The English writer Sir Thomas More had such a politically acute sense of typical societal inadequacies that nearly 500 years after his most famous work, “Utopia,” was published, its message is more relevant than ever.
More could not remember where Utopia was because it did not exist. Unfortunately, the fictional cities he designed are just that — fictional.
In Utopia, the slight loss of freedom of privacy presents no problem; but in America, domestic spying — which proves to an extent a necessary institution in the protection of its people — threatens more than just the freedoms of its citizens.
The social norm in college encourages students to question their government and I have definitely particpated participated in that pastime. Any FBI agent spying on me might easily suspect me of treason simply because I show my patriotism for my country a little differently than some others.
The 200 or so students protesting the presence of military recruiters at a UC Santa Cruz job fair last year also displayed their patriotism in a more abstract manner. They reportedly piqued the interest of the Defense Department to such an extent that the activity was lumped with 1,500 other events said to be “suspicious,” according to Pentagon documents obtained by the Santa Cruz Sentinel.
Like the UCSC protestors, I may not demonstrate my patriotism by waving an American flag or reciting the words to “America the Beautiful.” But partaking in activities permitted by the First Amendment should not warrant the suspicion of my government. The UCSC students did nothing wrong.
Such college demonstrations merely act as a microcosm for the President’s warrantless use of domestic wire-tapping. General political upset, however, will greatly affect university students in the coming years. As reported by Associated Press writer Jennifer Kerr, a recent Federal Communications Commission regulation obligates Internet providers to “rewire networks” so that government agencies like the FBI can monitor the network live instead of having to request information transferred through Voice-over-Internet Protocol calls. This includes universities like UCSD and UCSC.
The cost of aiding the FBI would not solely be the loss of possible student freedoms, but would also dip into the increasingly shallow pockets of the various colleges and universities. According to the Associated Press, the University of Wisconsin-Madison spent $18 million upgrading its computer network.
The threat of an overbearing executive power, however, proves more important than any student qualms about the legitimacy of FBI surveillance.
On September 12, 2001, America may have been wounded, her alabaster cities dimmed by human tears to such an extent that Congress approved the overly invasive Patriot Act that in more stable times would have had Americans shouting about infringement of personal rights. More than four years after the attacks, I think it’s time Americans sat down and reassessed President George W. Bush’s constitutional power and his appliance of “all necessary and appropriate force” as approved by Congress after the attacks.
It’s about time we acknowledge both of these wars — the war against terrorism and the war in Iraq — as more than brief promises to prevent terrorism and spread democracy. The broader relevance of this issue is not one to national security but to the foundation of American democracy, the fundamentals of the American Constitution and the forbearance of authoritarianism.
I understand that citizens are willing to sacrifice their right to privacy in an attempt to protect themselves from possible terrorist threats, but that does not mean we should hand over all sense of freedom to a president already taking advantage of his position in power by spying on citizens without a warrant.
I remember when we started this war on terrorism. I remember with a hint of nostalgia, even though I was against the war, because I remember it once being about bringing liberty to Iraq and giving its people a freedom they could not buy. Let us recognize, however, that in giving them added freedoms we seem to be sacrificing some of our own.
After all, freedom is easy. It’s the sacrifice that comes with it that’s the hard part. If tomorrow, every citizen gave up the freedoms given in the Bill of Rights, this would be the safest nation on earth, but its people the most suppressed.
Tales of domestic spying may be new, but the war is an old one. It’s just the same old song playing to a new generation of hopefuls. It’s just the same old quest to discover the balance between freedom and protection feminists could not work out 150 years ago.
As a woman of only 18 years, I may be lacking worldly experiences like those of my grandmother, who suffered during the Great Depression. But in my attempt to quench my thirst for freedom, I was quick to discover that a shield of protection was its cost. Yes, I have more freedom than Elizabeth Cady Stanton did at 18; I can vote and I can enlist and I can take a job in a man’s world, but when I walk out into a dark parking lot at night, I’m cautious enough to look behind me.
I’m not afraid of my own shadow. It’s the shadows of others that sometimes scare me. I don’t want the Bush administration’s to become one of them.
So at the dawn of 2006, I encourage Americans to realize that, in spreading democracy abroad we have, perhaps accidentally, encouraged a sense of authoritarianism at home. So, America’s New Year’s resolution for 2006: a little less passiveness in the American people, a little more restriction on the powers of the president to execute his plan for democracy — so that it truly is a plan for democracy.
