The Foreign Service Journal, February 2004

ing man. Most of us who had taken his tutoring got in. This was in 1925 and 1926, and then we took the exams. And only 18 of us were admitted out of 100- and-some candidates at that time. I was one of them. And I must say that I loved the Service and the life and what it gave me, from that time on. FSJ : At that point, the Rogers Act, which created the unified Foreign Service from what had previously been the separated consular corps and diplomatic corps, must have been very fresh histo- ry. GFK: It was. We were the second class admitted on the basis of the Rogers Act. FSJ : Was the unified Foreign Service still coming together? GFK : With rather surprising results. Because they found that the old diplomats who were supposed to be snobbish and look down on the Foreign Service acqui- esced in this with good grace and good humor, and took their consular jobs and in many instances loved them, too. Whereas a number of the consuls general did not feel terribly comfortable in the jobs to which they'd been sent. To this day, I’m not convinced that the amalgamation as it was then set up was entirely a good thing. Certainly, they should have much greater flexibility and movement from one service to the other. Perhaps it could have been more wisely architectured. But we were all sent to consular posts initially, that’s my recol- lection. That was a good idea; it gave you a broader con- cept of American representation abroad than most of the purely diplomatic assignments would. Calling on the Proper Ladies FSJ : Was there much difference in the qualifications or background or training between those who had come in previously and those under the Rogers Act? GFK : It seems to me the Rogers Act did signify a certain social democratization of the Foreign Service, as compared with the old Diplomatic Service. Remember that the old Diplomatic Service really assumed an inde- pendent income, and a pretty secure family or professional back- ground in this country before you entered it. At the time I was admitted to the Foreign Service, I don’t think snobbish considerations played a great role. They were quite pre- pared to take other kinds of people, as they did myself. I didn’t come from a wealthy family; my father was a modest lawyer. And I had no social connections whatsoever. What they looked for in the candidates was a firm, reassuring family back- ground. They were impressed that I had come to Princeton and come through it creditably. I can remember only one or two men in our class — both, incidentally, became excellent Foreign Service officers — who came of the old New England top draw- er. They were very good men. The only thing was they did feel that we ought to be able to go to a foreign post in a diplomatic capacity, and we ought to be able to deal with the diplomats of other countries. And the French and British and German governments almost invariably chose their diplomats from the upper classes. And these were fel- lows who knew how to behave themselves. Much greater stress in those days was given to manners than is given today. We were supposed to have been the equivalent of officers in the Army or the Navy. That was why the term “Foreign Service officer” was chosen. When we came to Washington to enter this Foreign Service school, we were given a list of the ladies that we should call on in Washington. We were part of the diplomatic family in Washington once we were appointed, and we were supposed to call on the proper people. And we were expected to go to their homes and if they were not home to leave a prop- er card with the proper initials on it. And if we were admitted, we were supposed to know how to enter what was very often a rather elegant and high-class home and acquit ourselves creditably of this task. FSJ : And did you do this? GFK : Oh, yes! We did, usually two of us together. Washington was considered to have a certain portion of F O C U S F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 4 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 15 They wanted to make sure that we didn’t succumb to liquor or women or the wrong things.