NONPROLIFERATION REVIEW SURVEY Nonproliferation Education in the United States Part I: Undergraduate Education A Nonproliferation Review Survey1 of Teaching at Leading U.S. Colleges and Universities on Weapons of Mass Destruction and Means to Combat Their Proliferation and Use A Two-Part Series North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom. Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. — President George W. Bush State of the Union Address, January 29, 2002 s the United States readies for a possible war to From February to October 2002, the Nonproliferation eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction Review undertook a survey of teaching on WMD at lead- A(WMD), confronts North Korea over its clan- ing U.S. institutions of higher learning to seek answers to destine efforts to produce nuclear arms, and implements these questions. It was also hoped that the survey would an array of billion-dollar programs to meet the WMD help to create a more effective network among those challenge, how are America’s colleges and universities teaching in the field, allow the sharing of syllabi and responding to this threat? innovative teaching practices, stimulate the expansion Are they adapting their curricula to a world that may of courses on WMD, and bring additional public atten- be as fraught with perils to this country as those it con- tion to instruction in this area. fronted during the Cold War? Are they training the next Originally, it was the intent of the Review to focus generation of scholars, diplomats, and leaders who will be specifically on education regarding nonproliferation—the needed to meet the trials that lie ahead, from nuclear- institutions and strategies for curbing the spread and armed rogue states to WMD-wielding terrorists? Will they potential use of WMD. It soon became clear, however, that serve as the centers of conceptual innovation and moral instruction on this topic was concentrated at the gradu- vision, as the United States contends with unpredictable ate level. At the undergraduate level, except in very rare and increasingly dangerous foes? instances, students were introduced to nonproliferation The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2002 9 NONPROLIFERATION EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES: PART I in the context of wider-ranging courses dealing with mul- • A handful of undergraduate programs—ten, in all— tiple WMD issues (such as the decision to use the atomic offer students more than one course focused on WMD: bomb against Japan or nuclear doctrine during the Cold Princeton; Yale; Stanford; Johns Hopkins; University War) or in the context of even more generalized courses of Virginia; University of Michigan; University of on foreign policy or international conflict.2 California, Los Angeles; University of Illinois, This article, Part I of a two-part series, thus presents Urbana-Champaign; Georgia Institute of Technology; and discusses the results of this survey with respect to and the University of Washington. All of these undergraduate education on weapons of mass destruction undergraduate programs are elements of major at selected colleges and universities. Part II of this series, universities. to appear in the next issue of the Nonproliferation Review, • Each of the four U.S. military academies addresses the will examine the specific topic of nonproliferation edu- threat posed by WMD with a specialized course. cation at the graduate level. (Readers may also be inter- • There was considerable similarity in approaches to ested in an important, more broadly focused study by the teaching WMD issues among the schools surveyed. United Nations on Disarmament and Nonproliferation The great majority of courses in military and civilian Education programs, courses, and curricula around the institutions presented WMD from the national secu- globe, released in October 2002.)3 rity perspective—rather than from the perspective of The Nonproliferation Review survey design is discussed peace studies or international organizations/coopera- in detail below. In brief, the survey examined a sample of tion—and covered many of the same issues. undergraduate programs at 78 leading U.S. institutions of • Multiple factors contributed to the limited interest in higher learning, as identified in the widely used rankings WMD instruction at civilian institutions. Interviews of U.S. News and World Report for 2001.4 Focusing on indicated that the leading reasons include the lack of departments of political science, government, and inter- student interest in WMD issues during the 1990s, national relations, the survey sought to determine the after the end of the Cold War and the eclipse of policy number and content of courses devoted principally to studies in many departments of political science dur- WMD issues (75 percent of course time) and the number ing the 1990s, in favor of the theoretical and quanti- and content of more general courses, such as those on U.S. tative aspects of the discipline. foreign policy or international security, that devoted one • The events of September 11, 2001, stimulated new or more weeks to WMD issues. Data were collected via courses or amended course content at a number of an electronic questionnaire, supplemented by syllabi and schools but have not yet reversed these broad trends. telephone interviews with a wide range of those teaching Strong student interest in national security-related in the field at the institutions surveyed. courses at a number of undergraduate schools may indicate increased pressures for greater attention to SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL FINDINGS such issues, but at many schools rapid change is not likely because of the delay entailed in altering research • Although most of the U.S. News and World Report top- preferences of existing senior faculty and in hiring new ranked undergraduate institutions offer at least one faculty to teach in this field. generalized course that touches upon WMD for one • A number of physics departments have courses focused or more weeks, more than two-thirds of the country’s on nuclear weapons, but a parallel trend of instruc- leading non-military colleges and universities did not tion regarding biological weapons—seen as the grav- offer any undergraduate courses devoted principally est emerging WMD threat—is only beginning in to WMD issues. The list of schools lacking such departments teaching in the biological sciences. courses includes the school U.S. News and World Report ranked as the country’s premier public univer- BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY sity, the University of California, Berkeley; the school Recognizing the growing importance to U.S. national ranked as foremost U.S. technical university, Califor- security of the spread of weapons of mass destruction to nia Institute of Technology; and the nation’s top eight new states and, potentially, to transnational terrorist liberal arts colleges: Amherst, Swarthmore, Williams, groups, the Nonproliferation Review, using the resources of Wellesley, Bowdoin, Carleton, Haverford, and the CNS Washington, DC, office undertook a survey of Pomona. teaching on this subject at prominent U.S. institutions of 10 The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2002 NONPROLIFERATION REVIEW SURVEY higher learning. Specifically, the survey sought to com- tory or advanced), how often the course was given, the pile data on courses at these schools that contained con- number of students, cross-listing with other departments, tent on the threats posed by WMD—chemical, biological, principal readings, and the like. and nuclear weapons and their delivery systems—and on For specialized courses, respondents were also queried efforts to combat their proliferation and use. about the teaching and evaluation methods used. In The basic goals of the investigation were to: addition, instructors for these courses were asked to • Obtain a sense of the overall level of attention to provide syllabi. WMD proliferation on the part of the nation’s fore- To identify appropriate questionnaire respondents most colleges and universities, as measured by the at each school, CNS staff reviewed the school’s on-line number of formal academic courses devoted to this course listings to identify one or more faculty member subject in their curricula teaching a course specifically addressing WMD or a • Gain an understanding, through the examination of closely related subject, such as national security or con- syllabi, of the content and focus of current teaching temporary U.S. foreign policy. CNS staff then contacted on WMD proliferation and identify possible trends the faculty member by telephone and/or e-mail to solicit • Learn what instructors consider the most successful his or her participation in the survey and to inquire about approaches for teaching the subject in the classroom. others at the faculty member’s school who might be teach- In addition, it was hoped that the survey would establish ing in the field. These faculty members were then simi- a baseline that could be used in future years to observe larly contacted, with the goal of identifying all relevant changes in this field, facilitate networking among those faculty at each institution and engaging them in the sur- working in the field, and stimulate added attention to this vey. In addition, the direct exchanges with faculty were subject area at institutions of higher education and among used to obtain anecdotal information and assessments the public. about teaching on WMD issues. At least one faculty mem- As noted above, the institutions surveyed fell into four ber was contacted at every school or program in the broad categories: sample.