent researchers working in the field of infant development, I have been able to clarify the directions my own research will take when I return to New Zealand. I should also be able to carry out comparative studies with researchers at the Educational Testing Service, my host institution during the tenure of my Fulbright award."

Chapter 4 The Last Living Moa

"The situation between the US and New Zealand is asymmetrical. Very few Americans have much of an opinion about the Kiwis and New Zealand, before going there. The country's natural beauty and the people's friendliness create a favourable impression. Most New Zealand academic types coming to the US already have pre-formed, strong and often unfavourable opinions about the US which are changed very little by our personal friendliness." Ed Williams, Fulbright graduate student 1951 and United States Consul-General at Auckland, 1975-78

"It all happened twenty-five years ago, but I still frequently think of it. It meant a lot to a flatland farm kid who had seen little of the world." Lee Clayton, Fulbright graduate student, 1962

As the exchange programme grew, it became increasingly obvious that more money would have to be found from somewhere. The money from the sale of war-surplus goods was being used up fast. For instance, in 1952, while there was still money in New Zealand, that in Turkey had run out. Stop-gap plans were applied, and worked for some time: in Finland repay ments for a post-World War I reconstruction loan were diverted, and in India repayments on a 1951 emergency wheat loan were similarly transferred. In America the private sector also provided some money. American universities set up fellowships and visitorships for foreign scholars, and the Carnegie Corporation and the Rockefeller Foundation helped too. In June 1952 an amendment to the Mutual Security Act allowed Marshall Plan funds to be diverted. Another provision, in 1954, took over funds from the sale of surplus agricultural products abroad.

Then, in 1961, the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act, usually known as the Fulbright-Hays Act, was passed. This consolidated all the laws and amendments that had made the Fulbright scheme possible, and allowed the programme to expand into new countries and new fields. It also assured the programme of American dollars as well as foreign currencies, and extended the province of the Board of Foreign Scholarships to include the supervision of all academic exchange programmes.

The Board also ensured the fair and impartial selection of grantees.

Left: Ed Williams on a hunting trip in New Zealand, 1952. Right: As United States Consul-General, Ed Williams escorts Miss Universe during her visit to Auckland in 1977. He declares that it was his Fulbright experience in New Zealand which prepared him for this exacting task.

Two Black and White Photographs. Left: Ed Williams stands in front of a hunting cabin called the 'Seldom Inn'. He is holding a shooting gun. A dog looks up at him. Right: Ed Williams holds the hand of Miss Universe as she walks down some stairs. Miss Universe is smiling and wearing a tiara and evening dress.

There was no means test; candidates were chosen entirely on the basis of promise and merit. The Board had pledged at its first meeting in July 1947 that ‘in all aspects of the programme the highest standards be developed’ and the maintenance of these high standards was the aim of succeeding Boards. It was agreed that ‘the individuals to benefit’ should be those who ‘demonstrate outstanding scholastic and professional ability and whose personalities and characters will contribute to the furtherance of the objectives of the programme.’ While it was important that care was ‘taken to avoid all appearances of cultural imperialism’, it also was very important that the American Fulbrighters made a favourable impression on their hosts.

Because of this, the Board looked for resourcefulness and adaptability, along with all the other requirements — but how much adaptability did the average American Fulbrighter need, when she or he came to New Zealand?

Vincent L. Zehren (second from left) sees cheese made in the old way in Taranaki, 1952.> Black and white photograph of Vincent Zehren standing in a cheese making factory. Vincent Zehren and another man are talking with a cheese maker.

Suzanne Snively came to New Zealand in 1971, ‘because it was the most distant country taking part in the Fulbright exchange.’ She is still here. ‘So in the end what was almost an accidental decision has led to my settling in a country which I had hardly heard of 16 years ago.’

Sharon L. Smith, a 1967 graduate student, tells of her reactions to New Zealand:

"At first I was dismayed (understatement) because I was ‘exiled’ from Auckland where I thought I would be living, to this marine laboratory on a sheep farm where I had to join in the community efforts at cooking (which I had not done before), grocery shopping and so forth. The laboratory had very spartan accommodation, no clothes-washing machine, no dryer, no television, and a telephone that had to be cranked up to work! I could not have imagined living like this if I had been forewarned, and mercifully one has life's great adventures without warning. Surviving and learning to enjoy a simplified life has become like a gift I brought back from New Zealand. I have continued to be a non-consumer, and have thrived on those lessons in the ‘basics’ . . . So the Fulbright experience changed my personal life in quite fundamental ways and showed me that the many things I took for granted in the United States as necessary to living were not so."

Perhaps many of the problems that the Americans encountered when they first arrived were exacerbated by the fact that New Zealand and the United States are similar in so many ways. The American historian, Frank Parsons, had written in 1903 that New Zealanders ‘are the Yankees of the South Pacific. In fact New Zealand is a little America, a sort of condensed United States. If all the nations of the world were classed according to the number and importance of their points of resemblance, the United States, New Zealand and Australia would stand in a group together.’

When the American Fulbrighters first arrived, they came as spectators. While it could be very annoying to be asked within the first few days what one thought of the country, the opinion given was likely to be more valid then than it would be for some months to come, for so many got caught up in a kind of ‘honeymoon’, where New Zealand looked almost ‘cute’. Originally the Fulbrighters arrived in groups, and Eric Budge could meet them, but as time went by it became quite impracticable for him to greet them all. Accordingly, he relied on their hosts to introduce them to New Zealand.

‘I spent my first five hours in New Zealand,’ one recalled, ‘hunting for milk bottles so I could buy some milk.’ Others found the A and B buttons of public telephone boxes an annoying mystery. The main problem often, however, particularly if the Fulbrighter arrived in winter, was that no matter how often and carefully warned, no American seemed to believe warnings that New Zealand in winter is cold. Earl Dennis agreed:

"Very few homes or other facilities which we secured for our first year's grantees had central heat. Nearly all our Americans reported that they loved the country, liked very much the people they worked and studied with, and were very happy with their college or university affiliation, but all reported they were cold. One American research scholar and his wife invited my wife and I to their quarters (which we had secured for them) and he spent a great deal of time and energy after dinner placing a thermometer in different locations in the living and dining rooms, and then showing the thermometer to us in turn, to prove how much they were suffering!"

‘Information on the climate was essential as the American grantees, especially the teachers, seemed to know little or nothing about physical geography,’ said Eric Budge. ‘If I had to go to the northern hemisphere I'd automatically accept the fact that as far as climate was concerned it would be the opposite time of the year. When I explained this to a US grantee about to come to New Zealand during one of my visits to the US he said, "You mean that while we're having winter you're having summer? What a cute idea!"’

Te Karere, the booklet of information that the Foundation put out for Americans coming to New Zealand, made much mention of the weather here. ‘While a few hardy souls have advised us that we worry unnecessarily in giving warning about the New Zealand climate,’ it began, 'the majority of grantees who have commented have INDICATED THAT WE DO NOT STRESS SUFFICIENTLY THE FACT THAT IT IS COLD HERE.’ Too many Americans, the writer (Eric Budge) noted, held the completely erroneous belief that New Zealand has a sub-tropical climate. The cold weather here is humid — ‘In other words, there is a damp cold that penetrates.’ He urged the reader ‘to give full consideration to it. New Zealanders combat the cold indoors by wearing warm clothing and particularly warm underclothing.’

This was good advice indeed. One American wrote gratefully of that wonderful New Zealand ‘invention’, the ‘singlet’. ‘We learned very quickly that New Zealand houses have no central heat,’ John Windle noted. There were exactly two ‘comfort zones’ in the house where the Windle family lived: ‘a space with a radius of about two metres in front of the fireplace, and under the covers in bed. Anywhere else was no-man's land and we spent as little time there as possible. Answering the phone was a major trauma because the phone was in the hall. As the hall was ice-cold, so was the phone, and our ears hurt whenever we had to put the phone up to them. The second most traumatic spot in the house was the toilet seat.’ The school room, however, had a wood-burning stove — and John Windle snuggled up to it so blissfully that he set his ski jacket on fire.

Another American reported that the highlight of his Fulbright tenure was the day in Wellington when the sun came out. Transportation, however, was often as big an adjustment as the weather. Cars in New Zealand were still much more expensive than they were in the States, and New Zealand driving habits could prove distressing. ‘The people are great,’ one American wrote, ‘until they get behind the wheel of a car.’ New Zealand, wrote another, ‘is a country with miles of surprisingly good roads built over and through the most difficult terrain, a country of very expensive cars and many ancient ones, a country with a tragically high traffic death rate.’

Despite it all, though, the Americans who came were enthusiastic travellers. They explored New Zealand from Cape Reinga to Bluff, and from East Coast to West, and even found that it is right and proper to talk of ‘the’ South Island and ‘the’ North, but never ‘the’ Stewart Island. They drove, hitch-hiked, rode bicycles and hiked; they camped, lived rough, slept in ski huts and motels, and this, it seems, is typical of Fulbrighters worldwide. An official in Taipei once commented that ‘Visiting professor grantees come with the resolve to derive the most that they can from their foreign experience,’ and this does indeed seem to be true. American Fulbrighters who came to New Zealand were, almost without exception, enthusiastic travellers and talented participators. Becoming an interim ‘Kiwi’ was an energetic pursuit.

The opportunities to explore New Zealand were of course augmented if the Fulbrighter was able to conduct any fieldwork. One American was greatly surprised by the amount of ‘fieldwork’ that he was assigned, until he realised that his director had organised it so he could see the country. When Lee Clayton was doing fieldwork in the Southern Alps he lived at a Ministry of Works camp, and the foreman's wife cooked him his evening dinners. She tried out a procession of New Zealand delicacies on him, something Lee appreciated — until the night she gave him tripe: 'Luckily she had plenty of dry bread to force it down with.' Aarne Vesilind was disconcerted to discover that the fish in fish and chips was often shark (lemon fish), but he had developed such an appetite for the treat by this time that he decided to ignore the fact and enjoy the fish and chips just the same.

Aarne Vesilind came to the Waikato in 1976 as the first Visiting Scholar in the area of environmental studies. It was part of a three-year programme in which it was hoped that an Environmental Studies Unit would be set up at the university. It was also a first in that the approach would be interdisciplinary, and include agencies outside the campus. Aarne taught an environmental course at Waikato, lecturing to more than 80 students on pollution and environmental ethics. He also collaborated with the Auckland Regional Authority and DSIR staff on various aspects of waste disposal and refuse recovery.

In many ways Aarne typified the ebullient attitude of so many American Fulbrighters who are ‘in tune’ with the new environment. The ‘in tune’ phrase is apt: Aarne Vesilind played cornet in the Hamilton Citizens' Band. He also learned how to play cricket, and departed proud of his score of 28 not out in his final match.

Lincoln College, like Waikato, also had a collaborative outdoors-oriented project, sponsored by the Foundation. It was a proposed study of recreation resources: mountain lands, forests, lakes, National Parks and wetland resources. Studies in natural resources were introduced at Lincoln in 1969 and the first Fulbrighter in the field arrived in 1974. He was Arthur T. Wilcox, Head of the Department of Recreation Resources in the College of Forestry and National Resources at Colorado State University. He, and others who followed, were able to convince administrators at both local and national level that recreation is a study worthy of universities, and that recreation officers have an important role in this country.

The study was collaborative throughout, involving the Department of Horticulture, Landscape and Parks at Lincoln, the Department of Lands and Survey, the National Parks Authority, the New Zealand Agricultural Engineering Institute, the Institute of Park Administration and the Tussock Grasslands and Mountain Lands Institute.

Those Americans who 'did' the tracks such as the Milford or the Heaphy usually rated these as highlights of their stays, and some became concerned for the preservation of New Zealand forests. One who admired ‘the magnificent New Zealand countryside’ wished that ‘New Zealanders them selves had more concern with maintaining it.’ As a ‘mountaineer, fisherman, amateur geologist and outdoorsman’, 1968 Fulbright lecturer Donald Russell ‘fell in love with the topography of New Zealand and still classifies it as God's country. I return to New Zealand as often as possible and would thoroughly enjoy spending my final years there. The New Zealand Tourist Bureau ought to hire me as a very vocal recruiter.’

Max Carman, who came to New Zealand in 1963 as a Fulbright researcher, found himself trapped alone for a week in a bush but because the weather had closed in — and he had no books to read. ‘The beauty and aloneness taught me a great deal about myself,’ he wrote. Then he added, ‘How would you treat the last living moa?’

Carman was working on Lake McKerrow, and staying in a fishing but at Martin's Bay. ‘My friend, Alex, told me the story of the little girl of the Jamestown colony who reported seeing "a huge chicken with legs like a Roman soldier". The speculation of the legend is that she may have seen one of the last surviving moas. Presumably she had seen pictures of Roman soldiers in school books and remembered their leg guards, which bear a similarity to the conformation of moa legs.’

Max Carman. Black and white photograph of Max Carman on a boat.

Martin's Bay in 1963 was still remote, and the two men fell to speculating about what they would do if they happened to sight one of these large and allegedly extinct birds:

"I observed that I'd pray I could get my camera out fast enough and be calm enough to get a credible picture, but Alex exclaimed, 'I wouldn't bother with my camera, I'd shoot it!' This was shocking, but he explained to me that no one would believe a photo because it could be faked; but a fresh carcass could not be denied.

I've many times since pondered Alex's drive to prove he had seen the creature, and the value to science of having a dead recent specimen, versus the ethics of killing what might be the last living example of this exotic species or the hope that there might be a barely viable community of moas living in some remote valley, of which the bird we saw was a member essential to its reproductive survival. How would one know that it was truly ‘the last living moa’?"

In some cases, the American Fulbrighters' desire and ability to merge with the myths and resources of New Zealand led to further problems. It was inevitable that the visitors should make some comment about this country they were observing so enthusiastically, and perhaps inevitable, too, that they should become involved in New Zealand-led discussions of American foreign and domestic policies, past and present.

In the article, ‘The Playing Fields of Eden’, mentioned in Chapter One, the author James McEnteer described three kinds of Americans who came/ come to New Zealand: 'the gold-diggers, the space travellers and the utopians'.

"New Zealand first acquired cult status as paradise on Earth for a significant number of American intellectuals and politicians during the progressive movement in the United States, from the late 1890s until World War I. . . .

The progressive movement arose in the United States as a reaction to the social inequities of the Industrial Revolution. The wealth of the few and the oppression of the many obliged would-be reformers to find models of a more just society to emulate. The reformers found their shining example in New Zealand.

Thanks to Liberal legislation enacted between 1891 and 1911, New Zealand's green islands appeared to American progressives like the playing fields of Eden. New Zealand had given women the vote, subsidised farmers and provided them with low-interest loans, awarded old age pensions, forced employers to provide decent working conditions, imposed compulsory arbitration on labour disputes and introduced progressive taxes on land and income, among many other farsighted measures."

McEnteer then goes on to comment that ‘for American progressives New Zealand had more attractions than Disneyland’. There was praise indeed, at first, but when American researchers arrived in a second wave, after World War II, much of this reform had already taken place in the States, impelled by the Great Depression, and 'then, it seemed, they came to bury the welfare state, not to praise it'. The state of social affairs in New Zealand, in a word, seemed overrated.

Many of these post-war observers were Fulbrighters, and many of them felt the need to comment. ‘New Zealand is a delightful country partly because it is less frantic than the United States,’ wrote Lucy McCarton. ‘But when American efficiency is desirable New Zealand can be a most frustrating place.’ Several American Fulbrighters remarked that it took a while to adjust to the slower pace, and it was inevitable that they would try to find reasons for it.

The liberal legislation that had been so much admired earlier in the century got a great deal of the blame. The 40-hour week gave rise to much comment. ‘The limited shopping hours on evenings and weekends took a surprising amount of getting used to,’ wrote one scholar, who added that he had been ‘trapped’ at home for two weekends of his stay here because he had forgotten to fill the gas tank of his car on the Friday.

New Zealand, wrote another, is ‘a country where the government plays a major role in business and agriculture, a country where the government provides "cradle to the grave" security for all its citizens with the result that it probably removes some of the incentive to work, a country which has made me more conscious than I was before of the virtues and the dangers of the "not to worry" and "it'll come right" philosophy.’

It was probably impossible for any American Fulbrighter here to avoid making a comment. Many New Zealanders who studied in the United States remarked on the admirable American capacity to absorb criticism. One wrote that he 'liked the displayed ability to quite aggressively challenge a colleague academically without this being misinterpreted as a personal attack.' Another noted that Americans seemed much less 'touchy' than New Zealanders. A third New Zealander noted that Americans welcome criticism; they think about it, and wonder if they need to change, and how they could do that if necessary. The British, he wrote, ignore criticism as being beneath their attention.

New Zealanders, by contrast, get angry. 'New Zealanders do not like to be criticised,' wrote Robin Winks. He was one of the two American Fulbrighters who published books detailing their expectations, impressions and criticisms of New Zealand as they saw it in that first decade. 'Is it possible to love something without respecting it?' Winks enquired. In his book These New Zealanders he then proceeded to list the characteristics of the New Zealand people that did not merit esteem. His penultimate remark, that ‘I demonstrated my love for the people — because I married one of them’ might, as an excuse for the written criticism, raise a few eyebrows among feminists and logicians alike, but Winks, like the other Fulbright author, David Ausubel, raised some very pertinent issues.

David Ausubel was an American professor of psychology who came to New Zealand on a Fulbright grant as a research scholar in 1957 and, as James McEnteer describes it in his article, ‘he decided the progressives' enthusiasm for New Zealand was excessive and largely misplaced. He decided to set the record straight ...

"In his book The Fern and the Tiki (1960) Ausubel pointed out ‘the apparent paradox of an advanced welfare state co-existing with an essentially mid-Victorian social ideology’. He found the women oppressed, the schools authoritarian and conformity rampant, despite a contentious atmosphere. What he appeared to despise above all was the air of smug self-satisfaction among the natives, 'holier than thou attitudes ... This superiority extends to all important matters — morals, ethics, education, intellectual attainment, public taste, good manners, tolerance, family life and the deportment of children . . .' Whatever validity Ausubel's cultural observations possess is undermined by the shrill belligerence of his tone as he sets about his work to destroy the myth of New Zealand as heaven on earth."

The words ‘shrill belligerence’ are probably very well chosen. While Winks' book is certainly much less far-reaching and precise, it has a ‘cosy’ tone that sweetens the pill of criticism. Both men touched on the drunken behaviour and preoccupation with sport of the 'typical' New Zealand male, and both remarked on the adverse social aspects of the social welfare system, but Ausubel aroused much more ire, perhaps because so many of his readers and reviewers perceived the same quality of 'smug self-satisfaction' in his writing that he assigned to the New Zealand people. W. L. Renwick reviewed The Fern and the Tiki in Nga Pukapuka, November-December 1960:

"Several times ... the author instructs his readers of the vast difference that often exists between ‘things as they are’ and ‘things as they are perceived’ by those who take them most for granted. His own book provides a very good illustration of this dictum.

Dr Ausubel writes about New Zealanders and the New Zealand way of life with the frozen zeal of the would-be-admirer turned iconoclast. He left the United States disturbed at the evidence he could detect of increasing social conformity and he was, he tells us, 'eagerly looking forward in New Zealand to the heterodoxy and forthrightness of opinion that (he) automatically associated with a pioneering and liberal Welfare State' (p. 119). (Elsewhere in the book we are warned against the dangers of thinking in terms of national stereotypes.) ...

The author ... set himself the task of writing ‘a treatise on the national character of the New Zealander’ (p. 220); he has attempted to disclose patterns and uniformities in our behaviour where others have seen isolated, unrelated fragments. This is an exceedingly ambitious and difficult task and, in the absence of full documentation of the hypothesis that is being advanced, it depends very largely for its effect on the quality of the mind at work behind the personal observation and reportage. On almost every one of the first 148 pages of his book Dr Ausubel demonstrates his lack of qualification for writing such a book. Indeed, it is one of the unsolved mysteries of his work that he can write so much about the methods of scholarship and practise them so little. He scolds us for our insularity and lack of perspective, but for all his world travelling and specialist knowledge of human nature his book reveals the mind of a provincial: he is absolutely without humour and is no less assertive than the New Zealanders whose habit of making categorical statements on little or no evidence he so much deplores; and despite what he says about objectivity and fidelity to fact, the tone of his book is more characteristic of a termagant than of a scholar."

Renwick went on to say, ‘All the more pity, then, that on two subjects, the training and discipline of children and adolescents, and race-relations, Dr Ausubel touches on important matters.’ The generally carping and dogmatic tone of the book, which, in time-honoured tradition, led to bad reviews and very good sales (the book is still in print after several editions) meant that readers focused on style and aspersion instead of the more apposite statements that were made. The best that can be said is that the book inspired a great deal of debate — debate that continues today.

For much of what Dr Ausubel wrote was most perceptive, and time has proved him right, as Roger Mackey pointed out in the Evening Post of 16 July 1986:

"Ausubel might have been an unpopular man but ... he was, as an American might say, damn right when it came to predicting New Zealand's future.

He wrote, sometime in 1959, ‘the honeymoon of prosperously muddling through while recklessly violating every known principle of economics is over’. And, ‘. . . but over the long haul the economic crisis will progressively deepen until New Zealanders are finally willing to face up to the one inescapable reality of economic life, namely, that to stay in business one must be able to compete effectively in a competitive world market.’

His prescription for change in our economy might be mistaken for an agenda of the national economic debate of the last ten years.

Ausubel was hardly less accurate in his predictions for the course of New Zealand race relations.

‘Maori-pakeha relations will gradually deteriorate until a series of minor explosions will compel the adoption of preventive remedial measures ... This situation will intensify Maori racial nationalism and eventually compel Maori leaders to dig their heads out of the sand. . . ."’

But how does this relate to the Fulbright philosophy? Most American Fulbrighters participated energetically during their tenure in this country and wanted to make well-meant comment. But did they have the right to do so? Most Fulbrighters would possibly think so; as one New Zealander wrote,

‘Sampling the New Zealand lifestyle’ — Professor Elmer Scholer with the Schmidt family, 1965. Black and white photograph of Elmer Scholer standing in the mid-foreground with three women and a man. In the background, children are playing on swings and slides in a playground and standing with their families. 'the promotion of mutual understanding should not preclude constructive criticism of either society.'

It was impossible not to make comparisons, once the sense of similarity had worn off; the problem was whether to voice them or not. Many scientists stated some form of anxiety that New Zealand was technologically backward. One wrote that he had to make his own analytical laboratory —'I mean, we built it from scratch.' Others expressed puzzlement that bright and well-qualified New Zealand scientists chose to stay here. Others saw the compensations of the slower pace of New Zealand life and found, furthermore, that they accomplished more in the hassle-free environment here than they would have in the hectic pace of a research laboratory back home. As one wrote in his final report: 'During this period I have virtually completed eight papers which is as many as some of my colleagues will do in their lifetime, and I have the material for as many more to do in the next few years.'

Sharon L. Smith made a similar comment: ‘Perhaps I should add that I came back to the United States and worked for two years using my New Zealand experience to write environmental impact statements. Then I returned to graduate study, gained a PhD with a thesis in biological oceanography, and have continued to work as a research scientist in oceanic biology since. My research covers the globe, and it all began, in my mind, with a Fulbright grant to do an MSc in New Zealand.’

'If I were to identify the single most important professional experience in my life, I would pick those two years of intense uninterrupted study,' said John Dickey Jr., a 1963 American graduate student. Mollie Smart, a Fulbright bright researcher in 1971, felt the same: 'I learned a lot. I got new ideas. I enjoyed every day. I made dear friends and good colleagues. I love telling my North American friends, family and colleagues and students about New Zealand.'

Robert Collar, a 1984 graduate student, had this to say:

"I think most Fulbrighters will agree that the pace of life (all aspects) in New Zealand is much slower in New Zealand than in America. The society in general is a less stressful (competitive) one and for those Fulbrighters coming from large metropolitan areas this can be very refreshing once gotten used to. The warmth and hospitality exhibited by Kiwis is a direct reflection of this attitude that life should be fun. Foreigners, you'll agree, are generally accepted with enthusiasm almost the world round. But more so in New Zealand."

Chapter 5 A Return Air Ticket and a Little Prestige

" T oday the United States has many very generous and very comprehensive aid programmes operating in various parts of the world. The need for these is beyond measure as is often the value. But real support for the United States and its people only comes from understanding and understanding needs direct experience — a hands-on situation. The Fulbright exchange programme provides just that. The other side of that particular coin is also important, i.e. United States understanding of other nations and their people. Sometimes I think that the sheer power and prestige of the United States makes this latter consideration even more critical. I am reminded of a quote I saw somewhere —'The test of courage is when you are few, the test of tolerance is when you are many.' The Fulbright scheme has in my view achieved extraordinary success in providing both understanding and tolerance." Sir Wallace Rowling, New Zealand Ambassador to the United States, from remarks made to a luncheon gathering of Fulbright selection committee chairpersons on Monday 8 September 1986

"Getting this award changed my life. It has led to many things since: a PhD, a great job, but, best of all, I feel so good about ME. I was an older woman, with children, no money and pretty insecure. You should see me now! The butterfly has emerged — and it's beautiful." Maris O'Rourke, Fulbright graduate student 1979, and ‘woman in her own right’

"I recall being reluctant to ask the chairman of the department whether I could have leave to attend a large conference in Washington DC. But when I mentioned this problem to some colleagues they said, ‘You're in America now — don't ask him, tell him."’ Frank Evison, Fulbright lecturer, 1963

Throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s New Zealanders became, perhaps, a little less naive and wide-eyed about the scene in the United States of America, for New Zealand had ‘caught up to’ the States in many particulars. There was still, however, the unexpected, the surprising and the problematical. American speech, for instance, might have become more familiar to film- and television-watching Kiwis, but Americans were just as

Group of participants at the 40th Anniversary Conference, Washington DC, 1986. New Zealand Board member Bill Renwick is second from right. Black and white group photograph of five male participants of the 40th Anniversary Fulbright Conference. baffled by the New Zealand accent. ‘They listen to your accent and not the words,’ said one New Zealander.

There were still the bonuses. The cultural opportunities — the art galleries, the theatres (and the ‘theaters’, which are different) and the operas — were occasions to be treasured. Supermarkets were still a novelty, in their size and comprehensiveness. American courtesy when driving was a most pleasant surprise, although learning to drive in the snow was nerve-wracking for some. One New Zealander described the trouble he had in getting insurance for his car. First of all he was told that if he'd had his family with him it would have been easier, but later the truth came out. There was a group of New Zealand airforce staff stationed at a nearby base, and their driving and drinking habits had become notorious.

Another Kiwi found that his habit of taking a daily walk was considered eccentric. ‘Is walking an un-American activity?’ he enquired. There were subtle differences in standards of clothing too. When one American was in New Zealand he found out why New Zealanders wear shorts, after four days of tramping in pouring rain on the Heaphy Track. A New Zealander on campus at the University of Alabama found that his very conservative New Zealand dress of shorts, shirt, tie, walk socks and polished shoes was considered not only eccentric, but also unacceptable.

American celebrations were a special pleasure. Being in America for the moonwalk and the bicentennial were much appreciated privileges. In 1976, one New Zealander remembered, ‘Washington turned on an international extravaganza.’ Everyone had heard of Thanksgiving, but the first turkey dinner with pumpkin pie and ‘all the fixings’ was always memorable. One Kiwi and his wife went to a ‘potluck’ Thanksgiving, and his wife's contribution was a trifle, New Zealand style. To their disbelief the trifle was put beside the turkey and eaten with the bird! There were other ‘culture shocks’ as well; the same Kiwi noted, ‘Perhaps one of our most silly mistakes was seeing a McDonald's in San Francisco and thinking "What a nice little restaurant".’

‘My highlight,’ wrote one American who had come to New Zealand, ‘was my first pavlova — before I bit into it.’ New Zealand Fulbrighters and their spouses became quite accustomed to making pavlovas. Food, after all, is one of the differences between cultures that are fun. Geraldine McDonald, a Fulbright researcher in 1981, made this comment in her diary ‘For those who want to know what it was really like in New York’:

"My first [pavlova] was a flop and I ate it for breakfast, but I've mastered the art now, and have equipped myself with a bowl, an egg-beater and a spring- base pan and all the ingredients. The pavlovas have been very popular and I put kiwifruit on top. I've been making 9-egg ones so they are quite big but seem to disappear in a flash. It also provides a good conversation piece, as they say in the women's magazines."

One New Zealand couple had so many invitations to dine that in the end they were accepting invitations to breakfasts.

The small problems were many and various. Frank Evison had to cut down his appreciative consumption of American coffee when he finally realised just what was keeping him awake. A few had problems with beauracracy, mainly because of ignorance of the local rules. One had trouble getting back into the States after a short spell in Mexico, but the border guard ‘had been stationed in Paekakariki during World War Two and had fond memories of New Zealand.’

Another found a hitch when he tried to re-enter the States after a short stop in Canada; a call to the Fulbright headquarters in Washington was needed to solve that one. ‘To enter the United States,’ wrote one Kiwi who had the usual J 1 visa, ‘we had to prove we had enough money to support us. To allow my wife to get a job we then had to prove we did not have enough.’

Nowadays credit cards can help out in monetary difficulties, but in the 1960s and 1970s credit cards were still a novelty to New Zealanders. Some who travelled widely on Educational or Vocational Development Grants travelled overnight by bus, to save accommodation costs. A graduate student and his wife kept themselves by babysitting; taking over the care of houses and families for one- or two-week shifts, they earned $15 a day (in 1972) and their keep.

Illness could be frightening for someone accustomed to a government health care system. Those with comprehensive insurance were glad of it. ‘The bills were quite staggering,’ one Kiwi remembered. Another was told by his insurance company when he got back to Palmerston North that his child's illness in the States had used up the entire year's profits for that particular branch.

Some ‘enjoyed’ quite bizarre experiences. ‘I was in the washroom of a bar in Washington, washing my hands and minding my own business when a smartly dressed young black came in carrying a small brown paper parcel. He gave me a big friendly smile. Then he unwrapped the package,’ wrote Gordon Smith, who was travelling on a Vocational Development Grant in 1979. The package held an efficient looking hand gun. Smith didn't wait to dry his hands, or even turn off the faucet. ‘I didn't want to find out whether the smile was for his pleasure in his new purchase, or the finding of a use for it so quickly.’

In 1978 another New Zealander was ‘stopped at traffic lights right beside a motor cyclist who was shooting away at a truck that had forced him off the side of the road.’ Other New Zealanders remarked that doing fieldwork in the woods during shooting season could be extremely hazardous. For many New Zealanders the realisation that, by living in the States, they were virtually living in a prospective war zone, was unexpectedly upsetting. One remarked on it as ‘a heaviness in the blood’, and Maris O'Rourke wrote, ‘I hadn't felt that way before. It was frightening, and I felt so powerless.’

Of all the problems, however, the most frequently mentioned was loneliness. Americans were friendly and hospitable, but many of the New Zealand Fulbrighters worked so hard that they did not have time to make social contacts. Belonging to a church or service club could help a lot. (This applied to Americans in New Zealand as well. One American in Otago became so involved with his church, because of his need for companionship, that he abandoned geology and studied for the ministry instead. This, he said, was the everlasting benefit of his Fulbright grant.)

Many of the New Zealanders who answered the questionnaire sent out as part of the preparation for this history, stated that they wished the Fulbright organisation had done more in the way of hosting while they were in the States. ‘The organisation tends, in my experience, to leave grantees largely to their own devices, concerning itself largely with visa regulations and the like,’ wrote a 1976 grantee. ‘More could be done to bring the Fulbright scholars together while in the host country.’ A 1962 Fulbrighter remarked that he thought ‘Rotary Clubs do a better job of promoting mutual understanding’. Others commented that, because they worked with multinational organisations and lived in International Houses, they met mostly non Americans.

Fulbright Regional Conference, Santa Barbara, 1977. Black and white group photograph of participants in the Fulbright Regional Conference in Santa Barbara. Two men in the foreground play guitars. The group are standing against a grassy background

It has been a matter for concern throughout the programme. It has been recognised from the very beginning that contact with the ‘ordinary’ citizens of the host country pays off best in fulfilling the aims of mutual understanding. If everyone who had been in the States went home and shared his or her insights into American culture and character, then mutual under standing must surely be furthered. The best propaganda for the United States was the personal reminiscences of the warmth of ordinary American families.

Accordingly, the Council for International Exchange of Scholars (CIES) has several programmes to further personal enrichment activities. Scholars are ‘urged to consult with your faculty associates and other colleagues at the university, preferably before departing from your home country, to identify professional meetings and conferences that will take place during your stay in the US. Attendance at such gatherings is, of course, an excellent way to keep abreast of developments in your discipline as well as to meet colleagues from other institutions.’ The grantees are given funding support for this, on application.

Others are encouraged to apply to give occasional lectures, and thereby spend two or three days on different campuses, through the Occasional Lecturer Programme. Financial assistance may be given for this, as well.

Others are invited to attend conferences for Fulbright scholars which are held each year, usually in the spring, at Washington International Centre of Meridian House International. CIES also organises ‘special events, both professional and recreational in nature, for Fulbright scholars in four metropolitan areas: Boston, Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco.’ As its 1986 Guide for Visiting Fulbright Scholars points out, CIES also belongs to the National Council for International Visitors: ‘The NCIV, of which CIES is a member, is a federation of community organisations that assist academic and other professional visitors from abroad to learn more about the United States. The organisations can arrange home hospitality, sightseeing trips, and visits with professional colleagues.’

Many of the American universities have more informal schemes, setting up host family arrangements or orientation weekends, all of which seem to be very successful. Alan Jamieson, who was in the States in 1974, listed examples of most of these efforts as his highlights: ‘Attendance at the Fulbright Scholar Conference, Ohio, March 1975; presenting seminars as representative of the University of Illinois at University of Mississippi and Toronto Universities; developing our relationship with our host family.’

Those New Zealanders who were able to take spouse and/or family along were often not as lonely as those who were young and shy and single. Some of the Fulbrighters had been to the States when single, and they all remarked that going with a family group made the award different, more full of possibilities, more interesting. They were older and more confident, of course, which must have been a factor in the improved experience, but many also noted that the most significant social contacts were made through spouse or children.

Given the youth of many of the Fulbrighters, it is not surprising that so many who embarked on their experience in a single state emerged from it married. One wrote that he ‘applied as a single male, went as a married man, and returned as a father’, while Angus MacIntyre, a graduate student in 1972, said: ‘My wife is Californian, now living in New Zealand. My major professor introduced us to one another. I have many things to curse him for, but for his match-making I continually thank him.’

The questionnaire sent to former Fulbrighters was divided into three broad sections. The first had the aim of establishing the quality, quantity and value of the social contacts that the Fulbrighter made during tenure. The final question in this section asked whether any of the friends made during tenure became a spouse or partner. There were ‘yes’ and ‘no’ boxes to be ticked, and three lines for comment, if needed. These lines were often filled in; it seemed that those who ticked ‘no’ liked to say why, and those who ticked ‘yes’ enjoyed the opportunity to express remembered happiness.

Many of the ‘no’ comments were most entertainingly frivolous: ‘Not for want of trying!’ was a favourite. Some gallant Americans added, ‘This is not to say there weren't some jolly attractive Kiwis!’ Another remarked, ‘Given more time, who knows what would have happened?’ There were hints of glasses of wine shared by candlelight. ‘Only one thing stands out clearly. But I wouldn't dare describe it. She wouldn't appreciate the publicity.’

Others ticked ‘no’ because they were married already. ‘Already spoused,’ wrote one, and another, ‘Already committed.’ One ungallant Kiwi boy friend was flown out to meet his girl's parents at their cost — and married one of her friends instead. However, more than 60 of the 662 Fulbrighters who responded ticked ‘yes’, indicating much romance along with the other rewards of Fulbright tenure. There is even one case of an American Fulbrighter marrying a New Zealand Fulbrighter — during tenure — which seems surprising when one considers that they should have been going in different directions.

In the days of the ‘boat people’, some met their future spouses on the ship going out or the ship coming home. Nowadays, with the speed and induced numbness of air travel, this does not happen so often. A surprising number indicated that they met their spouses in libraries. Others married fellow students; one married her professor. ‘I met my future wife a week after arriving in the States,’ wrote another, ‘and remain as infatuated with her now as I was then.’ Many of those who married during tenure cited the wedding ceremony as the highlight of their time, and some even declared that their marriages fulfilled the Fulbright aim better than the award itself.

One American Fulbrighter met his future wife on a blind date organised by a fellow American Fulbrighter — and his friend met his future wife on that date as well: ‘A rather productive evening for two bachelor Yankee Fulbrighters.’

Many scholars formed partnerships in the host country and afterwards. Many collaborated in the writing of research papers, and others co- authored books. A 1971 scholar, James Coxon, was appointed Adjunct Professor of Chemistry of the University of Florida in 1986, a recognition of the collaborative studies conducted between Florida and Canterbury in the years since his Fulbright award. Some law firms formed more businesslike partnerships, and at least one Auckland firm now makes a habit of sending a partner to Harvard each year for study and observation with the opposite firm in Boston, because the original Fulbright exchange of one of the partners was so very productive. There were many research partnerships set up too; new tomato varieties now grown in New Zealand were the result of co-operative Fulbright studies. ‘As a result of a visit to Lincoln College I was able to establish an undergraduate exchange programme between Lincoln and Oregon State University,’ James Oldfield wrote. Five or six students travel annually because of this partnership.

Another space for comment on the questionnaire aroused a great deal of interest. This was in the question that asked the age grouping of the Fulbrighter at the time of tenure. The men and women who replied often commented, spontaneously on what they considered the ideal age for receiving a Fulbright award. Louis Smith, a 1974 Fulbright researcher, wrote:

"The timing (of the Fulbright award) was propitious on several grounds. The year caught me mid-career. I had been at my university for almost twenty years and I had another twenty to go. I had my professorship, had written several books, gotten research grants etc., and was in the middle of a classical Levinson-style mid-life questioning if not crisis. At times I feel like I should have taken the lotusland alternative, for the intellectual turmoil, while exciting to the point of exhilaration, has just about worn me out. In an important sense the Fulbright set up the last half of my career. And that seems no mean accomplishment for any kind of intellectual programme or experience.

President Reagan, in a speech at the White House on 24 May 1982, spoke of the ‘flickering spark in us all which, if struck at just the right age ... can light the rest of our lives, elevating our ideals, deepening our tolerance, sharpening our appetite for knowledge about the rest of the world. Educational and cultural exchanges, especially among our young, provide a perfect opportunity for this precious spark to grow, making us more sensitive and wiser international citizens through our careers.’

Most of the graduate students were in their early twenties; some said they thought this too young. Overawed by the experience, they immersed themselves in frantic study, and then became lonely. They were often shy. Many commented that when they went the second time they gained much more, though of course factors other than age were working here. In 1978 the Foundation in New Zealand recognised this, and removed the age limit of 35 years for graduate student awards.

Age also affected personal expectations of what the Fulbright award would bring. The young thought it would be the ‘open sesame’ to a brilliant career, while older scholars were more realistic.

The comments of those who had been in their thirties when they took up tenure seemed to indicate that they were happy with their age. One wrote that he ‘was ideally placed to obtain new ideas, fresh input’. Another said that, at that time of life, the award was ‘a refresher’. Yet another com mented ‘I still believe this was an excellent age to have gone — too old to be swept away by the superficial gloss, mature enough to look "underneath" — and still plenty young enough to have a wonderful time.’ ‘An excellent dis tancing from our system to give me better perspectives,’ was the verdict of one scholar who thought that, with promotion still ahead, the Fulbright benefits could be fully realised.

‘I received the award at a time when I felt I needed some new experiences to help me look objectively at my job and the way I was doing it,’ wrote one who had gained a Fulbright when he was in his forties. Another remarked that that age was ideal because his family was ‘old enough to come along and young enough to enjoy the experience’.

Another who had been in his fifties saw his award ‘as a reward for long and faithful service’. ‘It was a wonderful summing-up visit, at a crucial time in my work. It staved off thought of retirement for several years,’ wrote another, who added: ‘I'm now, at sixty-one, ready for another injection!’ One of the Fulbrighters who was in his sixties during tenure did not agree with him: ‘Too old to get new ideas.’

One scholar wrote, ‘Age seems irrelevant to ultimate results.’ Was he right? It is interesting, perhaps, that so many did make such spontaneous comment. There are two factors here: the value of the Fulbright to the individual in a social sense, and in terms of his or her career.

One Fulbrighter wrote that his experience ‘opened up a completely new range of possibilities and at the same time broadened my expectations of what constitutes a "good job".’ Another called it ‘a significant credential’. If this is the aim of the Fulbright scheme, then it seems logical that a scholar should be as young as possible, because the prestige of having had an award leads to better jobs and more promotion. But is this the purpose of the exchange?

Senator Fulbright and the other men and women who established the programme in 1945 saw it as an agent for social interaction for international understanding and peace. ‘I wish to suggest,’ Senator Fulbright said in 1976, ‘that we should consider trans-national exchange not solely or even primarily as an intellectual or academic experience, but as the most effective means — in the words of Albert Einstein — to deliver mankind from the menace of war.’ Wilbur Switzer, a 1974 Fulbright teacher, had a similar opinion: ‘Fulbright grants (or exchanges) should not be a basis for job upgrading. The experience is reward enough; being able to share it is a personal and professional responsibility. If one is job-hunting, the programme will be short-changed.’

Chapter 6 A Process of Global Enlightenment

" While I do not wish to argue that the New Zealand model should, let alone can, be transplanted to American society, or vice versa, there are lessons to be learned both ways. As a New Zealander I have gained a great deal in my understanding of people by participating in a society in which ‘every man is an island’, one in which vibrancy, drive, competitiveness, personal achievement and creativity are so highly valued. Americans who have immersed themselves in New Zealand culture have similarly come to appreciate the security and personal acceptance offered by an egalitarian society in which ‘no man is an island’, even if they are occasionally irritated by what they perceive to be a blandness, conformity and anti-intellectualism. Would that the best of both worlds could be combined. The Fulbright programme has enabled me to do that — in consecutive if not simultaneous experience." David Mitchell, Fulbright research scholar, 1982

"It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country and his immediate posterity, but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn." George Washington

The 1970s were a time of change for the Foundation in New Zealand. Until 1969 the Fulbright programme was administered as the United States Educational Foundation in New Zealand. When the original amount of $US2,300,000 had been used up, the New Zealand and United States Governments agreed to continue the programme as the New Zealand United States Educational Foundation, with the costs equally shared. It was a New Zealand initiative, an affirmation of the value of the Fulbright scheme in New Zealand.

In 1971, Eric Budge retired, after 22 years as executive secretary. Since 1949 490 New Zealanders had studied in America, and 414 Americans had come here. An article in the Auckland Star of 20 November 1971 paid tribute to Eric Budge and spoke of the success of Fulbright in New Zealand:

"They have been graduate students, university lecturers, research scholars, and teachers. A large proportion of them have been in the sciences, but there has been a wide variety, ranging from accountants to zoologists. The age range has been from graduate students in their early twenties to eminent authorities in their 60s.

Americans or American-trained people are now on the staff of most of the departments of New Zealand universities. Before the start of the Fulbright programme there were virtually no American-trained academics here.

Earlier this month, the American Ambassador, Mr Franzheim, and Mr Laking were joint hosts at a luncheon for Mr Budge at Wellington's Hotel Waterloo, at which Mr Budge was presented with a Distinguished Service Award from the Board of Foreign Scholarships in Washington.

Another function in his honour to be attended by past and present Fulbrighters will be held in Auckland tonight.

Mr Budge was with the New Zealand Education Department before he joined the Fulbright board and his successor, Mr L. A. Cox, has also come from an education background: he was a primary school teacher and was an assistant registrar at Victoria University before his appointment."

And, the article added, ‘retirement will not be hard to fill for Mr Budge.’ Eric was one of New Zealand's keenest dahlia exhibitors — and he still grows the flowers today.

Both transitions — in the foundation's name and from Eric Budge to Laurie Cox — went smoothly; the mission was the same. The impetus of the 1970s did, however, have an effect on the direction of the programme. Until the mid-1970s the Foundation made little attempt to influence the scholarly fields of the visiting American scholars, and because of this it is difficult to assess the effect that the programme had on educational, social and cultural directions in New Zealand. There had been no attempt to enhance or inspire new directions in the development of New Zealand society, but this situation was soon to change.

In August 1971 the Board of Foreign Scholarships produced a far- reaching document. ‘A Statement on Educational Exchange in the Seven ties’ noted that the objective and means of the Fulbright scheme were as valid in 1971 as they had been in 1946, yet

"the context in which exchanges take place has changed greatly. The number of governments in the world has doubled and so has the number of exchange arrangements. Many other public and private agencies here and abroad support or facilitate international education. The emergence of new educational and research institutions has created new needs and opportunities. The requirements of many developing countries have become more sophisticated and complex. Americans have a heightened appreciation of how much they need to know about, and may benefit from, the learning and experience of others. Transport, communication, and print link the continents

Eric Budge and Laurie Cox — teaching and learning the ropes. Black and white photograph of Eric Budge and Laurie Cox looking at a document together. as never before. Increasingly, man's problems, expectations and aspirations are seen to be similar and even shared. As this is so, so should a wider range of educational endeavours also become shared.

Believing this and hoping for a decade of educational exchange as fruitful as the past one, the Board of Foreign Scholarships has reviewed the programmes that are its responsibility in order to make recommendations to the Department of State and to the Binational Commissions and Foundations. 1. WHO should be participants in exchange? 2. WHAT kinds of subjects, problems, and concerns should be the focus of these exchanges? 3. HOW can these exchanges be organised and administered to maximise their value?"

The document then discussed the three points in order. Under the ‘who’ category it was stated that ‘It is time ... to increase the educational exchange opportunities in appropriate non-academic fields, including — among others — journalism, law, medicine, management, public administration, and architecture.’

Under the ‘what’ category it was noted that the focus of subjects chosen in the past had often been very narrow —‘In some cases this is the result of decisions to concentrate in a few selected fields or institutions . . .’ It was recommended that ‘Commissions and posts in non-Commission countries deliberately seek to focus more of their activities at a given time on a few broadly conceived areas, subjects or problems, with new emphasis developing as earlier ones are phased out.’

The Board then recommended that the areas of programmic focus should be approached imaginatively and presented in a way designed:

"(a) to be of interest in different parts of the world; (b) to attract persons from various academic disciplines; (c) to be appropriately studied, researched, or taught in foreign and American settings by both foreign and American participants; and (d) to be able frequently to accommodate more than one category of grantee from among lecturers, researchers, and students."

Another list followed, of suggested broad fields of learning:

"— Social change. (Nature, scale and velocity of technological change; its cultural and sociological consequences; minorities; generations; women's role.) — Educational development and innovation. (The problem of numbers; teaching materials research; adapting new communications media to educational use; English language teaching.) — Use and protection of the environment. (Urban planning and problems; ecology projects; land use.) — Rediscovery and preservation of cultural legacies. (Collecting, preserving serving, studying, describing, and displaying the creative products of the past.) — The professions. (The role of architecture, law, medicine, journalism, public administration, business management, mass media management, criticism in the arts, etc.) — The general problems of minorities. (Ethnic, linguistic, religious, cultural, etc.)"

Under the ‘how’ category the Board urged that grants should be given in a way that encouraged people to pool talents and resources, to make the best use of what was available. ‘A pooling of talent and resources will reduce duplication of effort, facilitate sharing of information, and maximise the possibility of successful results.’ Experimentation with grants to teams and institutions was now in order, the Board suggested. Executive Director Laurie Cox has explained what happened:

"‘Educational Exchanges in the Seventies’ had a profound effect on the kind of programme the Foundation promoted. The 1976 programme of visiting American scholars placed emphasis on a few broadly conceived topics (New Zealand Studies, American Studies, Educational Innovation and Social Change) with a view to strengthening certain academic activities. Sponsoring institutions were advised of the Foundation's interest in projects spread over 2-3 years and involving a sequence of visitors. Emphasis on humanities and social sciences at the expense of pure sciences and agriculture. The DSIR and Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries were removed from the list of organisations invited to suggest proposals and replaced by the Planning Council, New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, Turnbull Library, Queen Elizabeth II Council, National Museum and Art Gallery, Department of Education etc."

The basic criteria for choosing New Zealanders to go to the States had not changed at all, however; despite the new philosophies, grants were still made to individuals who were selected for their demonstrated ability, probable capacity for suitable performance abroad and long-term potential. The challenge and reward to the individual Fulbrighter was still recognised as valuable, as Senator Fulbright noted in December 1974:

"I think of these alumni scattered across the world, acting as knowledgeable interpreters of their own societies; as persons equipped and willing to deal with conflict or conflict-producing situations on the basis of an informed determination to solve them peacefully; as opinion leaders communicating their appreciation of the societies which they visited to others in their own society."

In 1975 the Board of Foreign Scholarships began planning a project to observe two events: the American Bicentennial and the 30th anniversary of the Fulbright-Hays programme. The Board decided it would bring together the men and women who knew the programme best: Fulbright alumni. Their brief was to review and assess international exchange efforts generally, and the programme specifically, in the light of the recommendations made in the ‘Statement on Educational Exchange in the Seventies’. The project was given the title, ‘International Education, Link for Understanding.’ At 10 one-day conferences hosted by universities and then during a three-day convocation at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, 250 scholars, statesmen and other concerned individuals from 33 countries assembled to discuss the future of international exchange.

It was not a self-congratulatory exercise. While it was agreed that the Fulbright scheme had had a most profound effect on the lives of the participants and their families and colleagues, doubts were also expressed. Had the programme truly promoted ‘international understanding’? Some of the delegates pointed out that political and personal freedoms had actually diminished on a global basis. The benefits, they said, had been personal, not political.

Much of the doubt was expressed in a speech given by Harold R. Isaacs, Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, during the three-day summing-up seminar. He called his paper ‘The Closing Societies’. After pointing out that 40,000 Americans and 74,000 citizens of 122 countries had taken part in programmes of educational exchange during the 30 years of the Fulbright-Hays programme, he said:

"Foreign students and scholars who came to the United States during these three decades had an incomparable opportunity to see at close range how this society went through the convulsions of change in the patterns of race relations, how it responded to the crises of the Vietnam War, and finally how it dealt with the unfolding drama of Watergate. Some no doubt went home believing they had witnessed part of the decline if not nearly the fall, of American civilisation. Others may have been able to see in these events remarkably impressive evidence of surviving health, strength and recuperative capacity in the American system. Many thousands, of course, did not go home at all, but took every means they could to remain and make their lives here, an ultimately decisive comment on their experience.

Americans who went abroad as part of this programme also became witnesses of critical history, especially in the new states of Asia and Africa. What began in Asia and Africa beginning thirty years ago in the collapse of the colonial empires and the white supremacy system was a massive opening into the world for millions of hitherto isolated, subjected and subordinated people ...

But if ever there was a chance that colonial tyranny could be replaced by anything resembling open policies, it withered early.... The fragile shoots of democratic-style politics that did grow out of some colonial soil in a few places, as in the Philippines and India, lived a somewhat longer but sickly life, withering and dying with hardly a twitch after barely twenty-five years.

Today no scholar, no educator, no eager student, with or without a Fulbright grant, can follow his own bent in any of these countries any more, or for that matter almost anywhere in the world outside the shrinking sphere of surviving democratic political systems in Europe and North America. Much as they differ, all but perhaps two dozen of the world's 150-odd states are now governed in greater or lesser degree by closed political systems of one kind or another, from total orders of control and mobilisation as in China, to ineffectual little satrapies maintained only by a bloody-handed palace guard, as in Uganda. Never have more ‘liberated’ people become more subject to more tyrannies in the name of achieving more freedom, or in so short a period of time....

For at least two centuries now, the notion that ‘education’ would enable human beings to improve their state has remained a prime article of faith for all who remained convinced that knowledge and reason would and could prevail in human affairs. Now that conviction is painfully weaker and we are much less sure than we were that we know what education is in our own society, much less in the rest of the world. We are even less able to know what ‘international education’ is. In what political context? In and for open societies or for closing or closed ones? To create what sets of values, for whom and for what? Until we can answer these questions for ourselves more effectively than we have until now, I do not know what answers we can make through any process of exchange with the rest of the world. The key word of the next thirty years in any case is not likely to be ‘education’. More likely, for philosophers, and educators, and geologists too, and for us all, it will be ‘survival’. The question will be on what terms." Quoted from A Process of Global Enlightenment', Board of Foreign Scholarships, 1976, pp. 82-86

Senator Fulbright replied, in an address titled ‘The Process of Humanising Mankind’:

"Since earliest times there have been only two ways of establishing peace and order in human groups — violent coercion and the forging of ties of sentiment among the members. In primitive conditions questions of ownership, territory, the forming of groups and their leadership were decided solely by superior force. But in the course of evolution — over many thousands of years — the use of force became modified. Gradually the rules and restraints which we know as law were introduced, forging random groups into communities. In due course the idea of ‘citizenship’ came into being, vesting in those who possessed it certain rights and degrees of security as to their lives and possessions.

As these incipient communities evolved, bonds of mutual loyalty and kinship came into being among their members, reducing though not eliminating the necessity of coercion for the maintenance of internal peace and order. Although only a minority of the nations of the world today are governed by democratic consent and the rule of law in the sense in which we understand and practise these concepts, all but a few are communities to the extent that their people acquiesce in the regimes which rule them; that is, they at least do not have to be controlled by overwhelming force. Modern nations, with few exceptions, are held together primarily by the consent of their members, by their sense of kinship and nationhood, and only incidentally by their internal police forces." Quoted from A Process of Global Enlightenment', p. 28

It was, however, apparent to all those who attended the conferences that the world had changed greatly in the 30 years since the start of the programme; it had become more complicated, and despite the huge increase in communication capacity, it had become less open. In 1945 it had seemed relatively easy to solve global troubles with technology and idealism; now it was seen that these alone were not the answers. As Charles H. Townes, Professor of Physics at the University of California at Berkeley said:

"Many of us have been among the fortunate thousands of individuals who have participated in the exchange of scholars between nations, and still benefit from this experience. A substantial part of the hoped-for rebuilding of the structures and economies of nations so damaged by war has occurred. A great deal of new knowledge and material progress has been achieved — not uniformly throughout our world but at least widely. There is, nevertheless, a strong feeling of disillusionment and discouragement. Rampant and sometimes bitter nationalism, further wars, abuse of the United Nations — that dream of world organisation — overpopulation, pollution and deterioration of the environment — by products of some of the hoped-for material success — along with resource shortages and the obvious limits to our world and of man's wisdom confront us now almost everywhere. Science and technology have lost some of their savour, and for some even taken on the aspects of dangerous phenomena to be exorcised or at least carefully contained." Quoted from A Process of Global Enlightenment', p. 56

In this last statement he echoed what had been said by Foyohiro Kono of Gakushuin University, Tokyo, at a Council for International Exchange of Scholars Conference on ‘The Role of the University’ held at the University of Arizona almost exactly one year earlier. ‘There is growing need for technology assessment,’ said Mr Kono. ‘Society is facing many problems, such as pollution, food shortage, over-population, energy shortage, human alienation etc., and technology is expected to solve these problems. Contrary to these expectations, tremendous amounts of resources are spent in such technology as military equipment, space exploration, and model changes of automobiles.’

But — in the words of Senator Fulbright — ‘In view of the current low estate of the United Nations, are we to accept the inevitability of nuclear war and do nothing about it? If not the educational exchanges, then what better means is there to change the attitudes of man — what better way is there to break the pattern of recurrent violence and destruction which all of us have seen in this war-torn twentieth century?’ The Fulbright-Hays programme could not be abandoned; no one suggested that. What it had to do was adapt to this new kind of world.

Accordingly, after debate, a revised set of objectives was produced, along the lines of what had already been recommended in the ‘Statement on Educational Exchange in the Seventies’. The conference resolved that, while benefits should accrue to a host nation, the emphasis of the programme should be on knowledge sharing among individuals and not on simple technical expertise. It was decided that the emphasis on technology and pure science should be shifted to emphasis on subjects related to pressing world problems: the environment, food, population studies, transportation and so on. The special needs of the participating countries were to be taken into consideration; for instance, technical information could be exchanged in developed Europe, while in undeveloped countries cultural and broadly educational subjects would be emphasised. As one delegate said, ‘The programme should not be used to supply cheap consultants.’

Other goals stated that: there should be better language preparation and better orientation;the duration of a visit should be shorter for senior scholars, who find it difficult to be away for extended periods;a bibliography of work by Fulbright scholars should be compiled and made available;the programme should enlist more generalists and fewer specialists; the idea of exchanging non-university professionals (writers, lawyers, journalists etc.) should be explored; a successful candidate should be notified of his or her appointment a year in advance, in order to prepare adequately; foreign students should not be sent to the United States for education and training that is of sufficient quality in their home countries; greater use should be made of the reports that Fulbrighters file after arriving back home.

This, too, had an effect on the kind of programme that the Foundation in New Zealand promoted. In accordance with these stated aims, the Board began to look for new directions, to speculate whether, through the programme, new and promising ventures could be promoted; whether the New Zealand-United States Educational Foundation could, in fact, make wise investments in the future development of New Zealand society.

Consequently four general areas of concentration were fixed: American Studies. This was a general term used to include any study about the United States in the social sciences and humanities, with special emphasis placed on the fields of history, literature, political science, sociology, economics and law. The aim was to encourage a better understanding of the American people and their culture. New Zealand Studies. This theme offered the opportunity of bringing together members of the New Zealand and United States academic communities for the consideration of ideas and research in studies of New Zealand. The aim was to promote any study of New Zealand in the social sciences and humanities or the natural and applied sciences as they relate to studies unique to New Zealand. Educational Development and Innovation. This project offered opportunities for educational administrators to undertake 90-day grants and travel to the United States on a mission of intensive observation; it also allowed tutors and administrators in the field of technical and vocational education to go on similar missions, for 45 days. It was a timely recognition of the fact that the field of education is one in which America has substantial contributions to offer. Environmental Studies. This, too, was a field in which the Foundation had already shown a great deal of interest and, in fact, the description of the programme built around the theme of recreational resources was a model for this new approach. The purpose was to encourage the development of research and teaching in the use and protection of the New Zealand environment. It was an expression of concern for the New Zealand outdoors.

Applicants were encouraged to think in terms of on-going projects that would involve a series of visitors over a three- or four-year period. A long term, well-thought-out and clearly stated proposal was the one most likely to find favour with the Board.

As Laurie Cox has pointed out, the Educational Development Grants had evolved much in the same way:

"The 45-day grants have evolved from the earlier Teacher Development Grant lasting 180 days. The Board felt this was too long a period to be away from home and family and work etc. and the grant was split into two awards of 90 days in 1974. Subsequent discussions saw the term successively reduced to 90 and then 45 days, with the numbers increased and the scope of the grants widened, for example into the fields of Vocational Development, cultural awards, writers' fellowships and so on.

Some grantees have expressed a preference for a longer period, and the

Arthur Carpenter and a design class from Wanganui College visit a marae. Black and white photograph. In the foreground, four adults, including Arthur Carpenter, stand on a marae. In the mid-background a group of adults are assembled in front of the whare whakairo (carved meeting house). length of the grant was reviewed again in 1986 when the recipients from 1980-85 were surveyed. On the basis of the results of the survey the Board reaffirmed its policy of awarding grants that are normally for a term of 45 days, for the consensus of grantees was in favour of that."

This new approach was very demanding, for both the participants and the programme. The 45-day grants, for instance, were extremely hard work. Contact with what the alumni called the ‘cutting’ or ‘leading’ edge of theory and practical application had great value but, as one wrote, ‘In retrospect, the schedule was probably too tight.’ ‘I just saw and did too much,’ wrote another. Too many New Zealanders failed to take into consideration the sheer size of the United States; it takes a lot of time merely to get from A to B.

‘I really needed a return visit to consolidate and follow up to get full benefit,’ one Kiwi wrote. ‘I'm sure I was dazed and confused at times.’ He gained immensely, however: ‘masses of information and new ideas. Very difficult later to sift out those which were directly applicable to New Zealand.’ Even the accumulation of material caused hassles, simply because of the large amount that was so quickly gathered. However, ‘I gained a measure of comparison of the New Zealand educational system,’ wrote another.

The country certainly benefited. Bruce McLeod, for instance, was on the Hawke's Bay Community Council and also in charge of the STEPS and TAP programmes in the Napier district, and so was quickly able to apply what he learned on his Vocational Education Grant.

The effects of the Board's new approach became obvious almost immediately, and were very apparent by the 1980s. By 1986 every visiting American scholar, except those on travel-only awards, was responding to a specific proposal which fell within the Foundation's guidelines. Several, indeed, were opening up new fields, such as Charlie French, in agri- business, Thomas Lineham, in computer graphics, Richard Young, in writing across the curriculum, and Richard Miller, in anti-monopoly strategies.

Jenrose Felmley came to the University of Waikato in 1980 to create a resource centre for women's studies, and the theme of women's studies is continuing, with the funded visits of such women as Helen Holmes and Ann Hill-Beuf.

The American Studies departments at Canterbury and Waikato have had a stream of Fulbright-funded visitors, such as David Jones, Richard Curry, Patrick Morrow and Robin Brooks. As Laurie Cox has said:

"The Foundation has a commitment to the development of American Studies as a discipline in New Zealand and in 1986 the Stout Centre with Jock Phillips organised a two-day seminar on New Zealand-United States relationships called ‘The American Connection’. This was attended by Fulbrighters who were in the country at the time and subsequently the

Gordon Epperson. Jack Clay. Two black and white photographs. Gordon Epperson (left) playing his cello and Jack Clay (right). Foundation agreed to contribute to the cost of publishing the proceedings. On the same theme there is an organisation known as the Australia-New Zealand American Association which meets biennially for a three- to four day conference. The 1986 (May) conference was held in Auckland and the Foundation brought two scholars from the United States — Robert Wiebe, a historian, and Jackson MacLow, a poet and composer. When the conference is held in Australia the Foundation provides travel grants to facilitate the attendance of New Zealand scholars and teachers."

Another new theme has been in the field of entrepreneurism. Bruce Dixon of the University of Waikato's management development centre put in a proposal and thus far three visitors- Robert Brockhaus, Robert Pricer and Omer Carey — have come to assist in setting up a Small Business Centre. In July 1978 George (later Sir George) Laking presented a paper reviewing the cultural direction of the programme. The Board, after discussion, decided that the ‘cultural exchange’ in the stated objectives had been neglected too long, and that it should be included in the new thematic approach.

Accordingly the Chairman and the Executive Secretary met Hamish Keith and Director Michael Volkerling of the Queen Elizabeth II Arts Council to discuss the establishment of cultural awards. These commenced in 1980, with the aim of enhancing mutual appreciation within the two countries of the values, traditions and potential of the arts and crafts in the United States and New Zealand. Richard Marquis came in 1981 and raised the standard of glass-blowing in New Zealand; since he returned to the United States several New Zealanders have travelled to see him. James Krenov came the following year and introduced new methods of working in wood.

Cultural entrepreneurism has had attention as well. Under a proposal from the Queen Elizabeth II Arts Council visitors such as Paul Davis, Ruth Harley and George Webby have been sent to the States to study marketing of the arts, art promotion, the need for business art managers, the methods of soliciting business sponsorship and the entrepreneurial approach. As George Webby declared later, theatre in England is ‘standing still, or moving in many directions very slowly’. The United States is leading the movement towards sophisticated arts management.

The lecturing grants have been extended to include arts and culture. In 1981 Gordon Epperson came on a lecturing award, and he — like Louis Harrison, who came in 1983 — was able to demonstrate his performance skills. According to Laurie Cox, ‘Almost every year since 1981 has seen an American musician (Epperson, Fruchtmans, Harrison, Korte and Hermaine Williams) shared among the universities.’

Louis Harrison involved himself in an art scene ranging ‘from music through choreography and painting to writing’. ‘New Zealand,’ he wrote, ‘seems to me a very stimulating environment.’ Jack Clay came to New Zealand for six weeks in 1984 — ‘It confirmed my general sense that one should do one's work in theatre wherever one is, not wait to work just in the world's theatre capitals.’

The composer Karl Korte came, and his tenure led to three original compositions, all of which have been performed. Martin Gibson came on a lecturer grant in 1982 in the field of newspaper writing. In that same year Jon Trimmer went to the American Ballet Theatre on a cultural grant — 'Nowhere else in the world do you see such a cross-section of the arts, continuously enlarging and changing ... utterly stimulating ... I feel very privileged to be part of this grant.'

In the following year Barry Cleavin went on a cultural grant to attend a lithography conference in Albuquerque. ‘The award,’ he said, ‘added some extra dignity to my status as artist and lecturer.’ He returned and presented lectures, set up two lithographic workshops in Christchurch and another one in Auckland, organised an exhibition of New Zealand artists in San

Jon Trimmer in ‘The Rake's Progress’. Photo: Martin Stewart Jon Trimmer in Ashley Killer's `No Exit'.Two black and white photographs of Jon Trimmer on stage in two ballet productions. On the left, he is seated with a woman holding out her hand. On the right he is dancing with a chair used as a prop.Francisco, and was offered exhibitions of his own in the States.

The Foundation responded, also, to proposals put forward by the Alexander Turnbull Library. Sandra Myres came to Wellington in 1982 and a bibliography of nineteenth-century women's writing resulted, titled Victoria's Furthest Daughters. David Jones found it ‘extraordinarily pleasant’ to work under the joint auspices of the New Zealand-United States Educational Foundation and the Alexander Turnbull Library in 1985:

"The Foundation began by arranging accommodation in a pleasant book lined cottage owned by a distinguished scholar. They went on to serve as a home away from home, not just in terms of such mundane matters as mail, but also by providing the human warmth that must often be missed by the travelling researcher.

The Turnbull Library must be one of the most pleasant scholarly environ ments around. Even in the midst of preparations for a move to new

Jon Trimmer as King Louis XIV in Russell Kerr's ‘Salute’. Black and white photograph of Don Trimmer dancing as King Louis XIV on stage with a group of male dancers in the background. quarters, the Director and staff took a real interest in my research, offering both helpful professional advice and pleasant social occasions. A great library as concerned with diffusing as with preserving its material is a rare place, and a delightful one."

There has been, Laurie Cox has pointed out, a growth in the Foundation's support (usually a travel grant) for distinguished Americans visiting New Zealand for seven to 10 days to feature at conferences.

"In August 1987 we brought out Eugene Brody for the Mental Health Conference. Earlier the same year David Weikart was brought here for the Early Childhood Convention, and two years earlier Irving Lazar for the same conference. Harlan Cleveland, John Outterbridge and Joseph Jaudon came in 1986. In 1985 Malcolm Arth came for the Museum Education Conference and Shirley Ririe and Joan Woodbury for the International Dance and the Child Conference.

Quite a lot has been done in the area of counselling, social work and mediation. Working with the justice Department and Family Court judges, we sponsored the visits of Hugh McIsaac (1985) in establishing programmes for separated and divorced parents and this was followed up in 1986 with John Haynes presenting seminars in mediation skills for professionals. The university departments offering programmes in social work over the period 1980-84 hosted three scholars and in 1987 Wynn Tabbert (helped) the Department of Social Welfare develop a programme which provides for consumer participation in the development of policy and practice."

In 1985 Dr Geoffrey Lealand was commissioned by the Foundation to study the impact of American popular culture on New Zealand society, in the first of what may be a series of objective studies of the perceptions of the United States held by New Zealanders and how these perceptions affect New

Judith Hoffberg. Photo: Taranaki Newspapers Black and white portrait photograph of Judith Hoffberg Zealand's relationship with America. Considerable assistance has been given to the development of bi-lingual/multicultural programmes in education with both American and New Zealand participants.

Clyde Griffen came from Vasaar in 1984 to teach a new kind of social history: he uses public records for his resources, such as census reports and court records: ‘I left enormously pleased that our work helped stimulate creation of a Centre for Auckland Studies at the University.’ Marc Goldring came to New Zealand on a cultural grant to teach the craft of working in leather in 1983: 'I enjoyed seeing people react to my techniques from such a very different perspective.' The following year a Navajo Indian, Pearl Sunrise, came to teach her own techniques in traditional weaving and to learn from Maori practitioners of the same — but different — craft.

‘As a research scholar,’ wrote Judith A. Hoffberg, who held a cultural award in 1983, ‘I was assigned to the Archive of Len Lye, a remarkable sculptor, filmmaker, writer, lecturer and theorist.’

"In the 35 boxes of papers and 6 boxes of slides and tapes, I found the life of a genius.... The 50 000 pieces of paper, photographs, documents have all been inventoried and computerised, as well as organised and housed archivally. As a result, a computerised catalogue to the collection is now on disks on an Apple computer, as well as printed out. A guide to users is being written to accompany the disks and computer-printout so that researchers and scholars will be able to utilise the estimated 500 microfiche without ever having to come to New Plymouth, New Zealand."

New Zealand sculptor James Charlton was a Fulbright student in 1984: ‘Everything in America happens new. Everything is available all the time. It is the centre of activity, not the passive observer of action. . . . A gallery dealer from New York saw my work and offered me a show. This event opened up the possibilities that I didn't have to be an artist who worked at another job nine to five and made out at weekends. But I could practise my profession and that it could be financially viable to do so.’

Chapter 7 The Other Side of Sunrise

" W hat struck me most about New Zealanders was the distinctly ‘British’ character of their ways. In no other respect is the best of British heritage more pronounced than in the exemplary behaviour of children. On boarding a bus, more than once did one or more small school children jump to their feet to offer me, an elderly gentleman (though not all that frail) their seat.

One memory of a bus ride is unforgettably inscribed on my memory: we were approaching the terminal stop, and few people were left in the bus. An elderly lady up front had engaged the driver in a conversation. A boy of teen or preteen/age had advanced to just behind the driver's seat, clearly with the intent of asking the driver a question. It seemed to be an urgent one — as if concerning his getting off at the right stop. The driver did not see the boy and was unaware of his obvious eagerness to address him. His conversation with the old lady continued throughout the stop — one of the last ones on this route. The boy bounced forward on the tips of his toes, trying to attract the driver's attention. He failed. Yet, despite his clear desire to speak with the driver, he did not dare to interrupt the on-going conversation. Thus, the bus continued on its way ... Such mannerly self-restraint in a youngster! Where else in the world could this be found in our day?" George F. Rohrlich, Fulbright researcher/lecturer, 1980

"I still remember calling the Consulate-General's office in Los Angeles when I first considered coming to New Zealand. They told me over the phone that it was impossible, except under very extreme circumstances, to do a PhD in New Zealand. I requested the necessary applications anyway, and then the woman said, ‘Well if you could get a Fulbright then it would be possible.’ With my usual optimism I decided then and there that somehow or other I'd get a Fulbright. It completely changed the course of my career. Thanks to the Fulbright the ‘impossible’ is being achieved." Linda Lively, Fulbright graduate student, 1983

"I found that I got little response initially when I wrote to universities because I was to them an ‘unknown’. I applied for a Fulbright, partly for some financial assistance, but more as an introduction. Indeed, once I could

Sonia Gernes, Fulbright lecturer, 1986. Black and white portrait photograph of Judith Hoffberg say I was ‘a Fulbright’ then most universities I applied to made me welcome." Roger Hall, Fulbright lecturer, 1982

"I'm less sure of a lot of things than I used to be. I cannot tell direction in these antipodean hills where the winter sun moves across the northern sky and cold antarctic winds blow up from the south. I suffer from a sort of temporal vertigo. I've had to learn new traffic rules, reversed phone dials, the fact that the water goes down the drain hole the other way round. When I take a trowel out to my back garden to aid the early spring flowers I poke in the borders, but I'm not sure which green tendrils are the weeds. Even the stars are different here — the winter constellations spread out across a cold August sky in a way that is foreign but tauntingly familiar. I see no Big Dipper on these clear, chilly nights, only a Southern Cross pointing straight to the icy heart of that pole.

When I had been in New Zealand four days I wrote in my journal, It is strange and somewhat dislocating to scruff your way through autumn leaves on a May evening that has fallen rapidly as evenings in autumn do. It is even stranger to see those leaves gather around the base of a hibiscus in bloom, to pick up the scent of flowers whose name you do not know, to see the shape of palm trees against the crepuscular sky over Albert Park and out beyond them near the harbour to see a crescent moon and what looks like the evening star in a place it has no right to be.

And yet that's why I came to New Zealand, to be dislocated, cracked open, forced out of my shell of preconceptions about how the world spins. That's why I applied for a Fulbright grant to lecture in American literature for six months at a small North Island university, a choice most of my colleagues found quixotic. I wanted to learn to see again." Sonia Gernes, Fulbright lecturer, 1986

"Perhaps the best way I can describe my experience is to relate my first week in Wellington. I arrived on a Thursday before Queen's Birthday weekend after the long trans-Pacific flight and a connecting flight from Auckland. Faced with the prospect of a long weekend in a strange city and country with cold and rainy weather was not the most pleasant idea. But from the very beginning I was immediately made to feel at home. Indeed, in Auckland the staff of Air New Zealand had gone out of their way to assist me and Laurie Cox was waiting for me at the Wellington airport. He took me to my apartment, showed me the shopping area, introduced me to my landlord (who lived upstairs) and the following morning walked with me from my flat (across from Victoria University) to the Library, helped me open a bank account and gave me a good introduction to what I might expect.

I then went to the Turnbull and visited with Jim Traue, met members of the staff and discovered that everything had been planned to give me a ‘super’ welcome. By the time I left the Library my entire weekend was taken up with tours of the city, luncheons and dinners and a chance to meet people and get to feel at home." Sandra Myres, Fulbright researcher, 1982

"I found the two countries so different in size, in scale and in modes of operation that I felt it impossible — even insensitive — to attempt comparisons. Rather I approached any situation with the questions, what is it I like/dislike about what I am seeing/hearing/feeling? Then what is our equivalent of this situation, whether it be good or bad? Through this approach and the benefits of five years of hindsight I have seen dimensions of our work (diversity and education) appear in this country since my visit which were not apparent in 1982. This confirms a belief that the New Zealand scene is very highly influenced by what happens in the USA but that it follows several years later. I believe this could be turned to New Zealand's advantage. We could anticipate more and be less likely to repeat mistakes, providing it is the issues we identify, not the detail." Brian Leabourn, Fulbright educational development scholar, 1981

"As a person with experience in language and refugees, I was interested in new migrants adapting into a new country. America is so diverse and nearly everyone is a migrant of recent generations. I asked people what they thought holds America together, what contributed to patriotism, what is the essence of America to a new migrant.

It was interesting that most people said language holds Americans together, as I came across a number of people surviving quite well without English. The flying of the American flag seemed to me to be a more uniting symbol.

In Albuquerque my host was a middle-aged man who drove a fairly battered Toyota. This was unusual on two counts, first that the car was an old and battered one, and secondly that it was Japanese. Before I could comment on this he said, ‘I should explain about my car. I feel bad not buying American but I think Japanese cars are better. That's how I get over my guilt feelings.’ He nodded out his window to the aerial, which had an American flag attached."

Rosemary Middleton, Fulbright educational development scholar, 1982

Sandra Myres, Fulbright Fellow, National Library of New Zealand, 1982. Black and white portrait photograph of Sandra Myres

"When I first got to New Zealand I was really guidebook-ignorant. After spending about nine months there I sure knew more than when I first got off the plane. While there and after I developed a real warmth for the place. New Zealand was a whole new world that I loved at once and knew virtually nothing about. For me, the Fulbright was pretty exhausting, but a wonderfully positive experience.

I found almost every aspect of New Zealand that I encountered to be refreshing. The place really is as beautiful as the guidebooks make it out to be. This surprised me. I found the preliminary warnings about excessive automobile expenses to be incorrect. I bought an Austin mini (used — really used) for $900. True, gas was expensive, but a mini doesn't use much gas. I very much like the New Zealand notion of throwing nothing away. That mentality got me the car, after all." Patrick Morrow, Fulbright lecturer, 1981

"The plan was to drive across the USA, coast to coast. So finally we decided on a mobile home. You've probably seen the kind of thing on our roads at holiday time: large vans with sleeping accommodation above the driver's cabin; a dining table which folds down into a bed; a gas cooker and fridge; and sometimes a toilet and shower as well. There are thousands and thousands ands of them in the USA where, for many people, they are a way of life. But what type should I get? How much were secondhand ones? Where should you park them at night?

The most helpful publication was Trailer Life. Trailer Life gave no indication how much secondhand RV's (Recreational Vehicles) would cost, but the price of new ones was alarming — $20,000 and up. But I took heart from knowing that almost everything secondhand in the USA is always cheap. I estimated I'd be able to pick up something in good condition for about $5,000 and then be able to sell it for almost as much as we paid for it once we got it to the other side of the country. I was to be wrong on both counts.

One useful thing I did get from Trailer Life was the name of a dealer in Los Angeles, called Travelland. Travelland covered 35 acres. It was so big it even had its own restaurant. Thirty-five acres! The thought was enough to keep me awake at nights. I have difficulty enough choosing what type of ballpoint pen to get. How was I going to be able to select one vehicle from 35 acres of them?

Travelland turned out to be a group of dealers, most of whom dealt only in new vehicles. There were very few secondhand ones. After half an hour we found one for $8,500, and a further hour's search revealed two more at $9,000 each. And then all our prayers were answered. A van with its price marked clearly on the windscreen, eighty-two-twenty. It looked brandnew, the fittings were luxurious, there was every comfort you could think of. And all for a little over eight thousand dollars!

But, I thought, I'd better check the price with the dealer. ‘That vehicle, sir, is $23,176. Plus tax,’ he said.

‘But — Eighty-two-twenty?’

Roger Hall. Photo: John Burney Black and white close up photograph of Roger Hall

It was a nineteen-eighty-two model, twenty feet long. We decided to have lunch at the restaurant." Roger Hall, Fulbright lecturer, 1982

"I began looking for a vehicle on a street in Palmerston North that was lined with used car dealers. The high prices and the steering wheel on the opposite side made me quite tentative, but I finally worked up the courage to test-drive a Ford. The salesman, a young man, looked a bit concerned as he watched me attempt to get the car off the lot. Not being used to shifting with my left hand or looking in the right place for the mirrors, it was probably three or four minutes before I got onto the street.

By this time I was feeling pretty calm. I drove along a wide, quiet street for several blocks and then ran into a roundabout. Having never encountered one before, I decided to wait and see what other cars did. It wasn't long until a car came from my left and slipped through the roundabout smoothly. I watched it drive away and then entered the roundabout and turned right, the same direction as the other car.

I proceeded several more blocks, navigated through a rather confusing set of lights, and then turned into a road leading into the countryside and picked up speed. After a mile or so I decided to turn around and head back into town. It was at this moment that I realised that I had been concentrating so hard on driving the car that I had forgotten which dealer I had gotten it from." Thomas Sauer, Fulbright graduate student, 1985

"Once I put a slight dent in a car bumper and went in search of a body shop in order to have it repaired. When I asked someone in Hamilton for advice as to which body shop he recommended, I was astonished to learn that only one existed in a city of 100,000 people. ‘Go down the main street,’ he said. ‘Take a left, and you'll see it on the left about five blocks down. It's called the Queen of Hearts.’ I hastened to explain that I needed to locate an automobile repair shop. ‘Oh!’ he said. ‘You mean you want a panel-beater!’" Richard Curry, Fulbright lecturer, 1981

"I bought some designer (Bill Blass, for those in the know) sheets, pillow- cases and comforter, in navy and white. This made quite a sizeable package all encased in slippery plastic.

I set out for New York with my bag, my sheets and comforter wrapped in plastic, and a pile of papers from ETS, also in plastic. This motley collection, bulky and heavy, had been lashed onto a luggage trundler, expecting that the bus would have a luggage compartment. But no, and I had to try to manoeuvre this contraption down the narrow aisle to the back of the bus. Turned sideways, it would not roll on its wheels. Turned frontways, it was too wide for the aisle and the plastic snagged on the seats. I eventually wriggled it to the rear and hung onto the thing for the whole journey during which it repeatedly tried to lie down in the aisle. I then had to face getting off again but had figured that if there were no people sitting with heads to be knocked off, I could lift it about the seats and walk sideways down the bus. It worked!

Negotiated the bus steps, got down the terminal stairway, managed to ride down an escalator, walked a block underground, found the right platform for my train, trundled the contraption to the train by which stage the plastic packages had slipped out of the knots and lashings and had to be pummelled back into place every ten minutes. Got out at 116th Street and carried the bundle, like a corpse on a stretcher, upstairs to street, trundled to Amsterdam Avenue and 120th Street, then up the Victorian steps of Whittier, through the electronically controlled door, into an elevator, up nine floors, along the corridor, opened two door locks and then home!

The sheets and comforter looked great on the bed. Also was able to put my only other ones through the wash." Geraldine McDonald, Fulbright researcher, 1981

"During my first week in the States I had a phone call from my contact in ten days' time.

He told me who he was and said he had everything jacked up for my stay. He would meet me at the airport; I would spend my first night in my booked hotel but from then on he had other ideas.

‘I need to know a couple of things about you,’ he said. ‘Do you play bowls?’ Rather stunned, I thought of lawn bowls in New Zealand and said, 'No, I'm not that old.'

‘Ah, we'll teach you,’ he said. ‘What about playing around with little planes?’

‘No,’ I said. ‘I haven't done much of that since I was very young.’ ‘Oh! How about bike-riding, then?’

Well, I had never been on a cycle track, not even on a racing bike, so, ‘I'm sorry,’ I said.

‘Oh? Hell! What about golf?’ ‘Yes, yes,’ I said.

‘Ah,’ he said. ‘I'll meet you at the airport.’ Well, the outcome was:

A night of skittle bowls had been arranged. I had hospitality with people with a six-seater Cessna. I had hospitality with people who cycled as a family. It snowed so I couldn't play golf." Roy Young, Fulbright educational development researcher, 1980

"My wife and I tend to talk the most about the graciousness and generosity of people whom we met throughout the islands. There was that time in Nelson when both kids had chicken pox. The motel owner, noticing the children's ailment, phoned his own doctor. Soon the phone rang in our room. It was a Sunday afternoon and the doctor had offered to come to the motel and take a look at our children. A house call — on a Sunday afternoon! Then there was the time that I drove through Hamilton at 6 o'clock in the morning. Hamilton, a large town by New Zealand's standards, had a couple of gas stations open at that time. I pulled in, filled the tank, and asked the gentleman with the pump if he sold coffee. He said, 'No, I don't sell coffee. But I just put on a pot and I could sure use the company. Come on, let's have a chat.'

I was on a whirlwind tour sponsored by the Art Galleries and Museums Association in New Zealand. As I left, I guess what impressed me the most

Bill Tramposch, recipient of the Fulbright in Museum Education, ‘sitting dazed at his desk in the wake of the news’. Black and white photograph of Bill Tramposch sitting beside his deskwas watching the openings of Te Maori. As the Taonga returned from its United States tour, I saw the power that museums have to encourage racial relations and promote the best kind of nationalism. I left just as Te Maori was making its tour through the islands. I have to tell you that leaving at that time was like having a wonderful novel ripped from my hands just minutes before I got into the climax.

I need to return to this country, and the sooner the better. It almost seems like a fantasy to me now that I ever went. But occasionally I'll show my slides and discuss the experience with friends here in Williamsburg and the reality will return. There is such a place as New Zealand, and waiting to get back there is fortifying and entertaining in its own right." William J. Tramposch, Fulbright researcher, 1986

To a Maori Woman from an Indian Sister Your brown face Is a mirror In which I see The scarred faces Of my people. Sioux, Apache, Blackfoot And the rest Wounded, like you By the Colonial Experience Manifest Destiny The exploitation of our mother Whom you call Papa tu a nuku. Your bearing Regal still In calico And Polyester Is a glass In which I see The straight backs Of old Indian women Walking reservation roads Phoenixes, rising From the ashes Of razed Identity. Our people say That culture is a cup From which a People Drinks the water of its life One of our old men Told the Anthropologist ‘Our cup is broken now’ But he was wrong For women are the keepers Of the cups And grandmothers' Earthen cups Buried in caves and streams Hidden behind The Wedgewood teasets In our parents' breakfronts Out of the sight of boarding school teachers. And the missionaries Are found Brought out For the special Occasion Which is called 'Rabble-rising' 'Rebellion' ‘Revolution’. I toast you now With my cracked And time-worn cup Which still holds that Of which a people drinks its life: Here's to: Proud children Who speak grandmothers' tongues Nature revitalised Ourselves unbent Cold water's blessed relief On blistered lips, parched throats.

Ann Hill-Beuf, Fulbright scholar, 1983

Dr Ann Hill-Beuf, Fulbright scholar, 1983. Black and white photograph of Ann Hill-Beuf, sitting behind a desk in an office

Appendices

Appendix 1 Number Of Participants by Country

Year New Zealand United States 1948 — 1 1949 13 18 1950 17 16 1951 18 19 1952 24 22 1953 28 28 1954 25 26 1955 23 20 1956 25 19 1957 25 20 1958 21 20 1959 25 21 1960 23 19 1961 22 17 1962 24 16 1963 30 16 1964 25 20 1965 18 17 1966 19 17 1967 17 12 1968 17 13 1969 11 7 1970 18 16 1971 18 17 1972 19 16 1973 23 16 1974 30 16 1975 25 15 1976 23 15 1977 22 13 1978 23 13 1979 23 13 1980 30 15 1981 30 12 1982 28 15 1983 30 18 1984 33 23 1985 33 29 1986 31 33 1987 35 28 TOTAL 924 707

Appendix 2 Board of Directors — New Zealand Members

Mr Frank R. Callaghan 1948-69 Mr Frank H. Corner 1980 Mr Walter V. Dyer 1958-65 Mr Joseph L. Hunter 1970-71 Sir Howard Kippenberger 1948-57 Sir George R. Laking 1967-71, 1974-80 Dr Geraldine McDonald 1985- Sir Alister McIntosh 1958-66, 1971-74 Miss Margaret S. Malcolm 1985 Sir Arthur Nevill 1958-69 Mr George E. Pearce 1970-74 Mr Basil W. Potter 1975-78 Mr William L. Renwick 1971 Mr Turoa K. Royal 1985-87 Sir David Smith 1948-69 Dr Daniel B. C. Taylor 1970-84 Professor Whatarangi Winiata 1980-84

Appendix 3 Board of Directors — United States Members

Mr Charles L. Bell 1981-84 Mr John B. Lanum 1959-61 Mr Samuel D. Berger 1957 Mr Alphonse F. LaPorta 1987 Dr Daniel E. Brady 1958-63 Mr Alvin W. Larson 1951-58 Mr Sidney H. Browne 1951-52 Mr Armistead M. Lee 1948-51 Mr Leon Crutcher 1957-60 Dr William H. Lindsey 1987 Dr Earl A. Dennis 1949-51 Mrs Marcy McLay 1985 Mr Richard J. Dols 1979-80 Mr Robert J. McMenamin 1956-57 Mr Dennis D. Donahue 1975-78 Mr Henry Miller 1948 Mr Thomas T. Driver 1962-63 Mr Donald J. Novotny 1965 Mr Merrill E. Enyeart 1952-53 Mr John H. Penfold 1986-87 Mr Clark A. Fabling 1948-51 Mr James T. Pettus 1957-59 Mr Robert F. Farmer 1970-71 Mr William E. Phipps 1953-55 Mr George M. Fennemore 1960-62 Mr Laurence G. Pickering 1957-58 Mr Meade T. Foster 1951-54 Mr Edward P. Prince 1954 Mr William N. Fraleigh 1955-57 Mr Charles C. Ransom 1968-71, Mr Harlow W. Gage 1951-55 1974-78 Mr Richard J. Gordon 1963-66 Mr Le Van Roberts 1956-57 Mr Michael J. Gould 1985-87 Mr Charles B. Salmon 1980-83 Mr Philip C. Habib 1954 Mr Schrader 1968-69 Mr William R. Harper 1971-74 Mr John S. Service 1948 Mr Tobias Hartwick 1973-76 Mr Jerome A. Stone 1967-68 Mr George A. Hays 1964-67 Mr Richard W. Teare 1983-85 Mr J. C. Herndon 1964-66 Miss Mary V. Trent 1970-72 Mr James H. Holmes 1977-79 Mr Raymond A. Valliere 1962-64 Mr J. Michael Houlahan 1972-75 Mr Philip Vandivier 1973 Mr John N. Hutchison 1968-72 Mr Van Oss 1968-70 Mr Robert A. Jacobson 1962-63 Baron Ralph Von Kohorn 1965 Dr Frank L. Jenista 1981 Mr Osborne S. Watson 1948-50 Mr Leslie A. Klieforth 1955-56 Mr Frank J. Weisse 1957-61 Mr John F. Knowles 1965-68 Mr John S. Williams 1978-81 Mr Dean Koch 1973 Mr Donald E. Wilson 1949-53

Appendix 4 New Zealand Research Scholars and Lecturers

Year Name 1949 Barnett, Samuel T.C Robertson, Robert T. Fastier, Lyle B. 1960 Bieleski, Roderick L. Hall, Jessie C. Clark, Robin H. Mathew, Hamish C. Coombs, Douglas S. Rogers, David J. Ford, Clarence T. 1950 Gascoigne, Noel H. Shore, Brenda F. McGechan, Robert O. Yaldwyn, John C. Richdale, Lancelot E. 1961 Barber, Norman F. Shroff, Frank R. Buckenham, Michael H. 1951 Cumberland, Kenneth B. Curnow, Allen Fastier, Frederick N. Sweeney, Terence McDonald, John D. 1962 Barney, William D. Parker, Robert S. Northey, John F. 1952 Allen, Alexander B. Odell, Allan L. Gage, Maxwell Wardle, Peter Jobberns, George Watson, John E. Rogers, Cyril A. 1963 Cowan, Tom K. Sutton-Smith, Brian Evison, Frank F. Thomsen, Ivan L. Flux, Donald S. 1953 Brothers, Raymond N. Hoffman, Paul T. Fyfe, William S. Holmes, Frank W. Hely, Arnold S. Trotter, William D. Muir, Beverly 1964 Collins, Edwin R. Muir, Thomas Fraenkel, Gustav T. Smith, Dudley M. Hawke, John C. Williams, David O. Wood, Bryce L. Williamson, Keith I. 1965 Brown, Dennis 1954 Cable, J. Verney Richards, Edward L. De Lambert, Basil M. Thornton, Royd H. Hurley, Desmond E. 1966 Hartshorn, Michael P. Taylor, David M. Hatherton, Trevor 1955 Bloom, Harry Vaughan, Graham M. Hansen, John M. 1967 Briggs, Lindsay H. Nevin, Ronald B. MacNab, John W. Vaughan, John Ritchie, James E. Williams, Gordon J. Walker, "Thomas W. 1956 Blakely, Eric R. 1968 Rafter, Thomas A. Crowley, Gavin M. Zanetti, Giovanni N. Forster, Raymond R. 1969 Callander, Robert A. Henderson, Francis M. Kalman, John A. Power, Hilton M. King, Geoffrey A. 1957 Ellyett, Clifton D. 1970 Natusch, David S. Lawrence, Philip J. Watkin, Bramwell R. Prior, Ian A. 1971 Cassie, Richard M. Rodger, William G. Coxon, James M. Simkin, Colin G. 1972 O'Connor, Charmian J. 1958 Beaven, Donald W. Sweet, Geoffrey B. Gresham, Arthur H. Wybourne, Brian G. Hopkins, Henry J. 1973 Adams, Raymond S. Wright, Donald A. Easteal, Allan J. 1959 Gregory, John B. Thorburn, Ray A. Harvey, William E. Vella, Paul P. Ironside, Wallace 1974 Glynn, Edward L. McIntyre, Archibald K. Jamieson, Alan R. Riske, Marcus Kibblewhite, Alick C. Nield, Donald A. Richardson, Joyce R. Oed, Gordon V. Wells, John B. Shorland, F. Brian Wood, Graham R. Thomas, Edmund W. 1983 Cole, James W. Welch, Robert A. Crozier, Michael J. 1975 Earnshaw, Joseph B. Elms, David G. Hookings, Gordon A. Franklin, Harvey S. O'Sullivan, Vincent G. Henley, Richard W. Panckhurst, Max H. Livingstone, Ian D. Swedlund, Bernard E. Ritchie, Jane Vartha, Euan W. Sullivan, Patrick A. 1976 Devlin, Patrick J. Thomas, Terence D. MacKnight, Anthony D. 1984 Aggett, F. John Shepherd, Robin Baker, Edward N. 1977 Duder, John C. Flint, Valerie I. Garrett, Ross Grant-Mackie, John A. Gilbertson, David W. Knight, John G. 1978 Lambert, Rodney, K. Leader, John P. Phillips, J. O. C. Opie, Brian J. Rodley, Gordon A. Ross, David J. Turner, Robert 1985 Barrett, Peter J. Williams, Paul W. Bryant, Peter J. 1979 Hamer, David A. Dowling, David H. Hume, Ann L. Goldblatt, Robert 1. Lloyd, David G. Harris, Patricia M. Neall, Vincent E. Lealand, Geoffrey 1980 Allis, Richard G. Taylor, Antony J. Clark, Alan G. Thomas, David R. Davies, Robert B. Young, Warren A. Donaldson, Ian G. 1986 Averill, Robert L. McElroy, Peter J. Davis, Brian R. Meredith, Peter Pettinga, Jarg R. Phillips, Leon F. Rowan, Daryl D. Stace, Nigel H. Seaman, Gerald R. 1981 Beaglehole, David Smedley, Stuart 1. Brown, Colin G. Taylor, C. Nicholas Halton, Brian Wratt, David S. McDonald, Geraldine 1987 Ackerley, Christopher J. McQuillan, Alex J. Andrews, John R. H. Mitchell, David R. Creamer, Lawrence K. Penman, David R. Hathaway, C. Stephen Purchas, Roger W. Howe, Kerry R. 1982 Baragwanath, W. David McMillan, Keith L. Barrington, John Mulgan, Margaret A. Hall, Roger Philips, David J. Hood, James A. Sharp, R. Andrew Mulgan, Richard G.

Appendix 5 New Zealand Graduate Students

Year Name 1949 Becroft, Peter B. Cocks, Pamela S. De Berg, Ruth F. Dawson, John W. Quick, Raymond C. Eyre, Keith E. Simpson, Ervin P. Y. Fitzmaurice, John R. Strack, Sainsbury L. Hankin, Margaret E. 1950 Billinghurst, William M. Harland, W. Bruce Exley, David J. Littlejohn, Colin M. Hanham, Alison Mackey, John Hoskins, Pauline M. Myer, Dorothy F. Lewthwaite, Gordon R. Nelson, Michael MacDiarmid, Alan G. Roberts, Patricia R. MacGibbon, John B. Shale, David W. McLean, John W. Stringer, Brian D. Muir, Hugh Tomaszewska, Maria M. Taylor, Joan 1955 Bacon, Donald F. 1951 Clay, Marie M. Biggs, Bruce G. Gemmell, Gordon D. Butler, Ronald J. Gillion, Kenneth L. Cave, L. Maurice Healy, William B. Dawber, Keith R. King, Judith M. Donald, Marjorie N. King, Richard M. Hargreaves, Raymond P. Martin-Smith, Michael Kean, Martin R. Radford, Arthur S. Kuschel, Beverley A. Weadon, John N. Mark, Alan F. Wilson, Alexander T. Ridland, Muriel J. Wilson, Philip J. Small, John J. 1952 Allison, Russell M. Titchener, Alan L. Benda, Harry 1956 Brown, Stanley R. Brinkman, Geoffrey L. Carter, John E. Durning, William C. Close, Russell I. Familton, Robert J. Cooper, Lesley V. Gapper, Stanfield G. Graham, Reginald K. Hughes, Helen H. Hopgood, Alaric M. Milburn, Ronald M. Leggat, Ian D. Ranald, Margaret L. McCarthy, Owen W. Reeve, Frederick W. McNaughton, Anthony H. Reid, John C. Menzies, David B. Smith, Margaret W. Newick, Cynthia R. Smith, Maurice K. Searle, Shayle R. Toomath, Stanley W. Solly, Marion W. 1953 Domigan, Ngaire M. Vandenbert, Dorothy M. Dunbar, Graham A. Wong, Warren J. Gardner, Gerald W. 1957 Alington, William H. Garrick, Robert A. Baigent, Nancy L. Goodyear, Alan S. Beardsley, Nada M. Hogg, James F. Beck, Donald J. Hurrell, Clyde O. Benney, David J. Jamieson, Hugh D. Betteridge, Maurice S. Jenkin, Noel S. Bullen, Russell O. Morgan, Furness D. King, Leslie J. O'Connor, Kevin F. Latch, Garrick C. Swindale, Leslie D. Robinson, Edward S. Walters, Richard H. Segedin, Marin G. 1954 Brasch, Donald J. Till, Margaret R. Chapman-Taylor, Olive Y. Tothill, John C. Turbott, Harold A. Quartermain, Alan R. Wilkins, Coleridge A. Rutledge, Peter L. 1958 Bell, Russell A. Shortridge, Eric H. Cook, William C. Sutherland, Alexander J. Fielding, Gordon J. Thompson, Murray A. Flood, Thomas C. Yock, Philip C. Fraser, Robin T. 1963 Arcus, Peter L. McDougall, Ian A. Cameron, John L. McLaren, Ian A. Carr, Robert M. Miller, Donald M. Curnow, Wystan T. Newson, Keith R. Fenby, David W. Palmer, Melville R. Glover, Ivan M. Smith, Leone M. Harvie, Douglas C. Wilson, Donald A. Horrocks, Roger J. 1959 Boshier, Denys P. Johnston, E. A. Forde, Margot B. Jones, Florence R. Golding, Annette Jones, Peter D. Harvey, Robert J. McInnes, Allan W. Hughes, Alan H. Nuthall, Graham A. Kinross, Nancy J. O'Sullivan, Michael J. Kirton, Alan H. Rimmer, Hugh W. McNaughton, Dulcie H. Robinson, John L. Nelson, Donald F. Shaw, Geoffrev C. Routley, Francis R. Taylor, Peter A. Sears, Raymond E. 1964 Blakeley, John P. Simmonds, Kenneth Carr, Athol J. Wodzicki, Antoni Daish, John R. 1960 Ackley, Margaret J. Dolby, Richard G. Colebrook, Lawrence D. Drake, George W. Dinsdale, Evelyn M. Duncan, Mary E. James, Donald G. Grace, Neville D. Johnson, Alexander L. Grimshaw, Roger H. Kerdemelidis, Vassilios Harger, John R. Mummery, David R. Hunter, Jeffrey J. Munro, Gavin D. Keith, Kenneth J. Richards, Sydney R. Lennon, Michael J. Scott, David Mackintosh, Raymond S. Skeels, Harry W. McCann, Valda H. Thompson, Raymond M. Stamp, Alan P. 1961 Bergquist, Peter L. Turnovsky, Steven J. Binning, Brian R. 1965 Boswell, John M. Brady, Arthur G. Fitzgerald, Brian M. Burns, Roger G. Frampton, Alan R. Clark, William A. Gauld, David B. Emeljanow, Victor E. Mills, Robert S. Fernyhough, C. John Milne, Kenneth S. Fraser, Wynstone B. Olssen, Erik N. Herbison, Jean M. Sheppard, David N. Penny, David E. Sullivan, Neil S. Reeves, Roger D. Townsley, Robert J. Salmond, John A. Weir, Bruce S. Stoddart, Arthur W. 1966 Alexander, Peter 1962 Andrews, Peter B. Calvert, Bruce D. Bullivant, John S. Ford, Derek J. Dougherty, Charles T. Heatherbell, David A. Holt, David L. Hughes, Warren R. Lekner, John P. Merriman, Russell H. List, Ericson J. Reilly, Ivan L. Martin, Geoffrey R. Sutton, Richard J. Paterson, Donald E. Walls, Daniel F. Widdowson, John P. MacIntyre, Angus A. Wilson, John M. Maidment, David R. Withers, Christopher S. Mayes, Ronald L. 1967 Black, Philippa M. Napier, Peter J. De Arroyo, Mary T. Nicholls, John G. Dennis, Andrew I. Robinson, Viviane M. Dovey, Henry H. 'Fate, Warren P. Hardman, Michael J. Wickham, Brian W. Henderson, Robert A. 1973 Alcock, Charles R. Rowe, Peter J. Ballagh, Robert J. Saunders, Michael A. Benson, Jack A. Ward, Richard H. Bradley, Raymond T. Wilson, Raymond H. Chapman, Ralph B. 1968 Ayers, John S. Giles, Bradley H. Beath, Lance A. Hogg, Margaret G. Blanchard, Peter La Roche, Peter E. Broughan, Kevin A. Osborne, Richard J. Burns, Donald J. Parke, Stephen J. Busch, Douglas R. Rigby, Barry R. Chalmers, Frank G. Simcock, Donald H. Chapman, Guy Sinclair, Michael B. Jeffcoat, Colin E. Unger, David G. O'Connor, Anthony J. Winger, Raymond J. Reid, Michael S. 1974 Blomfield, Gary J. Salmond, M. Anne Boyd, Cynthia 1969 Crooks, Terence J. Brooker, John D. Hudson, Edward A. Bryant, Murray J. Lovell-Smith, Rosemary H. Burrell, Geoffrey A. McGechan, Robert A. Burton, Graham W. Robson, Arthur J. Davis, Paul F. Sinclair, Glenn B. Goring, Derek G. Wood, John H. Harris, Bruce V. 1970 Brennan, Murray F. Henderson, Michael Davies, Douglas H. Ross, Russell T. Fifield, Leslie K. Sharp, Basil M. Gandar, Paul W. Sharp, Drusilla R. Green, Michael F. Thomas, Richard F. Hendy, Christie H. Urwin, Ross W. Kroon, Frederick W. 1975 Anderson, Robert D. Laing, William A. Campbell, Russell D. Le Heron, Richard B. Clendon, William R. Main, Lyndsay Flay, Brian R. Poole, Russell A. Fougere, Geoffrey M. Vaver, David Francis, Clinton F. 1971 Ballard, Russell Gamber, Heather Bartle, Colin M. Goulter, Ian C. Darby, Desmond J. Pomeroy, Arthur J. Drummond, Peter D. Roydhouse, Marion W. Eggleton, Ian R. Savage, Mark S. Fullerton, Terry J. Tortell, Philip Meister, Anton D. Tressler, John H. Moyle, Richard M. Walsh, Patrick J. Rhoades, David A. 1976 Askin-Jacobson, Rosemary R. Rickards, Geoffrey K. Button, Martin R. Sanders, Noel R. Clark, Paul J. Stevenson, David J. Dickson, Peter R. 1972 Campbell, Mark A. Erceg, Michael A. Ferguson, Roy N. Lochhead, Ian J. Freeman Moir, John D. Meares, Belinda M. Graham, Kennedy G. Newsam, Garry N. Webb, Warwick G. Martin, Gaven J. Wild, John M. McLay, David E. Wilkes, Christopher D. Poole, David G. 1977 Ball, Roderick D. Rhodes, Gillian I. Blue, Murray G. Smith, Moira L. Bryan, Warwick M. 1982 Barkle, Gregory F. Carmichael, Howard Blyth, Russell D. Clark, John D. Dean, Miriam R. Fleming, Graham C. Dodds, Kenneth G. Gregory, Robert J. Donnell, Deborah J. Skinner, Mark S. Lay Yee, Michael Smith-Palmer, Truis Orr, Bridget E. Solomon, Wiremu Smith, Barbara J. Spittle, Bruce J. Vennell, Martin R. Warburton, David J. Wilkin, John L. 1978 Adams, John E. Wood, Brennon A. Bagnall, Richard G. 1983 Burnard, Trevor G. Barker, Judith C. Burton, Bruce G. Carson, Michael J. Dunsford, Cathie J. Hinton, Peter B. Jansen, Guy E. Judd, Warren Luckman, Paul G. Keith, William J. Millar, Russell B. Nicklin, Peter J. Murray, Stephen G. Rabel, Roberto G. Paton, John D. Visser, Matthew J. Richardson, Megan L. Woodhouse, Timothy A. Spencer, Hamish G. Wright, Janice C. West-Newman, Catherine 1979 Bailey, Colin G. 1984 Alderton, Catherine J. Beattie, John S. Carey, Robyn D. Brook, Karen J. Catton, Philip E. Brothers, Penelope J. Charlton, James B. Brown, Alistair S. Holdaway, Simon J. Buckenham, Nicholas R. Kahotea, Desmond D. Chambers, David Patterson, David J. Manley, Bruce R. Sharpe, Kevin J. O'Rourke, Maris L. Sorrenson, Richard J. Reyners, Martin E. Stein, Carolyn J. Scholes, Robin Tempero, Ewan D. Stephenson, Sally Ann Walton, Eric F. Taggart, Michael B. Webley, Wayne S. 1980 Bowie, Alasdair O. 1985 Anderson, Carolyn B. Dawson, John B. Bonita-Beaglehole, Ruth Gander, Philippa H. Brown, Constance M. Harris, Rosemary E. Garrick, Dorian J. Headford, Christine E. Hay, lain M. Hicks, Murray D. Henrys, Stuart A. Jones, Nicholas P. McArthur, James Lennon, Deborah S. McKinnon, Bruce N. MacFarlane, Douglas R. Richardson, Sarah Mackie, Diane M. Riseborough, Hazel Parrish, Colin R. Thomson, John A. Procter, Roger G. Thornton, Rosalind J. Read, Grant E. 1986 Barry, Philip G. 1981 Blair, Hugh T. Collins, Graham P. Brabyn, Janice M. Curnow, Owen J. Burridge, Paul B. Ferner, Helen M. Casey, Leo F. Frazer, Neil R. Cockrem, Michael C. Hancock, Frances P. Cooper, Hamish Housley, Gary D. Coster, Daniel C. Kearns, Katherine S. Loader, Clive R. Moloney, Patrick F. Miskelly, Gordon M. O'Meagher, Matthew J. Rigby, Michael P. Purdy, Suzanne C. Savage, Craig M. Sutton, Philip J. 1987 Baker, Derek A. Sutton, Tina M. Hensley, Gerald A. Thompson, Andrew B. King, Timothy J. Tolmie, Julia R. Martin, Denham D.

Appendix 6 New Zealand Exchange Teachers

Year Name 1949 Cartwright, William J. 1962 Dow, Ronald J. Mitchell, George E. Price, Graham A. Robertson, John S. Strachan, Elizabeth 1950 Littlejohn, Agnes F. 1963 Aitken, Russell G. Park, Austin J. Cox, John N. Trevor, Ruth Craig, Ngaire J. 1951 Billcliff, Charles F. Piper, Ross F. Niewkerke, Eunice O. Roxborogh, Catherine I. Thompson, Gordon R. 1964 Aburn, Ruth 1952 Allison, Edgar B. Bodley, Desmond L. Chambers, Donald W. O'Flynn, Kathleen N. Saxby, Eileen R. Whaley, Owen G. Wilson, Una 1965 Drumm, Edward B. 1953 Blampied, Evan P. Hart, Kenneth A. Ferrand, Bruce F. Parker, Lorelei G. Nagle, Joyce E. Spence, Frances D. Strawbridge, Gwyther J. 1966 Ball, Douglas C. Ziegler, Albert T. Boscawen, Owen T. 1954 Ducker, Eric N. Owens, Valerie M. Mollard, Sylvia M. 1967 Clarke, Sybil M. Mottram, Peggy D. Parkinson, John V. Power, Frances T. 1968 Roberts, Peter J. Walker, Eric W. Slaney, Desmond W. 1955 Kelly, Rowan P. 1969 Bailey, Maurice R. Mann, Eric D. 1970 Conyngham, Patricia L. Print, James M. Edwards, Wayne L. Rowling, Wallace E. Hagan, Colin J. Waiter, Irene M. 1971 Lancaster, Peter M. 1956 Clark, Noeline D. Robb, Richard W. Everton, Margaret E. Warren, Russell J. Gapper, Pauline L. 1972 Bell, Kelvin R. McKenzie, John L. Harris, Peter M. Percy, Beverley D. Peterson, Kevin W. 1957 Clark, Alfred E. 1973 Carter, Rodney J. Courts, Joan J. Dickey, Nathaniel J. Dennison, John S. Irwin, Brian S. Lenihan, Evelyn M. 1974 Devonshire, Brian S. Peick, Marie Golder, Robert A. 1958 Beard, Mary I. Shanks, John W. Dawe, Bruce N. 1975 Manchester, Judith M. McDonald, Gerald A. Thomas, Evan E. Speary, William B. Wilson, Brian 1959 Allen, Leslie R. 1976 Caley, Roger D. Faris, Douglas Hartley, Thomas P. Forsman, Henry C. McMurray, Brian C. Gill, Maureen E. 1977 Biggs, Basil I. Scarlett, Nita Martin, Ronald J. 1960 Forsyth, John P. Thwaites, Douglas V. Grondin, Louis J. 1978 Barrett, William G. Hammer, Lois E. Cochrane, H. Graham Katterns, Robert W. 1979 Bell, Lindsay W. 1961 Armstrong, Ronald F. Thomsen, Diane F. Knight, Colin L. 1980 Gregg, Barry W. McVie, Robert W. Whitley, Selwyn J. Menzies, Robert G. 1982 Ngapo, Henry F.

Appendix 7 New Zealand Educational and Vocational Development Grants

Year Name 1953 Ewing, John L. Bartlett, Sefton J. Hunter, Joseph L. Forrest, Athol 1957 Aitken, Frederick R. Hall, Alan W. 1958 Johnson, John F. Holland, Peter J. 1959 Sayers, Horace W. Leabourn, Brian K. 1960 Golding, Austin E. Millar, John K. 1961 Pinder, Bryan M. Pullar, Trevor W. Roberts, Charles C. 1982 Butler, Rory H. 1962 Hamilton, Stephen S. Gilchrist, Archibald W. Reeves, Harry A. Hyde, John W. 1963 Wiseley, John M. Middleton, Rosemary A. 1964 Bradly, Raymond L. Scott, Neil 1965 Wills, Dudley R Stojanovic, Sonia A. 1966 Woodward, Kenneth M. 1983 Brook, David W. 1967 Lee, John J. Clarke, Raymond B. 1968 Dowling, Henry J. Harper, Elizabeth M. 1970 Utting, Stanley Hilton, Christine 1971 Kings, Basil W. Lancaster, Neil J. 1972 Lawrence, Alan E. Simpson, John G. 1973 Hanna, Ivan W. Tosswill, Janet E. 1974 Mead, Barry W. 1984 Brown, Donald F. Roy, Ronald U. Catherwood, Vincent J. Sinclair, Rodney O. Coleman, Peter Werry, Bevan W. Kaa, Wiremu 1975 Hirsh, Walter Paul, Maanu C. Thurston, Desmond H. Singh, Peter 1976 Harris, Nevelle P. Sullivan, Gerald F. Hearle, Kevin M. Zepke, Nick K. Hockley, Charles R. 1985 Burleigh, Adrienne R. Moore, Brian Burns, Valerie J. O'Connor, James R. Gibson, Catherine R. Till, John F. Hawley, Christopher 1977 Christensen, Judith C. Joyce, Annette M. Drumm, Edward B. McRae, Garth C. Jackson, Raymond H. Rushbrook, G. William Paterson, Allister I. 1986 Bainbridge, Wayne S. 1978 Cooper, Paul Gianotti, Maurice G. Foley, Maurice T. Pauling, Brian T. Penman, Winifrid M. Ripley, Ned E. Pentecost, Maurice H. Scott, John W. 1979 Billinghurst, Edward J. Stevens, Helen J. Helm, Douglas M. Vincent, Paul R. Ioane, Sefulu I. Webb, Raymond P. Smith, Gordon E. 1987 Abercrombie, A. Gay 1980 Brice, Peter Astill, Brian J. McLeod, Bruce J. Egan, John P. Murchie, Malcolm M. Gifford, Michael C. Penfold, Vernon B. Hughes, E. Dennis Young, Roy F. Sinclair, Victor A. 1981 Armstrong, Murray J. Street, Beverley J.

Appendix 8 New Zealand Cultural Grants

Year Name 1980 Hunter, Dale Edmond, Lauris Webby, George R. Harley, Ruth E. 1981 Morrissey, Michael Hood, Lynley Pilcher, Murray N. Peryer, Peter C. 1982 Francis, Kerry Shaw, John R. Trimmer, Jon 1986 Duckworth, Marilyn 1983 Cleavin, Barry V. Verryt, John H. Howitt, Brigit R. Warrington, Pauline J. Simpson, Anthony J. 1987 Fyfe, Judith M. 1984 Davis, Paul W. King, Michael McQueen, Cilla Mack, James C. Nicholas, Darcy J. Manson, Hugo C. Sherman, Jennifer Pollock, Craig K. 1985 Druett, Joan A. Stead, C. Karl

Appendix 9 United States Research Scholars and Lecturers

Year Name 1948 Murie, Olaus J. Love, Merton R. 1949 Davis, John H. Torrie, James H. Lowrie, Gale S. 1957 Addicott, Frederick T. Montgomery, Basil F. Ausubel, David P. Palmer, Ephraim L. Dutt, Ray H. Ploeser, James M. Flanders, Ned A. Rall, Wilfrid Goldthwait, Richard P. Stormont, Clyde Howard, Walter E. Tuthill, Leonard B. Morton, Daniel G. 1950 Easton, Dexter M. Owings, Donnell M. Manter, Harold W. 1958 Collins, Edwin B. Smith, Peter A. Hiltner, Seward Tompkins, Miriam Leonard, Oliver A. 1951 Bergelin, Olaf P. Meglitsch, Paul A. Cobb, Howell E. Miller, Hugh M. Fisher, Winifred Norris, Richard E. Lamb, Robert B. Smith, Evelyn E. Miles, John W. Smith, Oliver F. Turner, Charles W. Smock, Robert M. Van Deusen, Glyndon G. 1959 Bailey, Harry P. 1952 Anderson, Kling L. Billings, Dwight W. Busemann, Herbert Cameron, Hugh S. Douglas, James R. Eberhart, Kingham E. Plambeck, Hans H. Harper, Claude Rust, Lucille O. Landreth, Catherine Streeter, Victor L. Morris, Albert 1953 Bibby, Basil G. Squires, Donald F. Cuthbert, Frederick A. Stone, Edward C. Dunham, Allison M. 1960 Boda, James M. Erlanger, Margaret Grossnickle, Foster E. Earner, Donald S. Jacobs, Leon Havighurst, Robert J. Jonas, Edward C. Jones, Joseph J. Marshall, William H. Officer, Charles B. Mason, Herbert L. Robinson, Edward S. Powers, William E. 1954 Briggs, Harold E. Roan, Clifford C. Gall, Lorraine S. Spurr, Stephen H. Thompson, Rufus H. 1961 Cole, Randall K. Treffers, Henry P. Mayer, Harold M. Vitaliano, Charles J. Norris, Robert M. Willbern, York Y. Schuster, Rudolf M. Yingling, Robert W. Shepard, Paul H. 1955 Anderson, John M. Shwayder, David S. Bell, Robert E. Smith, Lloyd M. Burnham, Paul S. 1962 Broadbent, Francis E. Henderson, Charles R. Clark, Francis E. Hopps, Howard C. Garner, George B. Meyer, Marvin C. Gregg, Robert W. Wood, Harland G. Klein, Milton M. 1956 Cowan, Robert L. McCarty, Harold M. Dougherty, Robert W. Shelden, Martha G. Dunkley, Walter L. Stone, Earl L. Jayne, Clarence D. 1963 Bliss, Lawrence C. Kennedy, Wilbert K. Carman, Max F. Davidson, Alexander N. Pearson, Albert M. Hall, Irvin M. Smart, Mollie S. Schroeder, Charles A. Smart, Russell C. Sher, Byron D. Wasson, Stanley P. 1964 Cattell, Raymond B. 1972 Anderson, John J. Cotter, Theodore P. Bogart, Herbert Deevey, Edward S. Duff, Ivan F. Dils, Robert E. Franklin, Marc A. Kemp, James D. Lancaster, Jane M. Lawrence, Donald B. Marcus, Melvin G. Nielsen, Lowell W. Simmons, John E. Noyes, Richard M. Smith, Orrin E. Scholer, Elmer A. 1973 Anderson, Ralph R. Taylor, Katherine W. Basler, Roy P. 1965 Conn, Eric E. Berkman, Herman G. Cramer, David A. Carman, Hoy F. Karling, John S. Mitchell, George E. Loken, Keith I. Oldfield, James E. Pickering, William S. Porter, Stephen C. Volin, Melden E. Shen, Hsieh W. Zagorski, Edward J. Wilcox, Arthur T. 1966 Chapman, Arthur B. Wrolstad, Ronald E. Harwood, Charles W. 1974 Armstrong, Ronald W. Morse, Samuel F. Epstein, Emanuel Mrak, Emil M. Grimes, Russell N. Peyton, Floyd A. Johnson, John J. Stevens, Godfrey D. Milburn, Josephine F. Stover, Stephen L. Sims, William L. Wasley, Robert S. Smith, Louis M. 1967 Enright, John B. Stanley, Julian C. Firey, William J. 1975 Alden, Howard R. Howitt, Angus J. Eckenfelder, William W. Leach, Douglas E. Fenton, William N. Levinson, David Fowles, Richard G. Weil, John A. Glazer, Walter S. 1968 Emerson, Kenneth Jasper, Donald E. Mooney, Harold M. Jones, Burton F. Pearson, Norman H. Shetland, Margaret L. Russell, Donald W. Wolf, Richard M. Scott, Robert L. 1976 Brumm, John M. Yoho, James G. Deppe, Theodore R. 1969 Hansen, Elmer Dungworth, Donald L. Hungate, Robert E. Force, Eric R. Jacobson, Don R. Johnston, Warren E. Lynch, David B. Lewis, David K. Welles, Samuel P. Lott, Albert J. 1970 Albright, Jack L. Vesilind, P. Aarne Blake, Milton C. Wade, John W. Coleman, Peter J. 1977 Alexander, Martin Gillis, Peter P. Feldman, Jack M. Hampton, David R. Meroney, Robert N. Hoyt, Stanley C. Miles, Minnie C. Kirchberger, Lida E. Nagel, James E. Kruse, Robert L. Purves, Alan C. Vosburgh, William W. Stave, Bruce M. 1971 Bellman, Richard E. Young, Robert A. Blydenburgh, John C. 1978 Berkowitz, Monroe Harper, Kenneth E. Diggins, John P. Hulet, Clarence V. Hamilton, Lawrence S. Libby, William J. McNabb, James F. Peterson, F. Ross Heffernan, Joseph W. Scott, Charles R McWhirter, J. Jeffries Sontag, Frederick E. Olauson, C. Ronald Summers, Hollis Redding, Forest W. Tower, Edward Sanford, Charles L. 1979 Anderson, Lynn R. Scott, Anne T. Bardon, Jack I. Thomas, Morgan D. Croley, Thomas E. Welch, Wayne W. Crosby, Alfred W. 1985 Arth, Malcolm J. Fanning, Charles Bellendorf, Dirk A. Jennings, Jesse D. Blank, Robert H. Loehr, Raymond C. Brockhaus, Robert H. Lukens, John E. Carrillo, Loretta Wilhm, Jerry L. Christie, George C. 1980 Borden, Morton Dandridge, Thomas C. Coull, Bruce C. Dordick, Herbert S. Felmley, Jenrose W. Fine, David M. Holm, Agnes D. Fitzgerald, Thomas K. Holm, Wayne Hays, Terence E. Maier, Henry W. Jones, David R. Meier, Joel F. Kennedy, George P. Rademan, Myles C. Korte, Karl Rohrlich, George T. Lyson, Thomas A. Sullivan, John L. McIsaac, Hugh 1981 Anagnoson, J. Theodore Miller, Sally M. Aughenbaugh, Nolan B. Reimer, Bennett Barkin, Solomon Ririe, Shirley R. Curry, Richard O. Turner, Arthur N. Epperson, Gordon M. Woodbury, Joan J. Jones, David R. 1986 Berry, Nicholas O. Morrow, Patrick D. Cleveland, Harlan Rosenthal, Richard E. De Mott, Deborah Terrell, John E. Foster, Lawrence 1982 Dondero, Norman C. French, Charles E. Fruchtman, Caroline S. French, Wendell L. Fruchtman, Efrim Gernes, Sonia G. Gibson, Martin L. Givon, Thomas Maretzki, Audrey N. Gwartney-Gibbs, Patricia A. McManus, Edgar J. Haynes, John M. Myres, Sandra L. Holmes, Helen B. Potter, Nancy A. Jaudon, Joseph C. Sheafor, Bradford W. Light, James F. 1983 Bartley III, William W. Linehan, Thomas E. Brooks, Robin MacLow, Jackson Fenn, Margaret P. Miller, Richard A. Harrison, Lou S. Nagel, Jack H. Hill-Beuf, Ann Outterbridge, John W. Lazar, Irving G. Petrick, Alfred McNall, Sally A. Pricer, Robert W. McNall, Scott G. Tramposch, William J. Mitchell, Myron J. Vernon, David H. Stohl, Michael S. Wallace, Tim L. Waring, Thomas G. Wiebe, Robert H. 1984 Adler, Carol J. Young, Richard E. Adler, Richard R. 1987 Anderson, Terry L. Bellini-Sharp, Carol A. Brecher, Jeremy Bryan, Hobson Carey, Omer L. Gontarski, Stanley E. Cazden, Courtney B. Griffen, Clyde C. Cook, Martha E. Gruber, Jacob W. Ellwood, Robert Gilbert, James B. Milne, W. Gordon Honey, Rex D. Tabbert, Wynn C. Kick, Edward L. Williams, Hermine W. Lee, Lung-Fei Williams, Peter C. McCalpin, James P.

Appendix 10 United States Graduate Students

Year Name 1949 Brean, Lois F. 1954 Christiansen, James R. Cooper, Beverly Davis, Patrick D. Critchfield, Howard J. Ellis, Catherine Gillis, Willie M. Fishel, Josephine Gilson, Richard P. Harris, Laura Gries, Joan Hatcher, Raymond E. Hirsch, Kurt Little, Marjorie D. Rosane, Robert E. North, David S. Simmons, Frederick F. Phillips, Ray A. Weislogel, Winifred S. Robinson, Peter 1950 Amen, John H. Stevens, Norman D. Bloom, Arthur L. Trabue, Ann M. Hovet, Thomas Vayda, Andrew P. Kite, Robert L. Zobrisky, Steve E. Lovegren, Robert R. 1955 Barrett, Ward J. Pauling, Norman G. Billings, Dorothy K. Von Borstel, Frank Espie, Stephen B. Weisstein, Joshua S. Gordon, Bernard K. Wright, Harrison M. Mann, John 1951 Brown Jr., Marjorie Mayfield, John M. Foster, Robert J. McDonnell, Jane F. Gillespie, George T. Schwarzweller, Harry K. Kutsche Jr., Marianne L. 1956 Bailey, Roy A. Marshall, Donald S. Bulmer, Susan E. Matteson, Paul K. Hill, Donald R. McGuire, William S. Hirsch, Allan Rich, Charles C. Painter, Yvonne Z. Shaneyfelt, Irma L. Rolloff, John A. Williams, John E. Shaffer, Robert H. 1952 Bagwell, James E. 1957 Breed, William J. Cottrell, William F. Brooks, Gail G. Doser, Joseph G. Haight, Catherine L. Gibbs, Jack P. Martin, Roger C. Hardin, Richard D. Roberts, Franklin L. Muhlenberg, Nicholas Soderquist, Herman G. Stocker, Mary Wentzel, Margaret C. Wagner, Larry G. Wieckert, David A. Walz, Thomas C. 1958 Cook, James R. Winks, Robin W. Green, Roger C. Woolston, Helene L. Heimbeck, Raeburne S. Zehren, Vincent L. Purser, Evan G. 1953 Crecraft, Lillian W. Richardson, Jonathan L. Cromick, Jane Stoops, Jeanette M. Davis, Frederick B. 1959 Aiona, Darrow L. Fry, Edward I. Hollenberg, Harvard Fry, Peggy C. McMillion, Martin B. Giles, Arlo W. Meador, Julia L. Hofmann, John S. Randall, Donald R. Kelson, Robert N. Weeks, Kent M. Kucera, Thomas J. Wenzell, Victor P. McIntosh, Charles B. 1960 Birdsey, Ralph T. Myers, William H. Brown, Edwin H. Ornduff, Robert Detwyler, Thomas R. Treves, Samuel B. Rhea, Keith P. Walton, Richard E. Sacerdote, Albert M. Williams, John A. Kirkham, Eugene R. 1961 Aronson, James L. 1973 Boettcher, Andrew J. Hurlburt, Sidney H. Bondi, Michael C. Leonard, Jane K. Henning, Alan D. Lutz, Nancy J. 1974 Gump, James O. Maitz III, Mary Jeanne Milligan, Julie A. Travis, Cecilia A. Nichols, Marcia H. 1962 Clayton, Lee S. Stickley, Dennis C. Gibson, Ann J. Wiggins, Becky S. Leder, Mary H. 1975 Freedman, Eric M. McNeil, Richard J. Peterson, Jane E. Wall, Nancy A. West, Geralyn M. 1963 Biggs, Jeffrey R. 1976 Cashman, Katherine V. Dickey, John S. Hannemann, Muliuifi F. Karig, Daniel E. Morehouse, Lisa F. Scott, Stuart D. 1977 Behr, Richard A. Weydemeyer, Idell M. Moore, Marianne V. 1964 Decker, James C. 1978 Ela, Daniel D. Drake, Mark K. Norton, Scott A. Eiselstein, Leo M. 1979 Hedenquist, Jeffrey W. Hewitt, Helen-Jo Hogue, Thomas L. Palmer, Donald F. 1980 Henneberger, Roger C. Terrell, John E. Hunter, Charles A. Worley, Ian A. Slette, Carol L. 1965 Anderson, Marianna 1981 Kakimoto, Paula K. Briggs, William M. Schoen, Daniel J. Fick, Gary W. 1982 Holmen, Scott P. Fox, Jonathan M. Olson, Jean A. Hardy, Sheila A. Robertson-Tait, Ann Schulte, Frank J. 1983 Huffman, Lee M. 1966 Hill, Larry B. Humbaugh, Kraig E. MacManus, Peter A. Lively, Lynda F. Naeser, Nancy J. Schmitt, Karen R. Pauloski, Rita A. 1984 Ashcraft, Alyce L. Rose, Jerry E. Collar, Robert J. Wilson, Waller H. Curran, Carla M. 1967 Force, Eric R. Gibson, J. Duane McCartan, Lucy M. Perin, Barbara J. Smith, Michael C. Selsor, Robert J. Smith, Sharon L. 1985 Fox, Andrew N. 1968 Archer, Dane Greer, John B. Mercurio, Joseph A. Herrick, Jeffrey E. Price, Steven E. Kriegman, Michelle R. Rioth, Leonard D. Pedley, Marguerite Webster, Stephen D. Sauer, Thomas J. 1969 Gelber, Stephen M. 1986 Cundari, Christina M. 1970 Emmert, Gary H. Holm, Daniel K. Gresham, Loren P. Husosky, Margaret R. Powell, Carolyn A. Porch, Tamara L. Wilson, Rosemary K. Rehm, Denise L. 1971 Hammond, Robert C. Van Dissen, Russell J. Scott, Harold Welsh, Mary K. Sinclair, Karen B. 1987 Bergmann, Ben A. Snively, Suzanne L. Colfax, Grant N. Tabacoff, David Kelly, Jane L. 1972 Batts, Bruce J. Koeppe, Susan J. Borns, David J. Polsky, Claudia Hammond, Joyce D. Roakes, Susan L. Henderson, Connie S. Smith, Patrick D.

Appendix 11 United States Exchange Teachers

Year Name 1950 Carlson, Alta C. Sword, Jeane-Marie H. Carlson, Philip O. 1963 Brereton, Anna V. Naylor, Dorothy S. Lyman, Frances T. 1951 Klimm, Elenore L. Maybury, Margaret W. Malmstead, Hilda C. Naves, Joan M. 1952 Campbell, Leslie J. Schubert, Arthur R. Lidderdale, Lila K. 1964 Lapean, John D. Thomas, Eugenia Rowe, Rosalie A. Wood, Alice M. Schatz, Audrey M. 1953 Greenleaf, George D. Winje, Oscar M. Heringer, Maxine M. 1965 Gru, George H. Hoard, Ruth H. Holcomb, John D. Kaylor, Donald G. Thurm, Robert S. Pieza, Sophia A. Weichel, Beverly J. 1954 Ambuel, Louise 1966 Ettlin, Walter A. Baldwin, Alan L. Hetherington, Carol J. Beatty, Ada P. Jiles, Judith G. Hoffman, Lois M. 1967 Cooke, Charles E. Nolan, William Freitas, Melvin T. 1955 Bruno, Gordon E. 1968 Kramer, Herbert L. Bullock, Anna H. Patrick, Anita M. Byrne, Alice C. 1969 Wiellette, Joseph P. Holladay, Anna R. 1970 Harding, Nancy P. Miller, Grace E. Milton, Karen S. 1956 Bruce, Joan Teitelbaum, Harry M. Dornbach Jr., Vernon E. 1971 Dephoure, Robert M. Kariel, Herbert G. Gruenewald, Barbara J. Palmer, Josephine S. Harris, Lowell E. Putnam, Phyllis 1972 Brown, William R. 1957 Dean, Lyall Hosking, Susan P. Olson, Maude T. Lawson, Lawrence A. Rhoades, Mary L. 1973 Gilmartin, Clara T. Smith, Grace B. Holmes, Helen D. Wilke, Helen R. Merriam, Dawson H. 1958 Clark, Mary M. 1974 Hannifin, Brenda C. La Velle, Gene A. Jones, Orvel A. Ring, Marjorie E. Switzer, Wilbur J. Smith, Dorothy C. 1975 Beck, Mary Ann 1959 Anderson, Jeannette G. Kolar, Gary J. Glegg, Thomas E. Maczuga, Horst E. Hewitson, John S. 1976 Dinsmore, Ronald A. Kline, John L. Drechsel, Joyce D. Nichols, Richard J. Zsohar, Elizabeth 1960 Ferris, Jennie E. 1977 Eager, Donald R. McClure, Patricia D. Noznick, Pauline M. Olson, Maryanne Oxman, Beverly C. Sheppard, Lila B. 1978 Fletcher, Anna J. 1961 Blackhurst, Richard A. Klavano, Ruth C. Egan, Wallace L. 1979 Eisenhauer, Stephen J. Parker, Barbara J. Farina, Robert G. Slaughter, Robert D. 1980 Casey, Robert K. 1962 Fehler, Julia E. Zewe, Raymond E. Strom, David W 1982 Windle, John R.

Appendix 12 United States Cultural Grants

Year Name 1980 Cohen, Theodore 1984 Clay, Jack D. Riznik, Barnes Dresher, Paul 1981 Marquis, Richard Sunrise, Pearl J. 1982 Krenov, James 1985 Carpenter, Arthur E. Shang, Ruby La Plantz, David M. 1983 Goldring, Marc 1986 Black, Ralph E. Hoffberg, Judith A. 1987 Vogel, Frederic B. Simon, Sybil C.

Bibliography Arndt, Richard, ‘Questioning the Fulbright Experience’, in The Fulbright Experience, <date from="1946" to="1986">1946-1986</date>, Arthur Power Dudden and Russell R. Dynes (eds), New Brunswick, Transaction Books, 1987, pp. 13-32. Ausubel, David P., <hi rend="i">The Fern and the Tiki</hi>, Sydney, Angus & Robertson, 1960. <hi rend="i">The Auckland Star</hi>, 20 November 1971, ‘Scholar Plan Bears Out Promise’. Billington, James H., ‘Success Story: the Fulbright Scholarships’ in New York Times, 13 December 1971, p. 39. Board of Foreign Scholarships, ‘The Opening Decades, 1946-66’. — 'A Quarter Century'. — 'Thirty Years With the Fulbright Programme'. — 'A Process of Global Enlightenment', November 1976: Brzezinski, Zbigniew, speech, 'Projections for the Future', pp. 74-79; Isaacs, Harold R., speech, 'The Closing Societies', pp. 82-86; Townes, Charles H., speech, ‘Science and the Necessaries of the World Enterprise’, pp. 55-59. —'A Statement on Educational Exchange in the Seventies', August 1971. Brademas, John, Opinion, ‘The Importance of Learning About the Rest of the World’ in The Chronicle of Higher Education, 21 April 1982, p. 48. Fulbright, J. William, Convocational Address, ‘A Process of Global Enlightenment’, November 1976. Gernes, Sonia, ‘The Other Side of Sunrise’ in Notre Dame Magazine, XV, Autumn 1987, pp. 73-74. Hall, Roger, 'Roughing it Smoothly', ms, nd. Horowitz, Irving Louis, ‘Reflections on American Innocence and Guilt Abroad’, in The Fulbright Experience, pp. 195-204. Johnson, Haynes, ‘Fulbright Program Under Threat’ in The Guardian, 27 November 1977.