|
||||
  
 
 |
Terrorism's not the only threat to our freedom By
Mica McKinney Since the tragedies of Sept. 11, freedom and its protection have become the highest priority of nearly every American. Over and over citizens have expressed their concerns about threats to the American way of life; most importantly, threats to their freedom. President Bush answered these concerns by launching Operation Enduring Freedom. Today bombs are being dropped, funds are being blocked and terrorists are being rooted out from their hiding places. Despite all of these efforts, can we be confident that our freedoms are really being protected? Unfortunately the answer is no. There are other threats and they lie in our own nation, and even closer to home, on our own campus, where extensive policies that affect all of us are being made. Right now well-respected, well-intentioned leaders at Utah State University are pushing policies that impede the freedoms and rights we are guaranteed as Americans. But despite the controversial nature of these new policies only a few individuals are questioning them. Professor Edward Pease, head of the department of journalism and communication, is one of those people. Pease is concerned about the constitutionality of a new speech and advocacy policy backed by the USU administration that arose as a result of a campus protest last summer. Some students disagreed with the removal of several trees to put in the university's new heating system, so they threatened to chain themselves to the trees. Alarmed by the possibility of this behavior, the USU administration, along with its lawyer, Craig Simper, proposed a new policy for speech and advocacy on university property. According to the administration, this policy is intended to be a "content-neutral regulation." It regulates the time, place and manner in which students can protest. This proposed policy puts limits on amplification, fighting words, impeding traffic and the use of university grounds by non-student protesters. Pease told "The Salt Lake Tribune" that after the policy was announced he sent a letter to the administration on behalf of the entire journalism and communication department asking them to abandon the policy because it violates the Constitution. Simper told the "Utah Statesman" that the policy is constitutional and was instituted to protect students' First Amendment rights. However, there are a few people, along with Pease, who disagree. Faculty members in the political science and journalism departments are opposed to the policy. Political science professor Randy Simmons said in an interview with the "Utah Statesman" that despite its good intentions this policy goes way beyond the intentions of the First Amendment. A few students have expressed their concern as well, but largely the new policy has gone unnoticed. "I definitely have problems with this policy," said Neil Abercrombie, a law and constitutional studies major. "I don't think many students are aware of its implications, at least I hope that is why there hasn't been more student debate about the policy. But since there isn't any student debate going on, I am glad there are members of the faculty who realize the dangers involved and are vocally expressing their concerns." Though it is good to have faculty expressing their concerns, it is dangerous to leave the protection of students' rights to a few concerned faculty members. Iit should be the students themselves who are actively guarding their rights. Still the threat to our essential freedoms is not only occurring here at Utah State, it is also being played out on the national stage. In reaction to the events of Sept. 11, Congress has considered numerous provisions that would possibly increase national security but undoubtedly reduce our freedoms and rights. An example of this type of provision, the USA Act of 2001, passed the Senate late Thursday night. This bill moved quickly through the Senate due to the pressure of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. The most alarming aspect of this bill is its extensive provisions for electronic surveillance. Under the USA Act of 2001, the government will be able to collect unspecified, undefined information from web browsing and e-mail without significant judicial review. Also, Internet service providers, universities and network administrators will be allowed to authorize surveillance on others without a judicial order. This imposes on the civil liberties of every individual, yet the only senator who seemed to object was Senator Russell Feingold. When debating the bill on the Senate floor, Feingold said, "It is very important that we give the Department of Justice and the intelligence agencies the tools they need to combat and prevent terrorism, but it is also crucial that civil liberties in this country be preserved." But despite Senator Feingold's concerns and attempts to amend the bill, it passed the Senate 96-1 unamended. A similar bill passed the House Friday, 337-79. As evidenced on the local stage with the USU speech and advocacy policy, and also on the national stage with the anti-terrorism bill in the Senate, our freedoms are constantly in danger. In their efforts to create policies that protect our rights our leaders have created policies that endanger other rights we enjoy as Americans. This is usually what happens. It is difficult to protect one right without taking another away, but it is possible. Most often it takes the feedback of concerned citizens and students who value their rights to ensure that all of them are protected. Assuredly though, it takes more than one individual. The political science and journalism faculties can't change the new speech and advocacy policy on their own, just as Senator Feingold couldn't change the anti-terrorism bill. All of us need to stay informed and involved and constantly advocate for the rights that we enjoy. For more information on our threatened civil liberties, log on to http://www.aclu.org or http://www.cdt.org.
|
Archived Months:
January
1999 January
2000 January
2001 |
||