Domestic spying has reached the university level, as students
from UC Berkeley and UC Santa Cruz recently found out. But the
dissenting voices of college students is no threat to the nation or
the Department of Defense.
That’s precisely why the department should quickly respond
to the Freedom of Information Act request put in by the American
Civil Liberties Union last week, which asked for information
collected by the Pentagon concerning student protests at the two
schools.
The protests, held in April 2004 by UC Berkeley’s Stop the
War Coalition and UC Santa Cruz’s Students Against the War,
were in response to military recruiting on campus. Protesters
argued that the military’s “don’t ask,
don’t tell” policy went against the universities’
anti-discrimination policies.
While the Berkeley protest passed without incident, the Santa
Cruz protest resulted in some slashed tires on the
recruiters’ vehicles.
Though the Bush administration is certainly not the first
““ and likely not the last ““ White House to spy on its
own citizens, it has recently come under much criticism for other
instances of domestic surveillance, such as wiretapping without a
warrant.
But this instance of federal curiosity is particularly troubling
because it specifically targets those voicing an opinion contrary
to the government ““ a basis on which our country was
founded.
While it is part of the Pentagon’s business to compile
information concerning threats to the Defense Department ““
which is the point of the Threat and Local Observation Notice
program ““ peaceful protests such as the one at Berkeley
should have no part of the 400-page document.
And if this is just a mere collection of information ““
“dots,” the Pentagon spokesman called them,
“which if validated, might later be connected before an
attack occurs” ““ then there should be no harm in
responding to the requests for the documents put forward by the
ACLU.
If anything, it will help to alleviate concern and diffuse
anger.
Universities have always been one of this country’s
primary means of generating intellectual debate and serving as a
haven for public displays of dissent through protest and other
means of activism.
In return, universities have been challenged for taking on this
role. During the Cold War, the government noted names and took
photos of student protestors, and even threw out students for
dissent against the Vietnam War. Clark Kerr, then-president of the
University of California, was fired for not adequately reigning in
student activists.
In the long run, discouraging such action among college students
will hinder society’s growth. Having students put on a watch
list meant to monitor “threats to the U.S. military at home
and abroad” will discourage the democratic tradition of
peaceful protest. Students would have to choose between making
their opinions known or sitting by and watching the events of the
world happen around them.
The decision to broaden the purpose of the program from tracking
individuals with possible links to terrorism to collecting
information on anti-war and anti-military activists is
unjustified.
Student protest does not necessarily constitute a threat to the
nation or the military ““ so why is the federal government
getting involved?