ROTC’s Response to WikiLeaks Puts Academic Freedom at Risk

ROTC’s Response to WikiLeaks Puts Academic Freedom at Risk

ROTC’s Response to WikiLeaks Puts Academic Freedom at Risk

ROTC memo prohibiting cadets from using WikiLeaks cables for course assignments could impact Stanford’s decision on whether to allow ROTC to return to campus.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

A US Army Cadet Command (USACC) memo prohibiting cadets from using classified information found in WikiLeaks cables for course assignments is creating a struggle over academic freedom at colleges and universities. For students at Stanford University, the memo is adding a new dimension to the campus’ deliberations over whether to allow ROTC to return to campus.

At an undergraduate senate meeting on January 25, Samuel Windley, president of the student organization Stanford Says No to War, handed a recent op-ed written by University of San Francisco professor Stephen Zunes to Chairman of the Ad-hoc Committee on the ROTC Ewart Thomas. The op-ed, which referenced the ROTC memo, made Thomas “very concerned.”

Thomas, who convened the meeting to get student input on the question of ROTC returning to campus, referenced the op-ed during the meeting and highlighted how the ROTC was allegedly prohibiting its affiliated students from using leaked US Embassy cables for research papers and presentations. He told the Stanford Daily, “What this looks like is censorship could be imposed on a class that Stanford has a hand in managing.”

Windley thinks this could have an impact on whether the faculty at Stanford invites the ROTC to come back to Stanford. The Stanford faculty takes academic freedom seriously and, as Windley told the Stanford Daily, it is “a slippery slope” when an outside institution is able to determine what course assignments are appropriate or inappropriate.

A document of “talking points” that some institutions of higher education have seen indicates the ROTC thinks the federal law overrides any concerns over academic freedom. It suggests accessing the cables at public colleges or universities is “prohibited.” And, it says "if access is required for a class by university authorities, the student should consult with his Professor of Military Science (PMS)” and the PMS should then “consult with university authorities, suggest alternatives and provide guidance to his or her cadets.”

Danny Colligan, also a member of Stanford Says No to War, believes that students, like their elders in US society, have a wide spectrum of opinion when it comes to WikiLeaks. However, the viewpoints in Stanford’s newsaper have mostly been negative. For example, David Spencer Nelson wrote an op-ed published on January 10 that suggested, “Wikileaks is, frankly, a relatively dumb website. Their mission, to do away with confidentiality in all its forms, is totally impractical and entirely foolish.”

In December 2010, The Daily Pennsylvanian’s Ellie Levitt reported on Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs sending students an email instructing them not to discuss or link to WikiLeaks on social networking sites if they didn’t want to “jeopardize future job opportunities—especially with the federal government.” Levitt found that students were largely unfazed.

Have there been debates about WikiLeaks on your campus? If so, please use the comments field below to let us know. We’d like to publish further student reactions to the release of the cables.

Like this Blog Post? Read it on the Nation’s free iPhone App, NationNow.

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x