Dear Sophia:

The following faculty in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures read the proposal for a course, Economics 597.02, Economics of Terrorism:

Richard Davis, Chair
Sabra Webber, Acting Chair
Margaret Mills, Chair of Undergraduate Curriculum
Parvaneh Pourshariati, Islamic Studies and Islamic History.

 We conclude that we cannot support the course as is.  

Below I have listed reactions from each of the faculty consulted.

Dick Davis, Chair (on leave)
Prima facie this course looks fairly appalling, and it would need to be taught with extreme sensitivity (given the first few items on the reading list) if it wasn't simply going to be a means of reinforcing the worst stereotypes about Islam. We should raise a red flag or two.

Margaret Mills, Chair of the Curriculum Committee
To Sabra:  I think with you and Parvaneh that, at a minimum, this course has to be retitled -, it's not about terrorism in any global sense. That would be a much more demanding course, with a range of comparative data, covering or at least invoking the range of examples that you mentioned. I actually coordinated a 6XX (group study) parade course in Fall 2001 (just after and in response to 9/11) that did that, it was enrolled fully and well received at that time so I know it can be done, but probably not adequately by any single instructor on OSU's present faculty.  There were 7-8 faculty involved in that course, all presenting their own expertise in different case studies and different disciplines (mostly poli sci and history).

BIG PROBLEM:

 To teach a course explaining terrorism (from any disciplinary or interdisciplinary viewpoint)  with just examples of Muslim extremists does lend itself way too easily to a crypto-hypothesis that terrorism is somehow Islamic- perhaps not the instructor's position but none of the topics listed here would allow students to know/think otherwise.

Some of the framing questions in the syllabus puzzle me (to put it mildly):  "Is Islam a religion?"  Is this instructor going to present/define religion as a term requiring analysis (which it certainly does), for the purposes of this discussion?  S/he'd better, to frame this question adequately. Does s/he have the theoretical background to do so? How does "religion" figure in his/her definition of "terrorism"  (see BIG PROBLEM above).  (In light of this seeming conflation of terrorism with religion (or at least one religion, Islam), the syllabus should also be vetted by religious studies faculty like Sarah Johnston or Hugh Urban as the director and vice director of the Center.)

At the beginning of the syllabus, there are interdisciplinary learning outcomes/areas (?)  listed that are very interdisciplinary, but Economics is not even listed there as a relevant field of study !??? -- whereas "religion" (not religious studies) and "language" are listed as fields from/about which the students will derive  understanding- but  I don't see "language" (or the study relevant /theories thereof) anywhere on the syllabus, nor do I see this instructor as having demonstrated capacity to frame relevant questions in either of the "disciplines" (religious studies?  linguistics?  sociolinguistics? or what?). The reading list does not seem to support adequately the claims of interdisciplinary scope for the course at this point. The other fields just seem sort of "thrown in."  Not good enough for capstone credit I don't think.

In general, there is a lot about this syllabus that is simply too loose-jointed- too ill-defined, to be evaluated for whether its interdisciplinarity will live up to its advertising.  In its present form I greatly doubt that it would. Maybe the Econ folks can read between the lines.  I can't, in its present form.  Thus, I would not approve the syllabus as a 597 (capstone) for, for instance, major/minor credit in NELC.

Parvaneh Pourshariati, Associate Professor of Islamic Studies
In addition to "inquiry, abstract and logical thinking, and critical analysis," three of the nine "experiences" that the 1983  Integrity in the College Curriculum Report identified as the aim of an undergraduate education  were our ability to foster 1) "historical consciousness," 2) "international and multicultural experiences,"  and finally, 3) "study in depth."  Capstone courses are conceived to be our final attempt in this direction.

By this syllabus’ lack of critical conceptualization, by its functionalist approach to the phenomenon that it seeks to "problematize," and address, i.e terrorism,  by its sheer lack of historical consciousness and finally by its explicit insensitivity to cross cultural issues, the proposed course seriously falls short of the intentions of a humanistic education.

First:   Academic integrity requires that the name of the course be changed to "Economics of Islamic Terrorism against US"  rather than "Economics of Terrorism," for:

It clearly and systematically (weeks 2 and 3 and 8:2, 3, 6, and week 9) singles out Islam -- with the creedal dimensions of which it portrays an epistemological problem  (3.2) -- as THE problematic phenomenon that it seeks to study and address, i. e. terrorism.    If the terrorist phenomenon it seeks to understand is Islamic terrorism, then  it must explicitly say so in its title. (It does so explicitly, and after beating around the bush for 2 pages, on p. 2 # 5)  But if that indeed is its intention, it is horrifically prejudicial and therefore ought not have any place in our curriculum.

It only tackles the effect of the phenomenon on the US.  In this sense it does not address "Issues of the Contemporary World,” but "Contemporary Issues of the US."

Finally, in so far as it singles out the plight of the Christian refugees out of Iraq in contradistinction to the flight of millions of "Iraqis" from Iraq--the course ends with this observation (Week 10:c) one might even argue that the course is conceived in dichotomous confessional terms -- kudos for a secular academic education!

The syllabus states in its "course objectives" that "to combat terrorism one must understand its causes."  It could have started by stating that to understand a phenomenon, one must define it.  No critical definition of the phenomenon, “terrorism,” is provided at the outset. Should we conceptualize the American occupation of Iraq as state sponsored terrorist act against an innocent population?

Even a brief look at the topical organization of the course makes it clear--and here I am baffled by the reading list--that its aims are descriptive and its approach predominantly functionalist.  The behavioralist slant makes it akin to the Department of Homeland Security manifestos.

I fail to see how applying macro and micro economic theories of supply and demand and market economics can bring students any closer to appreciating the human dimensions of the phenomenon of terrorism.  If its aim is to commoditize yet another social phenomenon, it achieves it goal admirably.

It makes virtually no attempt at historicizing or contextualizing the phenomenon and therefore causally explaining it.   Simply "theorizing" about a phenomenon, as the course aims to do in week 2, is not tantamount to causally and analytically addressing it, especially when dealing with such highly polemical discourse as that surrounding terrorism.

It is ahistorical in its conception, in spite of the fact that it addresses history in its reading list; it evinces clear culture-specific slants, and overall a very superficial and limited study of a highly sensitive topic.  As such I fail to see how it address the needs that our capstone courses are meant to address, and that I articulated at the beginning of this note.

One can offer a host of other examples about the conceptual and analytical problems of this course.  But I shall stop here.

Sabra Webber, Acting Chair
There seems to be a clear overall message that Islam causes “terrorism,” or more broadly that religion causes “terrorism.”  (There is no definition of terrorism that I notice unless, reading between the lines, “terrorism” equals “violence that we don’t like.”)  There seems to be no examples of terrorism tied to other religions, the IRA, prominently.  I don’t see any example of state terrorism, Argentina for example.  What about other terrorists whether the Red Brigade, Basque Separatists, Tamil Tigers, or various groups in the United States?  

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM NELC AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES FACULTY
Professor Morgan Liu, NELC
I agree with my colleagues on not to grant concurrence of this course in its present form.
I would add that the overall framing of the course "to combat terrorism" situates it politically in a one-sided and uncritical way, or at least gives that impression.   

It is fine to combat terrorism and apply economic theory to the matter, but a course like this ought to equip students to think critically on the complexity of these issues, which this course, with its sole emphasis on fitting terrorism and Islam into rational choice models, does not to appear to convey.  

As an outsider to economics, it seems to me that recent research on behavioral economics may act as a good counterweight to the macro-econ emphasis of the syllabus and can better model the "irrationality of religion."

Professor Hugh Urban, Comparative Studies and Center for Religious Studies
Thanks for this, Sabra. I had not heard of this course proposal, but it looks extremely problematic as currently conceived -- for all the reasons you outline. I think those of us in religious studies would have to advocate strongly against the course in its present articulation. The equation of terrorism with Islam and the lack of any discussion of other forms of religious extremism is really quite astonishing. You listed some other examples of non-Islamic terrorism, to which I would also add the obvious examples of Timothy McVeigh, Christian Identity and the Oklahoma City bombing, which was the largest terrorist attack on US soil prior to 911 and was perpetrated by white guys associated with Christian extremist groups. It is instructive to be reminded, however, how very deeply these Orientalist and anti-Muslim stereotypes really go, even in the most academic of discourses...

Professor Sarah Johnston, Greek and Latin and Director, Center for Religious Studies
To me, the syllabus looks skimpy on the knowledge of Islam, much less the theoretically sophisticated knowledge of Islam as a religious system.  If all they wanted to do was offer a course on the economics of terrorism, this syllabus would be okay, but I can't endorse its claim to be an instance of applying the study of religion to a contemporary issue.  And if I understand correctly, they are arguing that it is precisely the study of religion (in addition to history and psychology) that moves this course into the keystone category.
        It's possible that the syllabus as I see it here simply doesn't provide enough information to convince me (the sketch that I see of the single week devoted to Islam as a religion lacks much detail).