The Foreign Service Journal, November 2005

suspected of being a security risk (whether for allegedly leaking infor- mation to an enemy or for allegedly having an unhappy marriage) has fewer rights than someone charged with treason, where anyone accused must be assumed innocent until proved guilty — not in the eyes of the investigators, but in a court of law. That’s the American way; it’s what we stand for as a nation. Lest my concern be confused with melodrama, just look at the “Left in Limbo” article. Either one of those individuals could be you! They enjoy no real protection and their careers are in ruin whether they are innocent or guilty. Let me suggest that there is a “clash of cultures” in progress here (with apologies to Professor Samuel Huntington). While we are busy tout- ing democracy and human rights around the world, there may well be rogue individuals within our service who are not upholding the “American Way” in carrying out their responsibil- ities. The current way of doing business is not good for our nation and is not good for the Department of State. While DS has to act on accusations that question an individual’s security status, a ham-handed approach does neither the nation nor the institution any good. Star Chamber methods don’t make the department or our embassies any safer. They just make it more difficult for the department and its employees to do their job effec- tively. Let’s drop the pretense: no matter how well DS may be doing at the global level, there are unacceptable abuses and lack of basic rights at the individual level. The system as it stands needs fixing. There are three possible routes: legislation, judicial decision or administrative action. If we can fix this in-house, then there is no need to go to the Hill or the courts — but it must be fixed. Management ought to convene an independent panel to look into abuses and recom- mend administrative protections and remedies. Internal controls should be instituted to protect the rights of the accused and ensure that the govern- mentwide standards are interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with the special mission of the depart- ment. The alternative is likely to be a costly juridical process that might turn out more difficult for management than corrections they could make in- house. A legislative fix would be the most time-consuming and unpre- dictable of all the alternatives. DS, Department of State, heal thy- self! Michael D. Metelits Ambassador, retired Portland, Ore. USAID’s Anti-Foreign Language Culture As a lifelong ordinary student of languages and a former chief of USAID’s Professional Studies Branch, I read with keen interest the items about the Foreign Service Institute in the July-August Journal . They triggered dormant, unexpect- edly powerful visceral reactions even now that I am retired after 30-plus years of service. Language learning is one of life’s most humbling experiences for adults. We become inarticulate chil- dren again, and we don’t like it. Ego-driven FS employees like it even less. We find ourselves unable to express our thoughts. Embarrass- ment abounds, interspersed with moments of progress and joy. One’s emotions are deeply tapped, the lows and the highs. One result of that is that we can become hypercritical of language teachers and programs. They become the targets of our vex- ations. We then criticize. Do we criticize! One overreacts when one shouldn’t. I learned that myself the hard way, studying Arabic, French, Hindi and Turkish as an adult. The remarks about language learning are on target. The Hebrew piece points to the essential fact that an FSI test score of “3” in speaking does not mean one is able to conduct significant professional business in the language. Much struggle ensues. Part of the frustration is that lan- guage learners tend to overrate their own ability to communicate. Find- ing themselves falling short during training or at post, they too often find someone else to blame. Such is the emotional cauldron. Language learning for FS employees presupposes need and interest by the employing agency. In the Foreign Service, foreign-lan- guage capability should be the sine qua non for professional success and assignment desirability. Not so. State has its language priorities gen- erally in sync with training and assign- ments. It is part of State’s bureaucrat- ic culture. By contrast, USAID’s bureaucratic culture has an anti-for- eign language bias. For the first 15 years or more of my career, I was the only non-ethnic FS employee in USAID who could speak and read reasonably well in Arabic. I entered the Service with this ability, following lengthy studies in Egypt. Yet for years, USAID refused even to have me tested by FSI. Throughout my career, agency officials found “reasons” why I — a USAID generalist — was unsuitable for Arabic-speaking posts. “You know the country so well, I can’t have confidence in you,” one mission director told me, typically. I con- cluded this was not personal to me. Others with hard languages had the same experience: an economist who L E T T E R S u 8 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 5