ACLU petition fails to address the issue

ACLU petition fails to address the issue

By ichael Huerta · The Johns Hopkins News-Letter · December 4, 2003

There is a certain air of conceit about the ACLU's PATRIOT Act petition. It states the facts clear. It pronounces the judgments harshly. It articulates the need for change. It even attacks the mighty John Ashcroft.

But it does not offer any substance. It seeks only to criticize without offering change. It does a fine job of rousing the rabble, but fails to fill the holes.

It is no wonder then that the Student Council avoided supporting the resolution right off. It moves from vacuous terms like "academic environment" to all out exaggerations like "facial recognition technology." One provision even requests the Student Council to "transmit a copy ... to President Bush and John Ashcroft." You should feel inclined to snicker if it weren't for the guilty conscience.

Despite this, the members of the ACLU who took the time to write the resolution, and the Student Council who deliberated whether to support it, deserve applause. Not only has this resolution prompted some much needed discussion and debate, but it seems to have reinvigorated some of the student body's political energies.

The resolution, which is largely a political criticism of the PATRIOT Act, fails to comprehend the larger conflict between freedom and security. Asserting that "we can be both safe and free," the resolution foresees a utopia where perfect freedom can exist with perfect security (if only it weren't for the likes of Ashcroft).

But the ACLU ought to realize that if a "black bag" search or a "sneak and peek" invasion of privacy can prevent mass death and destruction, then the trampling of civil liberties should be acceptable and necessary. Most people in the real world, including residents of Hopkins, are not hardwired into trading their security for the ambiguity of "civil liberties."

More importantly, what do these "civil liberties" mean to Hopkins students and faculty? We all understand how the civil liberties of Arabs, Muslims and South Asians are threatened within the University. But if the intent of this resolution was indeed to defend the civil liberties of ethnic minorities and foreign students, then a new resolution is required simply because this one is too broad. If this is written in the interests of such individuals, then the ACLU ought to do them justice and offer a separate resolution.

But as it exists, this resolution resembles little more than the ACLU manifesto. That would be fine if its intent was to represent only the ACLU. But this resolution is supposed to represent a diversity of student views. By making the University fall under the rhetoric of this resolution, the ACLU intends to inject its hard-lined ideology into the student body.

That is the recurring problem with the petition. For example, the resolution requests that the University alert students that their privacy may be jeopardized without their knowledge, and to direct their questions to John Ashcroft. The idea was certainly launched in good faith. After all, what harm can come out of alerting students that their very own privacy -- the books they check out, the Web sites they visit -- can be made available to authorities by the snap of a finger? But instead this resolution would see to it that, with the support of the University, all students direct questions about "Section 215" to John Ashcroft.

Isn't this request to harass John Ashcroft part of the ACLU's agenda to combat the PATRIOT Act? And by including it in this resolution does it not appear that the ACLU is attempting to further its private agenda through public action? If the ACLU wants to harass John Ashcroft, they should do so themselves without corrupting the interests of students.

The resolution instead should detail how the Hopkins academic environment itself is threatened by the PATRIOT Act.

Forget the broad use of terms like "civil liberties" and "freedom" -- tell the students how they are threatened and offer them a solution. Do not try to blend the demonizations of Ashcroft with the concerns of students. As a student, I want to be informed of both sides of the issue.

Luckily the ACLU has time to rewrite the current draft so the Student Council can once again debate whether its provisions truly represent the University. Student council members also need to talk to their constituents, because it's doubtful how many of them would actually agree with the document.

Michael Huerta is a sophomore Mathematical Sciences major from Sandford, N.C.