The J-1 visa program was created under the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 and was designed as more than an avenue for international students and scholars to visit the United States. At its core, the program was a diplomatic initiative designed to strengthen cultural and educational ties between the United States and the world. The preamble of the act states:
The purpose of this Act is to enable the Government of the United States to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries by means of educational and cultural exchange; to strengthen the ties which unite us with other nations by demonstrating the educational and cultural interests, developments, and achievements of the people of the United States and other nations. (emphasis added)
This language underscores that the program was designed to cultivate a deeper understanding of American civic principles, not simply to facilitate temporary academic exchanges. The act’s specific emphasis on showcasing American “educational and cultural achievements” logically extends to introducing participants to our republic’s foundational civic principles: democracy, constitutional governance, and civil liberties. Without understanding these foundational elements, how can J-1 visitors truly grasp the American experience the act envisions them witnessing?
Introducing J-1 participants to the civic ideals that shaped the United States is essential to the program. Unlike guest-worker programs managed by the Department of Homeland Security, the J-1 program is housed within the Department of State, underscoring its role as a tool of public diplomacy. Introducing J-1 participants to the civic ideals that shaped the United States is essential to the program’s fulfillment of its purpose. Without this foundation, the core mission of fostering mutual understanding falters.
Colleges participating in the J-1 program should be made to do their part. Yet many universities resist instilling these civic principles in American students, never mind international ones. Expecting colleges and universities to pass these values on to international visitors may thus seem ambitious. However, higher-education institutions participating in the program and receiving remuneration as a consequence of participation should be made to do their part.
Colleges and universities hosting J-1 students must ensure that the program adheres to its original goals. Otherwise, how can international students genuinely gain an understanding of American civic life? Institutions need clear guidelines, strong accountability standards, and meaningful oversight to accomplish this. State governments and university boards can lead this effort by setting standards that ensure J-1 participants leave the U.S. with academic credits and a genuine understanding of American civic life.
The Oversight Problem No One Talks About
Careful Internet searching suggests that the Biden administration did not revoke any student visas based on protest activity related to the Israel-Gaza war. Certainly no such action was reported. The Biden administration’s failure to act against foreign students engaged in disruptive and potentially illegal activities raises concerns about the lack of enforcement across student and exchange-visitor visa programs. This lapse occurred despite the fact that violent or otherwise law-breaking protest is grounds for deportation, according to U.S. law.
In contrast, the newly inaugurated Trump administration has signaled plans to adopt a stricter approach. Such plans, formalized by executive order at the outset of the new administration, include the revocation of visas for international students involved in disruptive or extremist activities, particularly those tied to antisemitism or linked to terrorist organizations.
This represents a significant shift for a program that has operated with minimal oversight since its inception. As campus tensions flare and ideological divides deepen—fueled by international conflicts like the Hamas-led attacks in Gaza, Hezbollah’s activity along Israel’s northern border, the continued rise of Iran, and the Russo-Ukrainian War—it is clear that many international students are deeply engaged with these issues on campus, some in ways that violate existing statutes.
The lack of oversight brings to the fore a deeper issue at the foundation of the J-1 program: its long-forgotten goal of instilling an appreciation for American life. This goal was foundational. It was designed so students would learn about our governance and return to their nations of origin with a deeper understanding of our republic.
Reforming the J-1 program is imperative to close these oversight gaps and bring it back in line with its original purpose. Such reform is meaningless without a mechanism to ascertain compliance. The institution of a simple system of accountability will ensure that international students and university hosts meet their responsibilities under the program.
Universities sponsoring J-1 participants are not held to uniform standards for oversight and reporting. Holding Institutions Accountable: A Blueprint for Change
One of the most glaring issues is that universities and cultural organizations sponsoring J-1 participants are not held to uniform standards for oversight and reporting. Here is where the cracks show:
What Should Be Reported:
Colleges should report incidents such as participant arrests, legal violations, or behaviors that contradict the program’s mission: for example, harassment, advocacy for violence, or participation in disruptive protests that violate the law.
Institutions should be required to publish annual reports detailing participant violations and outcomes. When to Report:
Reforms should include a mandated 72-hour reporting window after serious incidents, barring exigent circumstances. Institutions should also be required to compile and publish annual public reports detailing participant violations and outcomes, with adequate protections for students’ and victims’ personally identifiable information.
Consequences for Institutional Failure:
Schools that fail to meet these standards should face real consequences, including the loss of federal funding or suspension from the program.
It is worth noting that universities must report foreign gifts under Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Additionally, the Clery Act has long required universities to report crime on campus. Implementing a similar compliance structure for J-1 students is not only feasible—it is necessary.
Teaching Civic Principles: The American Experiment
The Martin Center’s Blueprint for Reform: Civics Education offers a strong framework for integrating civics education into the J-1 program. Here is how it could be applied:
Orientation Programming:
Schools should cover the First Amendment and its importance to American democracy during J-1 students’ initial orientation.
Reading Foundational Documents:
Participants should be required to read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, complemented by works like the Federalist Papers and Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.
Coursework or Modules:
Participating universities should require a three-credit course or its equivalent, focused on American Institutions and Ideals and utilizing resources like Hillsdale College’s Constitution 101 or Purdue University’s Civics Literacy Proficiency Program.
Interactive and Applied Learning:
Participants should engage in debates, policy simulations, or service-learning projects to deepen their understanding of democratic principles.
The goal here is not to turn participants into ideologues. The goal here is not to turn participants into activists or ideologues, which would be difficult with the basic instruction anticipated. Instead, this initiative will give students a working understanding of American civic life that girds and shapes the society they are experiencing firsthand.
Critics may argue, “Is this not just ideological indoctrination?” No. Here is why.
Introducing J-1 participants to American civic principles is not about pushing a political agenda. The Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 was designed to foster mutual understanding. That cannot happen if participants leave the U.S. without a basic grasp of its civic foundations.
Introducing J-1 participants to American civic principles is not about pushing a political agenda. It is about ensuring that international students understand the civic heritage of the country they are living in, providing context for their time here.
What better way to understand the “achievements of the people of the United States” than by promoting a deeper appreciation of the American experiment in representative democracy? With that foundation, wouldn’t deeper dialogue and more meaningful cultural exchange naturally follow?
North Carolina’s Leadership Opportunity
The University of North Carolina System’s approach to the J-1 program highlights critical transparency and mission-alignment gaps. At UNC-Chapel Hill, key program information seems to be locked behind a password-protected portal, limiting access for prospective participants and external stakeholders. UNC Charlotte’s J-1 program page includes a cursory mention of cultural exchange, but it lacks substantive content addressing the core mission of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act: highlighting the achievements of the American people. Meanwhile, UNC Wilmington’s Office of International Students & Scholars focuses on “fostering globalization” and building international partnerships. These goals are disconnected from the J-1 program’s core mission of promoting mutual understanding through civic and cultural exchange.
For North Carolina to fully align its J-1 programs with the federal law’s mission, the legislature and the UNC Board of Governors should consider the following reforms:
Mandating Civics Coursework:
Require all J-1 participants to complete a short course or workshop on American civic principles. Such an expectation should run alongside any UNC System-mandated “Foundations of American Democracy” requirements.
Clarifying Behavioral Expectations:
Establish clear conduct standards for J-1 participants and include this material on the relevant institutional websites.
Boosting Transparency:
Require publicly accessible annual reports on J-1 participant compliance while maintaining privacy protections.
Incorporating a civic-education component into J-1 programming would bring North Carolina universities in line with the program’s foundational goals and set a national example for how to ensure that J-1 programs fulfill their diplomatic purpose: fostering genuine cultural exchange and mutual understanding.
The J-1 program was never meant to be a free-for-all. It was designed to build bridges—to foster goodwill and understanding. Let us get it back on track.
Let us ensure that when J-1 participants return home, they carry more than just souvenirs—they should take with them a deeper understanding of the American experiment in liberty, shaped by meaningful civic engagement and education, rather than superficial impressions.
Charlton Allen is an attorney, former chief executive officer, and chief judicial officer of the North Carolina Industrial Commission. He is the founder of the Madison Center for Law & Liberty, Inc., editor of The American Salient, and the host of the Modern Federalist podcast.
Author
Charlton Allen
