Spring Break
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Security can indeed be a major
Letters to the Editor | 11/11/08
Posted online at 3:52 AM EST on 11/11/08
To the Editor:
David Litvak's op-ed on homeland security majors ("Security is not a major," Oct. 28 issue) is one side of an argument. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, some institutions added homeland security to programs like law enforcement or emergency management. Others, including my own Daniel Webster College, took a different path and, Litvak's assertion to the contrary, developed a coherent curriculum that reflects emerging consensus on core knowledge in the field. There is truth to the notion that depth of knowledge in every area is limited. Each program must make careful choices in where it devotes its energies. The core of our program is rooted in the social scientific understanding of homeland security phenomena. One can make similar assertions about undergraduate programs in English literature or, as Litvak himself notes, American Studies. But I hear no calls for the dissolution of such programs. Webster devoted three years of study and research to the development of this program. It enjoys national recognition among professionals in the field. Our students are confident the degree will serve them well in the public and private sectors. We, like every other serious institution of higher education engaged in homeland security studies, are members of national organizations like the Homeland Security and Defense Education Consortium. HSDEC aspires to become the accrediting body for such programs, and we will seek such specialized accreditation when the standards have been propagated. I will concede one point: Litvak is correct that a simple reading of the course titles might mislead as to the synthetic nature of what we have sought to achieve. Then again, though I teach in this program I do not spend my off hours in an undisclosed secure location.
-Michael Fishbein
The writer is the provost and vice president of academic affairs at Daniel Webster College.
David Litvak's op-ed on homeland security majors ("Security is not a major," Oct. 28 issue) is one side of an argument. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, some institutions added homeland security to programs like law enforcement or emergency management. Others, including my own Daniel Webster College, took a different path and, Litvak's assertion to the contrary, developed a coherent curriculum that reflects emerging consensus on core knowledge in the field. There is truth to the notion that depth of knowledge in every area is limited. Each program must make careful choices in where it devotes its energies. The core of our program is rooted in the social scientific understanding of homeland security phenomena. One can make similar assertions about undergraduate programs in English literature or, as Litvak himself notes, American Studies. But I hear no calls for the dissolution of such programs. Webster devoted three years of study and research to the development of this program. It enjoys national recognition among professionals in the field. Our students are confident the degree will serve them well in the public and private sectors. We, like every other serious institution of higher education engaged in homeland security studies, are members of national organizations like the Homeland Security and Defense Education Consortium. HSDEC aspires to become the accrediting body for such programs, and we will seek such specialized accreditation when the standards have been propagated. I will concede one point: Litvak is correct that a simple reading of the course titles might mislead as to the synthetic nature of what we have sought to achieve. Then again, though I teach in this program I do not spend my off hours in an undisclosed secure location.
-Michael Fishbein
The writer is the provost and vice president of academic affairs at Daniel Webster College.
Be the first to comment on this story