To the Editor:
The new international relations curriculum has been a topic of much discussion in recent weeks, with Sarah Yu's '11 column ("The new IR: better but not good enough," Feb. 28) being the most recent in a series published by The Herald. As a leader of the IR DUG as well as the IR program student assistant, I am probably one of the best-informed students on campus about the new requirements and the process it took to get there, and I would like to clarify and correct a few recurring complaints and themes that I've heard:
1) The timing of the changes was not under the control of the IR program. Despite efforts to make the announcement at the very beginning of the semester before classes started, nothing could be said until the College Curriculum Council chaired by the Dean of the College gave a final approval on the changes, thus pushing the date back.
2) The IR program is not a department — it's a program. As such, it has no permanent faculty of its own to offer a greater number of classes, nor can it control what classes are offered every semester. The program works closely with the relevant departments to ensure that the needs of its concentrators are addressed, but once again, final decisions are not in IR's control. If IR became a department, it would lose the interdisciplinary nature that attracts so many students, not to mention create an unnecessary duplication of courses. ECON 0110: "Principles of Economics" will be required regardless — should it be offered under two separate departments? Furthermore, it would require a commitment from the University to hire enough full-time faculty to adequately provide for a concentration of 300 students — I'm personally not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
3) The IR program and the Watson Institute for International Studies are not one and the same. The IR program is located within the building of the Watson Institute — that is essentially the extent of the connection. The Watson Institute is an independent research institute that really has no obligation whatsoever to undergraduates. Watson faculty — of which there are only a handful — are research faculty, meaning they only teach one course per year. Yu's points about increasing the connection between IR and Watson are fairly made, and I personally agree that there should be a strengthened relationship between the IR program and the Watson Institute, but the arguments should not be aimed at the leadership of the IR program — they should be directed towards Michael Kennedy, director of the Watson Institute.
The IR program has been an easy scapegoat for annoyed students. However, after working closely with and for the program, I have seen that the leadership of IR truly cares about the students and keeps them in mind when trying to navigate bureaucratic hurdles. While students have had legitimate complaints and should continue to voice them, I'd like to see them actually directed at the responsible parties.
Ambika Natesh '11
