Final Report: Middle East Institute Final Revised Copy

GeorgiaStateUniversity

Academic Program Review (APR) Committee

January 9 - 10, 2007

Michael E. Bonine, University of Arizona

Ian Manners, University of Texas

John E. Woods, University of Chicago

Introduction

The external APR committee met and held interviews with administrators, faculty, staff, and students on January 9 and 10, 2007. The review committee consisted of the three external evaluators (Bonine, Manners, and Woods). The review team had received the self-study compiled by the Self-Study Committee of Michael Herb, Chair, Amira Jarmakani, Kathryn McClymond, and S. Rashid Naim. well before our visit, as well as having the “External Reviewers’ Report Template” and a letter about the review from the Dean and Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. The Review Committee received its charge through these documents as well as the initial meetings with the Provost and Vice-President for Academic Affairs, Dr. Ron Henry and the Dean and Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, Dr. Lauren Anderson and Dr. Carol Winkler.

The APR External Committee focused on assessing the strengths and weaknesses of this quite new unit, the Middle East Institute (MEI), and how specific recommendations can address areas where improvements can be made. The scope of our interviews and discussions included undergraduate and graduate curricula, issues of academic and administrative organization and governance, the financial resources, the institute’s relationships with students and with other units on (and outside of) the campus.

We hereby present a summary of our findings and recommendations, as well as further elaboration and discussions of specific pointsfrom these recommendations.

Key Strengths

Even though a very new program, formerly as a Center and becoming the Middle East Institute in fall 2006, a major strength of this program is that it is providing an extremely important need and niche for the students and the focus of GeorgiaStateUniversity. AS GSU evolves into a university which is offering more programs and wider perspectives for its growing (and younger) student population, the Middle East is certainly one of the principalinternational areas in which the focus is most appropriate as we move into the twenty-first century.

MEI has made good progress in establishing a viable and rather extensive Arabic program as a cornerstone of its language instruction program, with Hebrew and Turkish also being offered on a more modest scale. Although we do have recommendations (below) on how to strengthen the Arabic (and other language) programs, we do find that this is indeed already one of the strengths of MEI. The fact that beginning Arabic is changing from 3 credit hours to 4 hours per week is also an indication that the program is moving the right direction (most other major Arabic programs have 5 hours per week for both beginning and intermediate Arabic – and often the same for the other Middle Eastern languages). Also, the fact that a second Arabic language professor is being hired (the candidate interviews occurring this semester), also shows that the resources for Arabic are indeed being developed.

Having interviewed all the core faculty and numerous affiliated faculty, we must emphasize that a major strength of MEI is the energy, the enthusiasm – the passion – that individuals are bringing to this program. It is quite apparent that there is a real dedication to the program by faculty from many different perspectives and departments. Everyone really does want it to grow and to work well.

We specifically commend what appears to be the excellent relationship and cooperation between the Middle East program at MEI and the Program in Jewish Studies. This came across from several of the interviews, including from Dr. Michael Galchinsky, the coordinator of the Program in Jewish Studies.

The leadership provided by Dr. Dona Stewart is certainly one of the real pluses for the program. The committee was very impressed with her administrative skills (both on paper and in person). It is quite evident that the program would not have advanced as it has without her energy and direction. She has been the driving force behind the development of the program, and she deserves great credit not only for what has been accomplished academically, but also for the esprit de corps that is evident among students, faculty, and staff. Similarly, we were impressed with the efficiency and contribution being made by the current office manager and assistant to the Director, Autumn Cockerell.

Key Concerns and Weaknesses

Perhaps the major weakness that the committee perceived revolves around governance and hence the number of core and affiliated faculty and the relationships between these two for making decisions and participating in the program (suggestions for this problem below). This was brought out in the self-study and it was the principal difficulty that several faculty mentioned in our interviews. It has come about certainly in part because there are only two core (100%) faculty in MEI – soon to be three with the current hiring of another Arabist.

The lack of a B.A. in Middle East Studies is a major hindrance to the viability and the growth of the program. The B.I.S. is a not a real substitute for a B.A., and the dozen or so students with whom we had lunch and extended discussions certainly were not happy with the procedures to find and get into a B.I.S. program, as well as the lack of a Middle East identification for the B.I.S. degree. (And none of the faculty were satisfied with this option either). Similarly, we think that the lack of a major graduate component is a weakness, either as a certificate or a joint M.A. degree (see suggestions below).

The lack of an introductory course on the Middle Eastas part of the core curriculum of the university needs to be addressed. This would be important not only for the program, its visibility and recruitment of majors, but also it would provide a most important course and option for undergraduate students to begin to understand this complicated, complex part of the world.

Even though we praise highly Dr. Stewart for her fantastic input and results, as a program and institute we believe that an institutional structure must be in place that can easily allow any change in leadership (and, to emphasize, we are not recommending any change in leadership, for Dr. Stewart is doing a superb job – but there needs to be in place a way that the leadership can easily change if she or the administration wishes to make such a change.) We will address this in our recommendations related to governance and the Executive Committee composition.

In terms of the pedagogy for teaching these Middle Eastern languages we see some weaknesses (besides the need for more hours of instruction, which is starting to be addressed). We believe that the language lab is not being used as extensively as it might be – i.e. the need to use it for drills, assignments, etc. We believe that all the language instructors should keep abreast of the latest developments in their language fields and should participate in various training sessions in their language associations (see more in suggestions below). Also, in larger programs teaching assistants are used for tutoring, helping students in the language lab, etc. Some support for such help (usually native speakers) needs to be provided to the program by GSU.

Even though Arabic should continue to be developed as the principal Middle Eastern language offered at GSU, we believe that the resources for supporting the teaching of Hebrew and Turkish also are very important. However, the resources for these two languages are somewhat inadequate, and they need to be solidified in the near future (some suggestions below).

MEI has a very significant, important role to play for GSU for the community and K-12 schools, especially since 9/11. We believe that the lack of state funding for at least a half-time outreach person does not allow MEI to develop long-term programs and workshops that would benefit the community and its schools, as well as promote the reputation and role of GSU in educating our general public.

Major Recommendations

Governance: The core faculty in MEI (defined as 100%) presently consists of two individuals (Dona Stewart, Director, and Teirab AshShareef, Assistant Professor of Arabic), with a third Arabic language instructor to be added based upon interviews this spring 2007 semester. We believe that five or six individuals are needed as the minimum for the core faculty – which might be reached in the future with other hires. However, that would not necessarily solve the sometimes problematicrelationship between core faculty and the affiliated faculty, the latter often contributing considerably to the viability (and courses) of the program but in some instances believing they don’t have a say in the direction and running of the program.

The Committee proposes the following: First, we believe that a number of joint appointments should be made – mainly with key individuals in the History Department and Religious Studies Department, but also possibly persons in Art History, Political Science, Communications, Applied Linguistics, and other departments. To immediately increase the number of core faculty, we recommend that a number of joint appointments be made between appropriate individuals of these discipline departments and MEI. This also depends on how GSU structures such appointments – it might be 50% discipline department and 50% MEI, or, as in a number of other institutions, it might be 51% discipline department [= home department] and 49% MEI, but that person still being considered a core faculty member of MEI. In terms of evaluating such individuals for promotion and tenure, it has been our experience that it is not an undue obstacle. In the experience for joint appointments of these reviewers, for instance, a P&T Committee for a joint appointment would typically be comprised of two members from the home department and one member from the other joint appointment department/program.

Besides these core faculty, we also believe that a number of the affiliated faculty also should bepart of the governance and involved in the decision-making process of MEI. Hence, we propose an Executive Committee for MEI that will be comprised of all core faculty plus three members of the affiliated faculty on a rotating basis. The affiliated faculty members will serve three-year terms on a staggered basis (and, hence, in the beginning, one member will be for one year, one for two years, and one for three years, eventually evolving to where all affiliated members are serving three-year terms). The affiliated faculty who serve on the Executive Committee can be recommended by the Director of MEI and approved the Dean of the College, or some other procedure might be desirable (such as being elected by the affiliated faculty).

Governance should be reviewed after every three years at which time the size of the committee and the appropriate balance between core and affiliates may need to be adjusted in light of additional core appointments – that decision being made by the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. Although there may be some general meetings of all core and affiliated members of MEI (and we would recommend at least one meeting a semester, particularly as a semi-social event as well to encourage interaction among all the MEI faculty), the voting and decision-making will come from the Executive Committee and not the entire faculty. We recommend that the Director of MEI be the chair of the Executive Committee and he/she will have a vote as well. Various ad hoc committees for MEI may be set up by the Executive Committee that may include not only members of the Executive Committee but also other affiliated faculty. Finally, we recommend that there be three-year terms for the Director of MEI, which can be renewed for additional terms. .

Linkages to other programs/units: We believe that MEI can benefit considerably by furthering strong links with other units inside and outside the university for particular professional and programmatic needs. Such links, for instance, might be with the Department of Communications, the AndrewYoungCenter for Policy Studies, the Middle East American Friends Service Committee, CNN, or CARE. These linkages should provide some rather unique opportunities for the students in MEI and GSU, including internships and research opportunities. Such linkages will enable MEI and GSU to develop a unique focus and a distinctively different profile. There also might be more linkages with the Program in Jewish Studies – providing a major Middle East component/option in Jewish studies (which might translate into a joint degree). Whereas the larger and established Middle East programs at a number of other universities do a great many things, GSU now is extremely well-positioned to move aggressively in its research and instructional program in new directions that are highly relevant to understanding the Middle East in the twenty-first century.

Outreach Program: This program is most impressive and important not only for MEI but also for the role of GSU for informing and educating the general public and its schools about the issues of the Middle East (and Islam), including important in-service training for high school teachers and educators. Atlanta also provides a rather unique diversified population, including immigrant and refugee groups. The present outreach coordinator, Alta Schwartz, is only 50% time and is on soft money that ends on June 30, 2007. We believe that the role of outreach is most significant for MEI and GSU and that the state should be supporting this position at 50%. If other outside funding becomes available, the position easily couldbecome full-time, not only for outreach but also then to become an integral part of the programmatic needs of MEI – such as advising of undergraduate students and the planning and implementation of various activities for MEI (and the community). MEI and GSU are the most important support foroutreach and faculty at other institutions in the University System of Georgia.

Additional Core Faculty and Other Lines: The Committee firmly believes that additional lines are needed in the program, and we generally agree with the priorities and suggestions which were brought out in the Self-Study and in our discussions with the faculty. We do think that a permanent lecturer/instructor is needed in Turkish – and a grant application from the Institute of Turkish Studies may help fund such a position. The Hebrew language position might in the future become a permanent lecturer or Assistant Professor (jointly between MEI and Jewish/Religious Studies), if the student numbers do expand and warrant such a need. The understanding of Islam is so significant today, that a second position in Islam in Religious Studies (jointly with MEI) would certainly be appropriate – a person focusing on Shi’i Islam or Islamic Fundamentalism, for instance (and such a person might be joint with MEI in History or Political Science instead). We think that a person focusing on the Iranian world would be a great addition (and possibly as a joint appointment in history or political science).

In any case, we believe that a number of new (and existing faculty) joint positions would be most desirable for the viability of MEI and the development of Middle East Studies at GSU. This means that for a number of future hires in various discipline departments, a priority would be given to persons that could also contribute to the teaching and research on the Middle East. Of course, to keep the program continuing in its positive developments and direction, we also recommend strongly that any faculty lines that might be vacated in the future (core and affiliated), should be replaced with similar foci that contribute to MEI and the program in Middle East studies. We also recommend that as the program grows that another at least 50% administrative staff position be added to MEI to take care of the understandably greater workload and responsibilities.

B.A. in Middle East Studies. The Committee feels very strongly that the time has come for MEI to offer a B.A. in Middle East Studies, instead of the B.I.S. with a concentration in the Middle East. The students want this – the faculty wants this. With such visibility the number of majors should increase considerably as well. We believe, in fact, because of the existing core and affiliated faculty that a number of tracts should be instituted. (The present selection of courses for the B.I.S. in the Middle East appears to be rather diffuse.) Without going into detail, we propose the following possible tracks (for which specific courses and options would be designated):

1)Language & Literature (& Culture)

2)Religions & History (& Peoples) of the Middle East