Students Threatened, Can't Mention WikiLeaks! even on social sites

[ElsewheresDaughter]

Run time: 08:01 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRTcrtA4gQs   Posted on YouTube: December 06, 2010 By YouTube Member: TheAlyonaShow Views on YouTube: 308   Posted on DU: December 07, 2010 By DU Member: ElsewheresDaughter Views on DU: 1231

 
Universities are warning students, that they better not read the WikiLeaks documents, or post links to them or even mention them on social media, because they could prevent them from getting the necessary security clearances to get government jobs. Georgetown University's Christopher Chambers weighs in.

[Hissyspit]

1. Short-sighted, anti-scholarly, anti-academic, anti-American

pro-censorship, authoritarian.

Inappropriate interference in the scholarly process.

In short, stupid, pathetic and disgusting.

China.

Nazi Germany.

Soviet Union.

All analogies apply legitimately, to one degree or another.

[AtheistCrusader]

2. It's not about that.

It's about protecting the student's best interestes. I'm sure the university could give a rip one way or the other. It's about helping the students pass a JOB INTERVIEW in any government job that touches on sensitive information. If they answer 'yes' to the question 'have you ever viewed classified information above your security clearance' or however it's worded these days, they can plan on getting a different job.

Possible perjury charges if they say 'no' and the interviewer finds otherwise on Facebook, ro myspace.

That isn't the university's fault. Take it up with the Government.

[Hissyspit]

3. I was talking about the government.

But it is the university's job to support academic freedom. There is nothing wrong with the students being aware of all aspects of the situation, there are serious issues when an education does not stand up for the tenets of academic freedom, many of which are written up in official statements and agreements, but I was referring to the government.

Columbia has backed off, is my understanding.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. I misunderstood, but I don't think Columbia should back off.

Sorry about misunderstanding your position.

I think the college should continue to advise students not to view this material, until the government clearly states one way or another if this might hurt future job prospects. Basically I think there's reason to suspect the government will mistreat any citizen applying for a job, that has viewed these leaks.

It's important the College makes it clear WHY, as well.

[tomg]

4. While I agree with you

that the university's intention ( or at least 75% of it ) is a very misguided attempt to "protect the student's interests," look at the implications when extended, and they do extend beyond government jobs:

Students told "not to criticize business" - job interviews
Students told "not to become involved in activism" - job interview
Students told "not to voice political opinions publicly" - job interview
Students told - well, you get my point.

Again, all in the "students' interests."

I teach college and of late I have found the most recent bodies of students to be so cowed and obsessively concerned with the belief that the only reason that they are in college is to get a job that they are almost incapable of voicing an opinion. Quite honestly, we are now getting the combined results of NCLB (teach to the test), the corporatization of education, a bad economy, and a general culture of fear.


The university is responsible for its part in this.

[sirthomas66]

12. Fear is rampant every, not just in university. But, then, I can tell

by your post that you already know that.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Slightly different analogy.

I see where you're going with this, but scale it to an industry. Criticize a Ford, expect to be unemployable in the entire auto industry, even at Nissan.

Criticise animal medical testing at X university, and become unemployable by the entire medical research industry.

Etc. That's the scale involved. View/comment on these State Department leaks, be unemployable by any government department with a security clearance of any type.

It shouldn't be the case, but it is the reality of it, at the moment. Obama could perhaps issue an executive order making this a non-issue. There are other options. But at the moment, this is the reality of it.

[tomg]

15. This is dicey.

I do see your point. But here we are talking about the university system which is predicated on free enquiry. Let us imagine i am a history professor who is concerned with the use of primary documents. In fact, I am a lit professor who is concerned with manuscript reconstruction and primary documents ( I have T.S. Eliot documents no one has ever seen, sorry - great stuff if you are into Eliot). But for the sake of argument, i am a history prof. I assign a paper where they have to assess political strategy during the Iraqi conflict of 2001 through 2007. I suggest that they access the wikileaks documents. A student says "I want to work for the government some day. I can't do that assignment. I won't get a job." So what do I do?

Well, if we assume that the purpose of education is to get him/her a job we change it or amend it. If we assume the purpose of education is to change society we refuse it. But - and this is my problem - if we assume that we have an obligation to teach our students to think about the world, what do we do. I reject both. What i can't reject, though, is that my students have the right to the free flow of available information. in fact, I have a moral and pedagogical obligation to place them in situations where they are confornted with it.

To take wikileaks as an example. I can have two students look at the same cables. One can reasonable and legitimately conclude A from that information. Another student can legitimately conclude Z. i cannot tell them or judge them on what they conclude (although i can and must grade them on how they construct their arguments and their use of sources). I, as a teacher, though, have the moral obligation to place them in those situations. What i don't have the right to do is to counsel them to not look at the information available to them.

The same is true in any field ( and that it is industry specific makes it more so). I think my first example of social networking was wrong. It really is not about either public student stupidity or student activisim on facebook ( a student just blogged how she gamed me - well, tough. I got gamed. Won't alter her grade - that was my screw up). It really is about academic enquiry. More than that, though, it is about a free and committed citizenry taking responsibility for how they look at the world.

It took me awhile to respond for two reasons: first, I had to take care of stuff in the wonderful world of academia; second, I had to really think about it.

One last point: I teach Colege Writing. These are first year students. So, can I legitimately ask them to access Wikileaks in order to work with primary documents? I am assigning it next semester. The issue i want them to confront is - "what do we do." thank you for the question. Incidentally, i will have some skin in the game. Thanks for the insights into the issue. I would not have constructed the assignment for next semester without it.

edit: typos all over the place.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. I agree with you, but perhaps the College

can provide an internal environment within the classes that the Government cannot access. The College can sanitize the docs through a press outlet, as is legal, and just not have the students discuss the contents in any public social media. Keep it entirely within the walls of the University, and protect the students.

[tomg]

17. We actually have that where I

teach. Now I can give them the assignment, make them commit to what they believe, but not endanger their futures. So - give the assignment -- work it through the computer system - have them negotiate the reality of negotiation/compromise/resistance - but never tell them they are safe. Tough stuff psychologically. I like it.

The reason this is very important to me is that at 19, when I was their age, I was a conscientious objector. I had to commit. I think our students today don't have to. Ironically, if I can set the writing experiment up - as you suggest and I will do it - the only one with possible legal consequences will be me.

Works for me. But the greater point is, what will they do if they don't think they are safe. Right now - this semester - i am teaching overseas in a foreign country on loan from my home institution. The students in this country are in the streets almost everyday. The American students who are here are clueless as to what is going on. About a week ago I went out with a number of American and X students. The X students were politically committed ( and they have been in the streets for days). The American students were like deer in the headlights. What was more disconcerting is that the American students had no idea as to why the students from X thought being in the streets was the most important thing to do.

[Hissyspit]

6. It absolutely is about that.

http://www.alternet.org/story/149100/the_9_weirdest_things_about_the_wikileaks_story/comments/

Furthermore, another SIPA Professor told Wired.com that students would be remiss if they didn’t seek out the Wikileaks cables. “If anyone is a master’s student in international relations and they haven’t heard of WikiLeaks and gone looking for the documents that relate to their area of study,“ said Middle East expert Gary Sick, “then they don’t deserve to be a graduate student in international relations.” The First Amendment prevails. Also... touche.

As I said, stupid.

[sirthomas66]

11. What!? Up to the government? If people will not stand against this

tyranny then what kind of lives can they expect to have in this country? We have be steered into proper response so we can make money to buy cars, houses and have families that will forever be raped by our government? If we don't take as stand here, we will never be able to take a stand again.

[gaijinlaw]

10. What you said. eom

[indimuse]

5. WHAT country do we live in anymore!!!?? n/t

[Shining Jack]

7. What a nightmare!

It keeps getting worse.:(

[pam4water]

8. OH,you'd better not post! You'd better not read. You'd better not try, I'm telling you why. The NSA

is coming to town. It knows what you've been reading. I knows when your on-line. I knows if you been bad or good and your clearance it will take! Oh you'd better watch out.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

9. hahaha that would make a great xmas video...somebody needs to get on it.