It was a protest to protect protests. At midday on Tuesday, Feb. 10, we traveled the hour to the U.S. District Court House in Des Moines for the purpose of exercising two of the most fundamental rights we have as Americans. Along with at least 100 others, we assembled “peaceably” in the bright, frigid morning to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” As we rallied against the subpoenas served to Drake University and four non-violent peace activists, the first amendment could not have been a better guide. Ironically, we exercised our first amendment rights to uphold the sanctity of those rights.
The Federal government’s request for lists of attendees and recordings of a peaceful anti-war meeting at a university sent a signal: Protesting may not be as protected as you thought. While the subpoenas have thankfully been withdrawn, this past week John Ashcroft’s Justice Department demonstrated that it was willing to force an academic institution and four individuals to face questioning about the exercise of their basic civil liberties. In such a climate, we have to wonder, as these words are published, will our names be put into a file? Has our previous criticism of the government already warranted us a record? Should we now assume that we are under surveillance for our protest outside the courthouse? Perhaps we should have been asking these questions earlier.
While remarkable in their own right, the events of Des Moines are only the latest manifestations of an insurgence of challenges to Americans’ civil liberties. Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil, has spent 18 months classified as an “enemy combatant” and denied the due process of law. On October 15, 2003, the FBI issued Intelligence Bulletin No. 89, specifically instructing law enforcement agencies around the country to report “potentially illegal” protest activity to the Joint FBI Terrorism Task Force. We were aware of these issues before. But it wasn’t until the federal government served a subpoena on a university an hour away that the issues were brought home. We used to be able to shrug off the news of civil liberties being infringed and say, “that’s just someone else.” With so much going on in all our lives we exemplified how easy it is to say nothing. Until they came for us. This past week the danger was made clear. Our civil liberties are threatened. And when we say “our”, we mean yours too.
—Matt Cleinman ‘06 and Eli Zigas ‘06
The only “discovery” students will experience at the new Technology Discovery Center will be the lack of students who can use it.
With over $15,000 of special funds provided by President Osgood, Grinnell ITS has invested in a glorified computer lab which only students with permission from faculty and working on academic projects may use.
What kind of resources will this lab have? Here’s a partial list:
-A $150 orb which changes color depending on the stock market.
-A $1,500 50 inch plasma TV screen with touch-screen capabilities at additional costs.
-Several wireless-enabled, notebook Tablet PCs. 2-3K a piece.
-Several 20GB iPods.
-Wireless monitor displays.
-Rollable keyboards.
-Pens that can record one’s handwriting.
-Several Wacom tablets.
Although the center contains wonderful and cool technology, the academic usefulness is almost nil. No one needs to type a paper using a 50 inch plasma screen, and using an iPod, a glorified music player, for practicing foreign languages is less cost-efficient than using a regular computer.
The worse part is students are not allowed access to the TDC except for academic projects with permission of a faculty member. In other words, for the most part you can’t use it.
This is an incredible waste of resources. Rather than spending the resources on things that benefit the campus, the college chooses to play “follow-the-leader.” The Technology Discovery Center arises from what other universities are doing. In my view, here are some things I’ve talked about for the last three years that would be better to do:
-Investing in more 24-hour dorm labs instead of labs that aren’t always open and are less accessible.
-Investigating alternative operating systems such as Linux for dorm labs to gain lower maintenance costs and speed improvements.
-Embracing alternative webmail service for web-based access (such as the one demonstrated at http://www.grinnell.edu/academic/gil/). There are students whose programs are offered in each semester and who have not been asked to switch from the Spring semester to the Fall semester. Even if they are asked to change semesters in the future, we were still not given the appropriate priority. They should have been asked to move before the cancellation of our program was even discussed. What is the purpose of these handbooks if the administration can disregard their own policies out of convenience?
If, on the other hand, we were moved because the Grinnell-in-London Fall program was somewhat under enrolled, then we should not be punished. The problem of under enrollment should be addressed in future years, but it is outrageous and unacceptable to cancel a program that students have already applied for because a different program received fewer than the expected number of applicants. In an era of Grinnell when millions upon millions are being spent for admission centers and additional housing, will the lack of tuition from a few students in the GIL fall program really make a significant difference?
If the financial aspect were the most significant reason for assigning us to the Fall program, then there are a variety of other solutions to this problem. From what little factual information we have been able to gather, the number of applicants for the fall and spring for next year are 13 and 14 students respectively. The numbers of students involved in GIL this year in the fall and spring are 19 and 12 respectively. If perhaps there are two or three students who are willing to switch to the fall for next year, then neither program would be under enrolled and there would be no financial problem for the college. This is only one of many practical solutions that achieve the goals of all involved and yet the administration refuses to evaluate any of them seriously.
The method by which the administration has handled this situation is severely lacking. Aside from the ludicrous practice of canceling programs without consulting the program directors, the administrations’ total disregard for students’ academic interest, planning and future is inexcusable. That we were able to succeed at Grinnell should tell something about our abilities to think critically; in spite of this, the administration seems to think that we are so gullible and lack so much resolve that we would unquestionably accept their inconsistent explanations for why GIL Spring was cancelled. The e-mail that we received from Richard Bright included sugarcoated statements like “GIL in the fall will now offer similar opportunities for internships and even more course options than were available in the spring.” However, we did not apply for the GIL Spring program simply by chance. Many of the applicants are history majors and have no interest in the classes being offered in the fall program. To put it bluntly, if we had wanted to experience all the so call advantages of the fall program, then we would have applied for it. Perhaps if these were truly advantages, more people would have applied for the fall program in the first place. The adding of a shortened internship opportunity does not change the fact that the administration has taken away our right to select the off-campus program of our choice. Mr. Bright also states in his e-mail that the “primary difference for [us] is that [we] will be studying off campus in the fall semester rather than the spring.” This statement is misleading and contradicts the repeated warnings found throughout the Grinnell-in-London website that the GIL “Fall and Spring programs are significantly different” (http://www.grinnell.edu/academic/gil/).
At the very least we would like the opportunity to speak with whoever decided to cancel our abroad program. However, our goal is the reinstatement of the Grinnell-in-London Spring program for 2005.
—David Schwartz ‘06, Tony Romero ‘06 and Ben Jacobs ‘06
Since the Student Academic Computing Committee’s (SACC) student initiative last semester showed that students are clearly interested in accessing music legally, SACC has been investigating options that would protect students and Grinnell College from litigation from record labels based on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Clearly Napster seems like a possible solution for Windows users. However, there was miscommunication among SACC members. Although SACC has never received a quote from Napster, SACC is not currently considering supporting any service from Napster. Additionally, SACC does not singly blame file sharing programs for viruses and spyware on computers running Windows.
We deeply regret any confusion caused by the article in last week’s S&B. The SACC’s mission is to ensure productive, easy, secure and widespread use of technology resources on campus. Please email SACC with any concerns about this issue, or other technology related questions.
—Student Academic Computing Committee
The headline "G-Tones of the Caribbean" of the Feb 6 article about the G-Tones visit to the Bahamas is inaccurate as the Bahamas are not actually part of the Caribbean.
—Jonathan Kensler ‘04
Editor’s note: Although the Bahamas are not in the Caribbean sea, some sources consider the Bahamas part of the Caribbean as they are close both culturally and geographically. The headline was suggested by our dear graphics editor who happens to be a member of the G-Tones.
Arts | News | Opinion | Special Section | Sports | Archives | About Us