ROTC Policy on Wikileaks Threatens Academic Freedom

[Better Believe It]

ROTC Policy on Wikileaks Threatens Academic Freedom
by Stephen Zunes
STEPHEN ZUNES of Santa Cruz is a professor of politics and coordinator of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco. He wrote this article for this newspaper.

January 25, 2011

In my more than 15 years teaching at the University of San Francisco, I have found ROTC cadets to be among my favorite students, most of them being unusually bright, motivated, disciplined and a pleasure to work with. Indeed, I have felt honored to teach them.

It was with great consternation, therefore, to learn that, according to a memo sent to ROTC programs at the University of San Francisco and other colleges and universities last month, they have effectively been prohibited from completing any assignments that professors may make involving any material released through WikiLeaks.

According to a Dec. 8 memo from Col. Charles M. Evans, commanding officer of the 8th Brigade, U.S. Army Cadet Command, "using the classified information found on WikiLeaks for research papers, presentations, etc. is prohibited." A follow-up memo from the cadet commander at the University of San Francisco advised against even talking about it, precluding ROTC students from taking part in classroom discussions regarding WikiLeaks material.

The rationale appears to be that downloading, reading, referencing or discussing WikiLeaks material could jeopardize receiving a security clearance. This has little rational basis, however, since much of the material was apparently made available by a U.S. Army private who had access to it and -- for better or worse -- this material is now widely available publicly.

Read the full opinion piece at:

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_17186268?nclick_check=1

[FBaggins]

1. The professor isn't flexible enough to find something to talk about that was never classified?

"Academic freedom" doesn't change the fact that one of the things ROTC students should be learning is how to properly handle classified information... the first rule of which is "when in doubt, don't"


Indeed, if they can prohibit ROTC cadets from reading material from WikiLeaks, what would stop them from prohibiting students from, for example, reading material critical of U.S. military actions in Iraq or Vietnam?

Um... the fact that it isn't classified? Duh. Is the professor really that dense?

[damntexdem]

2. Bullshit! A professor has academic freedom to assign what she wants.

And students have the freedom to discuss and use it.

If ROTC must teach the lesson that Wikileaks and other such info is not to be seen, discussed, or used, then that is simply more evidence that ROTC does not belong on ANY college campus (and I would include military academies in that).

[FBaggins]

3. Sorry... no. That's simply not true.

What you're really arguing is that nothing should ever be classified and (likely) that the military shouldn't exist.

It's a fine goal... but not one that can coexist with the real world.

A professor has academic freedom to assign what she wants.

Really? Anything at all?

So a sociology professor can require all of her students to keep a log of all romantic encounters over the course of the semester (including their roommates') and report on technique and position variation in the student body?

How about assigning things that are illegal on the basis of this BS "academic freedom"?

ROTC does not belong on ANY college campus (and I would include military academies in that).

ROTC isn't part of the service academies ("military academy" is West Point).

[Better Believe It]

5. That's a silly response, not a serious political response.

"So a sociology professor can require all of her students to keep a log of all romantic encounters over the course of the semester (including their roommates') and report on technique and position variation in the student body?"

So did the author really suggest that?

Your comment is really a rather weak example of sophistry.

[FBaggins]

6. "Did the author really suggest that?"

The author suggested that a professor can assign whatever she wants.

Of course it was a silly example. The purpose of which was to point out that it was a silly position in the first place. There are lots of things that "academic freedom" does not allow a professor to assign.

The difference between the two examples is that one isn't governed by law.

Unauthorized release of classified information does not magically make the information unclassified. Even US Senate employees are not permitted to go to that website. They can't magically get around the restriction by signing up for a poli-sci course at the local community college.

A better use of "sophistry" is the ridiculous claim that "academic freedom" is synonymous with "say whatever I want whenever I want without restrictions... and grade others on same"

[drmeow]

12. In 1971

would it have been appropriate for the commanding officer to tell ROTC students that they could not discuss the Pentagon Papers in any of their classes? How far would the restriction apply? Could they have been barred from reading the NY Times altogether or just the excepts from the Pentagon Papers.

If documents or excerpts from the documents published on Wikileaks are re-published or discussed in the news, are ROTC students barred from listening to or reading the news and discussing said news in during relevant classroom discussions? Are they barred from using those articles or news stories in assignments for their classes? What if those articles and news stories contain other information which is relevant to the assignment but not something which came from Wikileaks?

How are students supposed to avoid talking about documents on Wikileaks in classes such as those the author suggests - constitutional law, U.S. foreign policy, Middle Eastern politics and media studies. Are they supposed to leave the room during those discussions? Can they listen but not participate? Is the restriction only on the content of the documents or does it extend to discussing Wikileaks in general? How will that be policed. Will ROTC cadets be required to submit all of their course materials and assignments to their CO? Will their academic work become part of their military records (maybe it is already a part of their military records - I don't know)?

It sounds like the policy is vague and hard to enforce and it doesn't sound like the military has provided more clarification.

[FBaggins]

13. As I understand it.

They could discuss/debate the reporting, but not the actual content of the papers themselves.

If documents or excerpts from the documents published on Wikileaks are re-published or discussed in the news, are ROTC students barred from listening to or reading the news and discussing said news in during relevant classroom discussions?

Here's the standard that the US Senate is using. See the third bullet.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2011/01/senate.pdf

[FBaggins]

15. Damntexdem... meet POTUS.

damntexdem - "ROTC does not belong on ANY college campus "

POTUS in the SOTU last night - "I call on all of our college campuses to open their doors to our military recruiters and ROTC"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Well, the brave wannabee soldiers can ignore the assignment and take the grade.

Perhaps, while crooning "The Caissons Go Rolling Along" and saluting.

[FBaggins]

8. Some "academic freedom" there

"You can't pass this class without breaking the law"

Gotta love that "freedom" eh?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Some academic freedom in absurdly telling students they can't discuss what is common knowledge.

The elephant in the room is decreed to be invisible by the Pentagon. It is laughably typical of the military mind.

[FBaggins]

11. The guy who steals classified information does not have the power to declassify it.

ROTC members aren't going to come across much truly "secret" information. What better data to practice protecting than data which won't damage anything if they fail at their task?

It's like training wheels for classified information. :)

The principle remains however. The person who holds a security clearance doesn't get to decide what is or should be classified. No doubt there are mountains of classified documents that have no business being classified... but that isn't the business of a ROTC student.

Theirs not to question why...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. A lolt of us questioned why during the Vietnam fiasco.

And, I would hope that today's cannon-fodder will do the same. Whether some tinware bedecked general gets the heebie-jeebies over some troops getting informed or not.

[FBaggins]

16. You don't think that there was enough to discuss re: Vietnam

without getting into classified information? You couldn't "question why" without deciding for yourself whether something should or should not be classified?

You see... the problem is that those in your position necessarily take the stand that they should be the arbiters of what is or isn't classified. Of course we don't want "the enemy" to learn information that would get some kids killed, but we also don't want the government to be able to hide things that the public should be able to use in our essential democratic role. But each of us draws that line in a different place.

The key is to elect people who we think will properly draw the line... not teach those we count on to keep secrets that they should judge for themselves which secrets to keep.

[MedicalAdmin]

18. ROTC: fighting for freedom to supress.

Ok - I'm going to use small words.

First you classify everything. Then you make it illegal / ill advised to write/research/discuss. Then you round up some Jews...

[FBaggins]

19. The solution is to elect better people who only classify that which needs to be classified...

... not to teach junior military officers that they can decide for themselves whether a secret should be kept.

If any of the words weren't small enough... let me know.

[MedicalAdmin]

20. Plenty small, thanks. Lol

And I deserved that.

I think to what John Adams wrote, "are we a nation of men or a nation of laws?" The solution therefore is to hope that we can elect better people but rather to do that AND improve a system that no matter how "better"'you are, you have no room to act upon higher ethics, without having your life destroyed.

As the philosopher pen wrote "it is the system that is the enemy, not the people."

Comments? Feel free to use polysyllables indiscriminately.

[FBaggins]

25. I agree with Adams.

Yet note that the nation still had an intelligence service when he was President... and still had secrets that those in the military could not divulge.

Also note that America's first "shall suffer death" punishment for those involved in espionage against us was written by... wait for it... John Adams (along with Thomas Jefferson, Edward Rutledge, James Wilson, and Robert Livingston).

There is a place for citizens to debate what should and should not be "secret". It's terrible when things are classified not because we don't want an enemy to know, but because we don't want our political opponents (or the voters in general) to know. But that isn't a debate where the people who are tasked with keeping those secrets can use those secrets as examples for the class to debate.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread... the people who refined the notion of academic freedom, and those who best defended it in the face of McCarthyism, understood this.

[MedicalAdmin]

27. If I understand your argument it is that ...

... those whose job requires secrecy and the keeping thereof, take their chances when they share those secrets. You dance and then you pay the piper, so to speak (a question about this for you later).

The issue I have with Adams and the sedition act was that it is used all too often to, as you say, to keep info that should be common knowledge. Strategic and tactical information should be classified. The rest I am not sure about. And given that most of what I have read in the wikileaks is neither, well ... you get the point - why was it classified in the first place.

As a nation of laws theoretically the franchised are supposed to be in charge. I think that the politically and economically connected are now making those decisions in order to benefit themselves and no one else - country be damned as long as they benefit. This should not be.

And so I am curious about 2 things; first, what is your background and experience in this area as you seem to be discussing it with some fluency, and second, do you think that the secrecy acts in this country are used entirely too much and if so do you see that level of unnecessary secrecy as a threat to democracy and the republic as I do?

I look forward to your response and thoughts and thank you for your input and illumination so far.

[MattBaggins]

24. The professor shouldn't have to change his material.

Why should the Professor pretend that current events are not happening just for a minority of the class? Colleges should just pretend Wikileaks doesn't even exist?

[FBaggins]

26. Now cuz... all he's restricted from doing is discussing classified materials with

people who are tasked with protecting classified materials. That's hardle a big hurdle. He can still talk about current events (including news reporting of wikileaks content). They just can't go to the site or discuss the actual cables (etc). They can discuss reporting that the Secretary of State is reported to have said "x" about the Iranians in a leaked cable.

See post #9 above. These are the defenders of academic freedom (when it was under it's greatest attack of our lifetimes)... and they make clear that academic freedom does not extend to the discussion of secret materials.

The only defense he makes is one of ignorance. The (incorrect) assumption that materials become unclassified when someone illegally leaks them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Armies are always afraid of the troops thinking.

"Sir, Yes Sir!" is the ideal.

[FBaggins]

9. Some extra credit reading for the professor who makes up his own version of academic freedom.

"Academic Freedom and Tenure in the Quest for National Security"
Report of a Special Committee of the American Association of University Professors."

"We accept unhesitatingly the application to colleges and universities of needed safeguards against the misuse of specially classified information important for military security, to the extent to which these are applied elsewhere."

It's useful to note why the report was written in the first place, and what information they limited themselves to when writing it.

[Vattel]

17. Give those students Fs.

[Bill McBlueState]

21. Is anyone really surprised

that the military is in conflict with higher learning?

This is a good example of why ROTC is a bad idea.

[msanthrope]

22. Actually, the military ISN'T in conflict with higher learning--

see post # 9 and the standards put out by 'higher learning.'

[Bill McBlueState]

23. looks like the professor in question

disagrees with that particular special committee in this instance. Academics frequently disagree.

[Dawson Leery]

28. I agree 100%. Keep the ROTC away from campus.

Don't make the hustlers, .....I mean recruiters job to find cannon fodder any easier.