The American Association of University Professors Special Committee on Academic Freedom and National Security an a Time of Crisis has published a report.
The report looks at the effects of the Patriot Act on academic institutions, the problems that researchers are facing because of government restrictions on information, concerns over the increased scrutiny of foreign students and scholars, and the general campus climate.
The report surveys changes in the law brought about by the Patriot Act, particularly in the area of the privacy of student records. Not surprisingly, universities must surrender records of anyone the government says is connected with an ongoing terrorism investigation, and cannot tell the individual under suspicion. We've heard this story before.
This section of the report closes with a zinger:
No one questions that successful terrorist acts injure our nation's security, but very much in dispute is what national security requires. The USA Patriot Act has spawned a system of surveillance and control that appears to be stretched beyond what it can or, indeed, should seek to regulate. The costs to privacy and freedom are high. Are the costs too high? We do not know whether giving up the freedoms we are being asked to compromise will have any effect on terrorism of the sort we experienced on September 11, 2001, because we still do not have a full accounting from the government of why these attacks took place. (emphasis added)The section on restrictions on information is particularly interesting, since this topic does not get a lot of attention. Obviously, national security classifications have existed for a long time, and will always be necessary. But are we classifying too much information? This is worrying not only from the general standpoint of academic freedom but for more practical reasons. When we hide away information on, say, biological weapons for fear that terrorists might find it, we also hide the information away from scientists who could develop antidotes and other defenses against these weapons. Secrecy cuts both ways. The report concludes:
The academic community must remain vigilant and insist upon rigorous adherence to the guiding principle set out in the introduction to this report, namely, that any curtailment of free inquiry or limitation on the free circulation of research would have to be justified not by speculation but by the demonstrable failure or inadequacy of the existing rules.Another area of concern is restriction on foreign students and scholars. This aspect of our new immigration policy has been discussed much already. In its mild, academic way, the report reminds us of what is really wrong with these policies:
This sense of vulnerability is probably felt most strongly among students from Middle Eastern countries. From 1991 to 1999, these students received fewer than 2 percent of all the doctorates in science and engineering that American colleges and universities awarded to noncitizens. Because of their small numbers, some might be tempted to propose that all of these students should be denied entry into the United States, or those currently here should be required to leave. But such a proposal would be deeply repugnant to this nation's democratic ideals. One's place of birth does not equate with support for terrorism. (emphasis added)Finally, the report looks at the campus climate and individual cases where freedom of speech has come under attack. Nearly all of these incidents involve scholars or students from the Middle East, or discussions about the Middle East. A common thread running through many of these accounts is a growing intolerance for criticism of Israel. Overall, the report simply summarizes much that is already known, but it provides a good overview and a look into the feelings of university professors. Again, despite their mild, academic tone, they are clearly worried about the trends that they see impacting their world.