E.g. Student Gov't Project.
Gus Teschke
[]
In the wake of President Reagan's statements against terrorism,
on 4 Febuary, the primary student government here at the University of
Michigan (Michigan Student Assembly) passed a resolution to place a
question on the ballot of the next student government election. If
passed, it asks the administration to bar any group from recruiting on
campus if it supports international terrorism.
It's not hard to figure out who this is aimed at: the CIA. The CIA,
with its well-known record for overthrowing elected governments,
murder, and torture, has attempted to recruit here for the last few
years, but has been met consistently with protests. They cancelled
their last visit in January because of student pressure, saying they
didn't need to come. This was revealed to be a lie when several
students were contacted later by a prof known to support the CIA -- no
matter what it does -- and asked if they wanted interviews with the
CIA.
UofM already requires that all corporations sign a pledge that they are
participating in affirmative action programs, as well as being solvent,
honest, etc., so the terrorism pledge isn't without precedent. A
committee of 3 faculty, 3 administrators, and 3 student will formulate
policy and monitor compliance if everything is approved.
I hope it is.
I post this in the hope that other student governments might be inspired
to do something similar.
Gus Teschke
..!ihnp4!umich!gt
L. Frear
> In the wake of President Reagan's statements against terrorism,
> on 4 Febuary, the primary student government here at the University of
> Michigan (Michigan Student Assembly) passed a resolution to place a
> question on the ballot of the next student government election. If
> passed, it asks the administration to bar any group from recruiting on
> campus if it supports international terrorism.
>
> It's not hard to figure out who this is aimed at: the CIA.
> I post this in the hope that other student governments might be inspired
> to do something similar.
> Gus Teschke
> ..!ihnp4!umich!gt
I think once again the MSA (Michigan Student Assembly) is getting out of
line. Someone please cut off their allowance!!!!!!!!
Just because a handful of students don't like an organization doesn't mean
they should bar that organization from campus. Look, Gus, some people
want to work for the CIA. They want "exciting" work with the newest toys.
They want to be James Bond or whatever. Or they need the job, and don't
have the same moral/political views as the MSA.
Before I catch any flack, I would like to say that I could NEVER do
military work, for the government or a corporation. I find it
morally unacceptable. Fortunately, I didn't have to take such a job.
Many graduates do. (If you don't work, you don't eat.) I personally
know a few fellow engineers who got offers only from defense contractors
or the NSA -- BECAUSE OTHER INDUSTRIES WANTED GRADS WITH HIGHER
GRADEPOINTS. These guys were good at what they did. Two of them
had a lot of relevant work experience (that's why their gpa's where low--
iydw,yde)
This is too long already, so I'll stop. After I note that as a member
of the alumi association, I'll be trying to get the U to stop wasting
students' precious cash on the MSA.
--
Lori Frear
ihnp4!ihnp3!frear
GO BLUE!!!!!!!
(or don't bother going at all)
Bosnak
> line. Someone please cut off their allowance!!!!!!!!
>
> Just because a handful of students don't like an organization doesn't mean
> they should bar that organization from campus. Look, Gus, some people
> want to work for the CIA. They want "exciting" work with the newest toys.
> They want to be James Bond or whatever. Or they need the job, and don't
> have the same moral/political views as the MSA.
> of the alumi association, I'll be trying to get the U to stop wasting
> students' precious cash on the MSA.
> --
>
>
>
> Lori Frear
> ihnp4!ihnp3!frear
>
> GO BLUE!!!!!!!
> (or don't bother going at all)
to freedom of choice!
I believe a person going to college is capable of making a decision
about where they want to work after college. Does the MSA believe
everyone at U of M feels the same way about the CIA? I have
been reading the net for quite a long time and this is the first
time I felt it was necessary to put in my two cents. Lets allow
the decision of employement be made by the individual students;
not dictated by the MSA.
Laurie Donahue
Another Michigan Alumni
Clayton Cramer
> > In the wake of President Reagan's statements against terrorism,
> > on 4 Febuary, the primary student government here at the University of
> > Michigan (Michigan Student Assembly) passed a resolution to place a
> > question on the ballot of the next student government election. If
> > passed, it asks the administration to bar any group from recruiting on
> > campus if it supports international terrorism.
> >
> > It's not hard to figure out who this is aimed at: the CIA.
> > ......
> > I post this in the hope that other student governments might be inspired
> > to do something similar.
> > Gus Teschke
> > ..!ihnp4!umich!gt
>
> I think once again the MSA (Michigan Student Assembly) is getting out of
> line. Someone please cut off their allowance!!!!!!!!
>
>
> ihnp4!ihnp3!frear
>
Speaking of allowances, I hope those progressive sorts in Michigan decide
to ban ALL parts of the U.S. Government from recruiting because of the
CIA (just to be consistent, of course). Can you picture our progressive
friends trying to keep the REST of the Federal Government's agencies from
hiring on campus? Can you picture those students refusing Federally
guaranteed student loans, Federal grants, Federal funds to the University
itself? Of course not.
"He who pays the piper, calls the tune."
John R. Rosenberg
> > I think once again the MSA (Michigan Student Assembly) is getting out of
> > line. Someone please cut off their allowance!!!!!!!!
> >
> > Just because a handful of students don't like an organization doesn't mean
> > they should bar that organization from campus.
> > This is too long already, so I'll stop. After I note that as a member
> > of the alumi association, I'll be trying to get the U to stop wasting
> > students' precious cash on the MSA.
> > --
> > Lori Frear
> > ihnp4!ihnp3!frear
> >
> > GO BLUE!!!!!!!
> > (or don't bother going at all)
> I agree 100 percent with Lori's posting. What ever happened
> to freedom of choice!
>
> I believe a person going to college is capable of making a decision
> about where they want to work after college. Does the MSA believe
> everyone at U of M feels the same way about the CIA?
>
> Another Michigan Alumni
As yet another U of M alumnus, I'll add my two cents. The Michigan
Student Assembly thinks that they represent and lead the opinions
of an overwhelming majority of students on the Ann Arbor campus.
Well, it just isn't so. It is rare that MSA elections draw more
than 10 percent of the student body out to vote. So assuming that
a victorious candidate wins with 51% of the total vote, what it really
means is that only 5% of some 40,000 students elected this person.
Note exactly the popular mandate that MSA would have everyone believe.
You could say that a 10% voter turnout reflects student apathy. Well,
in a way it does, but the real root of the problem is that most
are disgusted with the self-righteous overbearing self-importance
that the MSA embodies. Nobody cares. Period.
So to bring this back around to the original point...
So what if MSA brought pressure to bear and caused the CIA to
officially leave campus. The pressure is empty, the MSA doesn't
represent the will of the people. If people feel strongly about
a CIA presence on campus, the number of interviewees will be
accordingly small. If people don't care, then the number will be
average. If people approve, they will be swamped with people
who want to work for the CIA. The same thing happens already with the
so-called 'kill-ratio' companies (those in the defense industry).
I know quite a few people who would not interview with recruiters
from McDonald Douglas or Northrop etc because of the possibility of
working on a defense-related project that would go against their
personal convictions. No problem. There are some people who want
to work in those areas. The MSA seems to have a problem with that.
People elected by 5% of the student body want to restrict the
rights of all of the student body by saying who should and should
not be allowed on campus to interview. Sounds questionable to
me...at best. At worst, smacks a little of dictatorship.
<Enter Sarcasm Mode>
And from an 'elected' 'government' too. My My My.
<End Sarcasm Mode>
As Lori Frear says...
Go Blue
(or don't bother going at all)
John Rosenberg AT&T-NS
ihnp4!ih1un!johnnyr
Andrew S. Gerber
>> I think once again the MSA (Michigan Student Assembly) is getting out of
>> line. Someone please cut off their allowance!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Just because a handful of students don't like an organization doesn't mean
>> they should bar that organization from campus. Look, Gus, some people
>> want to work for the CIA. They want "exciting" work with the newest toys.
>> They want to be James Bond or whatever. Or they need the job, and don't
>> have the same moral/political views as the MSA.
>> ...
>I agree 100 percent with Lori's posting. What ever happened
>to freedom of choice!
>
What about the CIA's discrimination against homosexuals? I'm not sure
about the situation now, but for many years they refused to hire gays
becasue of a Catch-22 type of argument -- becasue gays were scared of
having their sexual preference revealed, they would be a security
risk. And the reason in the first place that they couldn't be open
about their sexual preference is becasue they couldn't get the job in
the first place unless they lied about it!
On the form that MIT has prospective employers sign, it says "By my
signature here I promise that my company does not hire on the basis of
color, religion,... sexual orientation... etc." The CIA signs this.
The goddman Air Force signs this. I know -- I've seen the
signatures!! How can MIT let these employers interview on campus when
they blatently do not follow the guidelines which they have agreed to
when they interview.
If the CIA, the Air Force, etc, want MIT students, they should either
hire according to MIT's rules on non-discrimination, or be REFUSED the
services of the career planning and placement office. They can
recruit off campus.
I believe every student should have the opportunity to interview with
any company he/she wants to work with. I also think this should work
BOTH WAYS -- any qualified student should be able to be considered for
any job which is offered by a company that interviews on campus.
Personally, I don't care about what the particular company does, (CIA
activities in Central America, etc), I care about their hireing practices.
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Andrew S. Gerber MIT '87 Systems Manager, Visible Language Workshop |
| ger...@mit-amt.MIT.EDU, ger...@mit-mc.lcs.mit.edu |
| UUCP: decvax!mit-eddie!mit-amt!gerber decvax!mit-eddie}mit-athena!gerber |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Gus Teschke
>In article <4...@umich.UUCP>, g...@umich.UUCP (Gus Teschke) writes:
>I think once again the MSA (Michigan Student Assembly) is getting out of
>line. Someone please cut off their allowance!!!!!!!!
Perhaps you have the wrong idea about what MSA did. It passed a resolution
to put a question before the students for a vote. The question was: should
any organization that supports or engages in terrorism be allowed to recruit
at the University of Michigan using UofM facilities? If the students reply
no, then the administration may, but doesn't have to, set up a committee
to define terrorism and monitor the groups recruiting at UofM. The committee
is composed of 3 administrators, 3 faculty, and 3 students.
Note that currently any group that does not sign an affirmative action
pledge cannot recruit, nor can any corporations that have taken advantage
of students (like not paid them).
>Just because a handful of students don't like an organization doesn't mean
>they should bar that organization from campus.
Lori, I'm not talking about the Young Republicans or the Chess Club. The
CIA isn't merely unpleasant. They engage in ILLEGAL and IMMORAL
activities, things like overthrowing elected governments (Guatemala
1954, Iran 195?, Chile 1973, still trying with Nicaragua), torture, and
murder. There are numerous reports and I will provide references on
request. If they were on trial at something like the Nuremburg trials
after WW II, some of the CIA decision-makers would likely be HANGED.
WHAT does a group have to do before you decide it should be opposed?
>Look, Gus, some people
>want to work for the CIA. They want "exciting" work with the newest toys.
>They want to be James Bond or whatever. Or they need the job, and don't
>have the same moral/political views as the MSA.
So? Let them be recruited off campus. No one is stopping anyone from
interviewing with the CIA, or working for the CIA. We are just trying
to say that any organization that supports terrorism CANNOT use the
UofM facilities to interview students. It's one way to show that we
don't support or ignore what the CIA does. Part of a university's
function, and thus student government, is to criticize society, and
this seems to be a valid (if toothless) way of publicly showing that
UofM opposes the violation of some of the most sacred principles on
which the U.S. was founded, and apply a little public pressure on the
CIA.
>Before I catch any flack, I would like to say that I could NEVER do
>military work, for the government or a corporation. I find it
>morally unacceptable.
A rather confusing morality, to me.
>Fortunately, I didn't have to take such a job.
>Many graduates do. (If you don't work, you don't eat.) I personally
>know a few fellow engineers who got offers only from defense contractors
>or the NSA -- BECAUSE OTHER INDUSTRIES WANTED GRADS WITH HIGHER
>GRADEPOINTS. These guys were good at what they did. Two of them
>had a lot of relevant work experience (that's why their gpa's where low--
>iydw,yde)
As I said, they can still work for the CIA. And you're saying that the CIA
gets the people everyone else rejects? Hmmm.
>This is too long already, so I'll stop. After I note that as a member
>of the alumi association, I'll be trying to get the U to stop wasting
>students' precious cash on the MSA.
I wish I could get the government to stop wasting BILLIONS on the CIA's
outrages. Note that they are also cutting student aid, Lori, but you
don't seem too concerned about that.
> Lori Frear
> ihnp4!ihnp3!frear
>
> GO BLUE!!!!!!!
> (or don't bother going at all)
Did you ever do any work in student government, or did you just go to
football games?
Gus Teschke
ihnp4!umich!gt
Gus Teschke
writes:
>I agree 100 percent with Lori's posting. What ever happened
>to freedom of choice!
Freedom of choice has never been absolute. You don't have the choice to
murder people, to take an extreme example.
>I believe a person going to college is capable of making a decision
>about where they want to work after college.
I hope so.
>Does the MSA believe everyone at U of M feels the same way about the CIA?
No, that's why it's a referendum. But I can't imagine people voting FOR
terrorism.
>I have
>been reading the net for quite a long time and this is the first
>time I felt it was necessary to put in my two cents. Lets allow
>the decision of employement be made by the individual students;
>not dictated by the MSA.
> Laurie Donahue
> Another Michigan Alumni
You miss the point. Future CIA employees are not doomed to work at
McDonald's for the rest of their lives even if the referendum passes
and the administration heeds it. The idea is that if you know
something immoral and illegal is happening, like terrorism, you don't
ignore it or support it, either directly or indirectly. You fight it.
One small way to do this is to deny any group that supports terrorism,
like the CIA, access to UofM recruiting facilities. It is a public
statement against terrorism, and ANY group that engages in it, EVEN if
you happen to want to work for them. They can still recruit UofM
students off campus. They could even buy UofM!
Isn't this a logical outcome of the moral and intellectual development
a university is supposed to foster? (Is that a loaded question or what?)
Gus Teschke
Yet Another Michigan Alum
ihnp4!umich!gt
Barry Shein
>Just because a handful of students don't like an organization doesn't mean
>want to work for the CIA. They want "exciting" work with the newest toys.
>They want to be James Bond or whatever. Or they need the job, and don't
>have the same moral/political views as the MSA.
>
>military work, for the government or a corporation. I find it
>morally unacceptable.
Amazing, I find this astounding, it's morally unacceptable but 'live
and let live'. Sorry, I grew up in the '60s', list 10 other things
you find 'morally unacceptable' (rape, incest, murder), do you hold
the same views? Courage of conviction is really not an unhealthy
thing, don't worry, your opponents can take care of themselves (in
this case, boy can they ever!)
It is not irrational for someone who finds something unacceptable
to try to stop that behavior.
...oooh, nuclear bombs...I don't like them...but if they want them...
who am I to say???....
Look, you probably find it morally unacceptable because those people
kill people for questionable political gain, deal in international
drug smuggling (yes, the CIA was caught with it's hand in this pot,
look into the congressional and Department of Justice findings about
the CIA and its dealings in Cambodia with the Montagnards I believe,
they were supplying safe smuggling of heroin to keep them 'friendly')
support with violence dictatorships around the world and do not from
the top down answer directly to the voters (or barely anyone else if
you can believe some of the reports like congress trying to cut their
budget only to have the Air Force replace the missing funds etc.)
I mean, we're not talking harmless issues here. Whether true or not
those are the kinds of things people are protesting, I suspect they
are largely true and sadly being done in our name.
I know, those that don't want to believe will use the easy argument
'substantiate', forget it, go look it all up, it's been substantiated
over and over again, you're just being a blind idealogue if you think
the CIA has not been involved in some pretty morally reprehensible
things, even right wingers in Congress aren't that naive, at best they
choose to turn their heads.
There are limits to freedom (what do they say? the price of freedom
is eternal vigilance, that means sometimes you have to take a stand
and say 'that is wrong, stop that').
I for one commend the students for taking a stand, even if you disagree
with it it's a heck of a lot better than apathy and confusion.
-Barry Shein, Boston University
Barry Shein
>Speaking of allowances, I hope those progressive sorts in Michigan decide
>to ban ALL parts of the U.S. Government from recruiting because of the
>CIA (just to be consistent, of course). Can you picture our progressive
>friends trying to keep the REST of the Federal Government's agencies from
>hiring on campus? Can you picture those students refusing Federally
>guaranteed student loans, Federal grants, Federal funds to the University
>itself? Of course not.
therefore, following your argument, citizens should not in any way
protest or question their government's actions or any agency thereof
unless they are ready to reject the entire government and all benifits
derived. Gee, I know some totalitarian govs that would love to have you!
You'd be a model citizen.
Look, these reductio ad absurdum arguments just make you sound silly,
a citizen has a right (maybe a duty) to question and, if need be,
protest the actions of their government in a democracy, the opposition
has a right to defend itself and somewhere out of that competition
should come consensus. Why are people right of center so uncomfortable
with this, tending to prefer blind, silent obedience? I find it very
disturbing. Express your views, even put some pressure on your opponents
within some sense of fair play (which in politics stops somewhere around
assassination, not denying access to the privilige of utilizing career
centers.) It's ok, that sort of discordance is what this country is
all about. It makes people feel more comfortable with the outcomes they
end up having to live with, at least their viewpoint was given a chance
to be considered and perhaps rejected, but not for lack or fear of trying.
-Barry Shein, Boston University
Ken Arromdee
>In <7...@ihlpm.UUCP> From: le...@ihlpm.UUCP (Bosnak) (actually Laurie Donahue)
>writes:
>
>No, that's why it's a referendum. But I can't imagine people voting FOR
>terrorism.
Nobody supports terrorism, but it is possible to not support terrorism and
still support the CIA, if you don't believe the CIA supports terrorism.
Like it or not, it is a legitimate political position to believe that the CIA
does not support terrorism.
This referendum sounds a lot to me as if someone had made a referendum asking
if the students support the sanctity of human life. Who doesn't support the
sanctity of human life? Therefore the referendum passes, but after it's over,
a committee is formed that not surprisingly forbids all pro-abortion groups
from any activities on campus.
Just substitute "don't support terrorism" for "support the sanctity of human
life" and "the CIA" for "pro-abortion groups". What's happening in both cases
is that a referendum is taken on a general principle that everyone believes in,
but in fact the principle is a code word for something that NOT everyone
believes in.
--
"We are going to give a little something, a few little years more, to
socialism, because socialism is defunct. It dies all by iself. The bad thing
is that socialism, being a victim of its... Did I say socialism?" -Fidel Castro
Kenneth Arromdee
BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS
CSNET: ins_...@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhu...@hopkins.ARPA
UUCP: ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa
Darrah Chavey
> > > line. Someone please cut off their allowance!!!!!!!!
> > >
> > > they should bar that organization from campus.
> > I agree 100 percent with Lori's posting. What ever happened
> > to freedom of choice!
> > everyone at U of M feels the same way about the CIA?
>
> Student Assembly thinks that they represent and lead the opinions
> of an overwhelming majority of students on the Ann Arbor campus.
> Well, it just isn't so. It is rare that MSA elections draw more
> than 10 percent of the student body out to vote.
As yet another U of M alumni, I wish to speak in favor of the MSA having
the right to attempt to ban the CIA from campus. I doubt that almost any
major campus has student government elections that get more than 10% voting
attendance. We certainly don't get that much at the Univ. of Wisconsin.
A 10% sample of such a large sample space would be considered representative
under almost any circumstances (except by people who disagree with the
decision). Pollsters make do with much less than that. Hence I think the MSA
has the right to view themselves as a representative body, and to proceed under
those assumptions.
As to the actual banning of the CIA, it is not a matter of restricting a
students choice of whom to work for. Banning recruiting on campus does not
prevent the students from seeking out employers they wish to work for.
It seems reasonable that a college should have the right to forbid at least
certain kinds of recruiting. Although we may have to allow the Moonies, the
IRA, the Nazis, and similar groups the right to speak on campus, I don't think
the University should be required to give them rooms and give implicit approval
of such organizations. With a little thought, I suspect most of us can think
of several groups that we would not want to allow recruiting priveleges on
campus. The only question is where to draw the line. The CIA has engaged
in several illegal activities, activities that Congress had forbidden to them.
Some people think that the activities of the CIA are onerous enough to place
them in the same category as the above mentioned groups. Others of us disagree.
Nevertheless, this is not a case of black and white; attempting to ban one
group from campus recruiting based on their illegal activities is something
that most of us could agree with in at least some incarnations. As the only
reasonable representative of the student body that there is, the MSA has the
right to attempt to decide where this line should be drawn.
SEVENER
> Nobody supports terrorism, but it is possible to not support terrorism and
> still support the CIA, if you don't believe the CIA supports terrorism.
> Like it or not, it is a legitimate political position to believe that the CIA
> does not support terrorism.
>
> This referendum sounds a lot to me as if someone had made a referendum asking
> if the students support the sanctity of human life. Who doesn't support the
> sanctity of human life? Therefore the referendum passes, but after it's over,
> a committee is formed that not surprisingly forbids all pro-abortion groups
> from any activities on campus.
>
> Just substitute "don't support terrorism" for "support the sanctity of human
> life" and "the CIA" for "pro-abortion groups". What's happening in both cases
> is that a referendum is taken on a general principle that everyone believes in,
> but in fact the principle is a code word for something that NOT everyone
> believes in.
>
I think it is quite firmly established that the CIA supports terrorism.
I refer you to the testimony of Edgar Chamoro, a former director of
the contras, whom I have quoted in the past. Another former contra,
one of Eden Pastora's supporters, has voiced sentiments similar to
Edgar Chamoro. There is interesting testimony in the latest Progressive
from a member of the Salvadoran armed forces on his training in
"interrogation" techniques by American advisers.
Congress several years ago banned aid to Latin American police forces
because it had been proved that it was being used to train forces
like El Salvador's Death Squads in Brazil, and throughout Latin America.
On the other hand, your second point has some merit. Rather than
simply *BAN* groups which are not liked (as Catholic University banned
Eleanor Smeal because she is pro-choice) it is better to demonstrate
*why* they should not be liked. Freedom of speech is as vital to
the University as to other institutions. But more speech is always
preferable to less. (unless you're trying to sleep - like the great
American electorate at this time!)
tim sevener whuxn!orb
Clayton Cramer
> >Speaking of allowances, I hope those progressive sorts in Michigan decide
> >to ban ALL parts of the U.S. Government from recruiting because of the
> >CIA (just to be consistent, of course). Can you picture our progressive
> >friends trying to keep the REST of the Federal Government's agencies from
> >hiring on campus? Can you picture those students refusing Federally
> >guaranteed student loans, Federal grants, Federal funds to the University
> >itself? Of course not.
>
> therefore, following your argument, citizens should not in any way
> protest or question their government's actions or any agency thereof
> unless they are ready to reject the entire government and all benifits
> derived. Gee, I know some totalitarian govs that would love to have you!
> You'd be a model citizen.
>
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. If the opposition is to
terrorist organizations, and you define CIA as a terrorist organization
(a point I wouldn't argue with you about), you should be consistent and
get the rest of the governmental apparatus that CIA is part of as far from
you as possible. But that would hurt, so most progressives start to make
minor distinctions between "good" parts of the government and "bad" parts
of the government.
If you really believe in democracy, that means you need to be willing to
go along with democratic decisions ONCE THEY ARE MADE. If you believe that
freedom is more important than democracy (as I do), there's no reason to
go along with the majority view -- just don't pretend you believe in
democracy.
> Look, these reductio ad absurdum arguments just make you sound silly,
> a citizen has a right (maybe a duty) to question and, if need be,
> protest the actions of their government in a democracy, the opposition
> has a right to defend itself and somewhere out of that competition
> should come consensus. Why are people right of center so uncomfortable
> with this, tending to prefer blind, silent obedience? I find it very
> disturbing. Express your views, even put some pressure on your opponents
> within some sense of fair play (which in politics stops somewhere around
> assassination, not denying access to the privilige of utilizing career
> centers.) It's ok, that sort of discordance is what this country is
> all about. It makes people feel more comfortable with the outcomes they
> end up having to live with, at least their viewpoint was given a chance
> to be considered and perhaps rejected, but not for lack or fear of trying.
>
> -Barry Shein, Boston University
I'm not looking for blind obedience -- I'm a firm believer in violent
overthrow of the U.S. Government. What I object is the hypocrisy of
supporting unlimited democracy on the small scale (MSA prohibiting CIA
recruiting on campus) while opposing it on the large scale (the foreign
policy of the United State).
Clayton Cramer
> the right to attempt to ban the CIA from campus. I doubt that almost any
> major campus has student government elections that get more than 10% voting
> attendance. We certainly don't get that much at the Univ. of Wisconsin.
> A 10% sample of such a large sample space would be considered representative
> under almost any circumstances (except by people who disagree with the
> decision). Pollsters make do with much less than that. Hence I think the MSA
> has the right to view themselves as a representative body, and to proceed under
> those assumptions.
>
A pollster uses a REPRESENTATIVE sample of the general population to make
estimates of general public opinion. The 10% that vote on my college
campuses are disproportionately political, and my impression is they are
strongly disproportionately leftist. Who does MSA speak for? I would
be very skeptical that they speak for anything but a small chunk of the
students.
> As to the actual banning of the CIA, it is not a matter of restricting a
> students choice of whom to work for. Banning recruiting on campus does not
> prevent the students from seeking out employers they wish to work for.
> It seems reasonable that a college should have the right to forbid at least
> certain kinds of recruiting. Although we may have to allow the Moonies, the
> IRA, the Nazis, and similar groups the right to speak on campus, I don't think
> the University should be required to give them rooms and give implicit approval
> of such organizations. With a little thought, I suspect most of us can think
> of several groups that we would not want to allow recruiting priveleges on
> campus. The only question is where to draw the line. The CIA has engaged
> in several illegal activities, activities that Congress had forbidden to them.
> Some people think that the activities of the CIA are onerous enough to place
> them in the same category as the above mentioned groups. Others of us disagree.
Except the CIA is a part of the government that PAYS THE BILLS! Show your
real independence of the CIA and the rest of the evil institution! Refuse
their money. Or would that hurt too much?
> Nevertheless, this is not a case of black and white; attempting to ban one
> group from campus recruiting based on their illegal activities is something
> that most of us could agree with in at least some incarnations. As the only
> reasonable representative of the student body that there is, the MSA has the
> right to attempt to decide where this line should be drawn.
You seem to be saying, "There's no real student government, so the only
people around interested in calling themselves that will make the decisions
for the rest." Lenin would be so proud!
Richard Harter
>
>Except the CIA is a part of the government that PAYS THE BILLS! Show your
>real independence of the CIA and the rest of the evil institution! Refuse
>their money. Or would that hurt too much?
>
would make this kind of statement. It is not, my friend, the government
that pays the bills -- it is you and I and all of the other taxpayers that
pays the bills. The government, in its infinite goodness, has lifted the
money from your pocket with one hand and returned it with the other (taking
a percentage in the process.) When they hand it back they tell you what
you can do with your money that they are giving you.
Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.
L. Frear
Bcc:
Oh, geez, here we go with the sentence-by-sentence breakdown of
who-said-what. Look Gus, how about you guys in the MSA trying
to get more companies to recruit on campus. Seems like a better
deal for the students. I know a lot of people who graduated
in my class (May 85) who don't have jobs yet. And yes, they are
trying. Some of them are ce's and cs people, so it's not just
a poor choice of majors.
And, sorry Gus, football games are more fun when you stay home
and your roomies go ;-). I did not get into student goverment--
it's like PIRGM, it sucks money/time that I didn't have. Besides,
if the CIA is sooo terrible (and I'm not saying it isn't) then none
of our alums would interview with them (no matter how desperate the alums
were) and the CIA wouldn't bother to come back. Do you propose to
not let defense contractor interview on campus because they build
bombs etc? I protested by refusing to interview with them. I
don't want them banned--there are other people who feel differently
(patriotic maybe?) and they have the right to interview with whomever
they wish. And it's really hard to interview with some one who
doesn't come to campus. At least it was for this broke, pedestrian
engineer.
Perhaps, if no one joins us, we can go off line?
--
Generic Disclaimer--Bell Labs may own my inventions, but these
are my opinions.
Lori Frear
EMAIL ihnp4!ihnp1!frear
SNAIL AT&T Bell Labs
IH 1b223
Naperville, IL 60566
PHONE 312/979-3609
suh...@kodak.uucp
> > the right to attempt to ban the CIA from campus. I doubt that almost any
> > major campus has student government elections that get more than 10% voting
> > attendance. We certainly don't get that much at the Univ. of Wisconsin.
> > A 10% sample of such a large sample space would be considered representative
> > under almost any circumstances (except by people who disagree with the
> > decision). Pollsters make do with much less than that. Hence I think the MSA
> > has the right to view themselves as a representative body, and to proceed under
> > those assumptions.
> >
>
> A pollster uses a REPRESENTATIVE sample of the general population to make
> estimates of general public opinion. The 10% that vote on my college
> campuses are disproportionately political, and my impression is they are
> strongly disproportionately leftist. Who does MSA speak for? I would
> be very skeptical that they speak for anything but a small chunk of the
> students.
>
The sampling may in fact be disproportionately political and leftist but
everyone else had a chance to speak and chose not to. Their reasons are
their own but I would guess apathy is probably the biggest reason. Who does
MSA speak for? It looks to me like they speak for those who have something
to say and are willing to say it. The big question is why is everyone else
quiet?
Ken Arromdee
>> still support the CIA, if you don't believe the CIA supports terrorism.
>> Like it or not, it is a legitimate political position to believe that the CIA
>> is that a referendum is taken on a general principle that everyone believes in,
>> but in fact the principle is a code word for something that NOT everyone
>> believes in.
>I think it is quite firmly established that the CIA supports terrorism.
So what? It's still a legitimate political position to not think so. The
people who take that position may be wrong, but that has no effect on my
argument.
>On the other hand, your second point has some merit. Rather than
>simply *BAN* groups which are not liked (as Catholic University banned
>Eleanor Smeal because she is pro-choice) it is better to demonstrate
>*why* they should not be liked.
> tim sevener whuxn!orb
If a vote was taken among a representative section of the student body, asking
if the students believed both 1) that the CIA supports terrorism and 2) that
that groups supporting terrorism, including the CIA, should be
barred from campus, I could accept that. But from
what has been said on the net, that seems not to be the case. Rather, the
question is worded in such a way as not to mention the CIA, and people
who don't believe the CIA supports terrorism would answer "yes" to the
question, said "yes" votes then being used to claim that students want the CIA
off campus, when in fact those particular "yes" votes mean nothing of the sort.
Brent Chapman
>
>As yet another U of M alumni, I wish to speak in favor of the MSA having
>the right to attempt to ban the CIA from campus. I doubt that almost any
>major campus has student government elections that get more than 10% voting
>attendance. We certainly don't get that much at the Univ. of Wisconsin.
>A 10% sample of such a large sample space would be considered representative
>under almost any circumstances (except by people who disagree with the
>decision). Pollsters make do with much less than that. Hence I think the MSA
>has the right to view themselves as a representative body, and to proceed under
>those assumptions.
But consider WHICH 10% votes: the 10% that have an opinion or an interest.
That means that 90% of the people JUST DON'T CARE! And I don't blame them!
We've got other things to worry about, like the problem set that's due
tomorrow, the midterm next week, the term project we haven't even LOOKED at
yet, (sound familiar?) ...
10% may be a very good sample IF the rest of the body can be assumed to have
roughly the same characteristics in the same proportions as the sample,
which is DEFINITELY not the case in elections.
Enough. I'm probably going to get flamed royally about this, but what the
hey? After all, I'm at Berkeley, and such things are sort of expected
around here... :-)
Brent Chapman
ucbvax!miro!chapman
Tony Wuersch
>>I think it is quite firmly established that the CIA supports terrorism.
>
>So what? It's still a legitimate political position to not think so. The
>people who take that position may be wrong, but that has no effect on my
>argument.
I fail to see what "legitimate" means here. In the world of 1984, it's
legitimate to think that Big Brother believes in peace. Whether the
CIA does or does not support terrorism is an ascertainable fact, not
a matter for democratic vote. If the Libyan population voted that
Khadafi was not involved in terrorism, how would that change anything?
>If a vote was taken among a representative section of the student body, asking
>if the students believed both 1) that the CIA supports terrorism and 2) that
>that groups supporting terrorism, including the CIA, should be
>barred from campus, I could accept that. But from
>what has been said on the net, that seems not to be the case. Rather, the
>question is worded in such a way as not to mention the CIA, and people
>who don't believe the CIA supports terrorism would answer "yes" to the
>question, said "yes" votes then being used to claim that students want the CIA
>off campus, when in fact those particular "yes" votes mean nothing of the sort.
To add the CIA as a specific example adds nothing to such a resolution.
It doesn't sound to me like "yes" votes are being used to claim that
students want the CIA off campus. It does sound to me like "yes" votes
are being used to claim that terrorists should not recruit on campus.
The point of resolutions like these are to get people to vote on general
principles. Once that's done, the work is to see those principles carried
out.
>
>Kenneth Arromdee
>BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS
>CSNET: ins_...@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhu...@hopkins.ARPA
>UUCP: ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa
Tony Wuersch
{amdcad!cae780,amd}!ubvax!tonyw
johnb@trsvax
If you are going to ban the CIA because you object to their
activities then you might as well ban the following from
your campus:
The United States Air Force, ROTC, Navy, Army, Marines.
You also might as well ban any company that is responsible
for any kind of pollution or toxic waste.
Why not ban automobile companies from your campus, they
are responsible for a great waste of natural resources
and carbon monoxide never did anyone any good.
Don't forget defense contractors, oil companies (if you don't
like the CIA then you must hate oil slicks also), nuclear
industries (might as well ban all utility companies).
Chemical industries (chemicals can be more dangerous than the CIA)
How about alcohol and tobacco industries?
The list could be endless.
One of the best things about college is you have all types there,
from the CIA to Save the Seals. Each one has an equal right to
be there. If you ban one then ban them all!
Ken Arromdee
>In article <19...@jhunix.UUCP> ins_...@jhunix.ARPA (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>>I think it is quite firmly established that the CIA supports terrorism.
>>So what? It's still a legitimate political position to not think so. The
>>people who take that position may be wrong, but that has no effect on my
>>argument.
>I fail to see what "legitimate" means here. In the world of 1984, it's
>legitimate to think that Big Brother believes in peace. Whether the
>CIA does or does not support terrorism is an ascertainable fact, not
>a matter for democratic vote. If the Libyan population voted that
>Khadafi was not involved in terrorism, how would that change anything?
In a democracy, many things are matters for democratic vote, especially those
matters that many people disagree on. It may be an ascertainable fact, but
there is by no means agreement upon what has been ascertained. In the world
of _1984_, only one viewpoint is legitimate. You seem to be saying that only
one viewpoint, namely yours, is legitimate, while I am saying that either
viewpoint is legitimate. In this respect, your position seems much closer to
the world of 1984 than mine.
>>If a vote was taken among a representative section of the student body, asking
>>if the students believed both 1) that the CIA supports terrorism and 2) that
>>that groups supporting terrorism, including the CIA, should be
>>barred from campus, I could accept that. But from
>>what has been said on the net, that seems not to be the case. Rather, the
>>question is worded in such a way as not to mention the CIA, and people
>>who don't believe the CIA supports terrorism would answer "yes" to the
>>question, said "yes" votes then being used to claim that students want the CIA
>>off campus, when in fact those particular "yes" votes mean nothing of the sort.
>To add the CIA as a specific example adds nothing to such a resolution.
>It doesn't sound to me like "yes" votes are being used to claim that
>students want the CIA off campus. It does sound to me like "yes" votes
>are being used to claim that terrorists should not recruit on campus.
According to the original articles on the net that led to my posting, the
resolution WAS aimed at the CIA, but didn't mention the CIA. Again, this
seems to me like taking a poll of who thinks human life is sacred, then using
the results to ban pro-abortion groups, showing the poll results as support
for the ban.
>The point of resolutions like these are to get people to vote on general
>principles. Once that's done, the work is to see those principles carried
>out.
In my abortion analogy, the principle would be carried out--IF you believe
abortion is murder. If you do not, you would not consider that to be
carrying out of the principle.
If the CIA is banned from campus on the grounds that it promotes terrorism,
the principle would be carried out--IF you consider the actions of the CIA to
be promotion of terrorism. But not everyone considers it to be so, and
so it's deceit to take a vote on the general principle and then "carry out"
the principle in this manner.
--
"We are going to give a little something, a few little years more, to
socialism, because socialism is defunct. It dies all by iself. The bad thing
is that socialism, being a victim of its... Did I say socialism?" -Fidel Castro
Kenneth Arromdee
BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS
CSNET: ins_...@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhu...@hopkins.ARPA
UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!whuxcc} !jhunix!ins_akaa
Gus Teschke
John, you could extended this line even futher. Why not ban the British
because they once were at war with the U.S.? And why not ban poverty
because it's rough being a poor student? And why not ban death because
no one wants to die?
NO DEATH ON CAMPUS!!!
But I'd just like to remind you that the idea of the resolution(*) was
that, as a matter of general principle, that a univerity might
reasonably deny access to a group that practiced or supported TERRORISM.
Don't you think that killing teachers and doctors in an attempt to
bring down a fairly elected government (**) is a little different from,
for example, the struggle between polluters, the US government, and
environmentalists to clean up pollution? I think you wander from the topic.
The resolution in question is not specific to the CIA just because the
CIA would fail it in a second. It is against terrorism. If the CIA
would just stick to gathering intelligence (does anyone have a copy of
their charter?), they would not have any problem. President Reagan has
stated time and again how unacceptable terrorism is. You don't agree?
Gus Teschke
..!ihnp4!umich!gt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*) I'll post it for reference.
(**) I of course refer to the contra terrorists in Honduras and Costa
Rica who were formed, financed, and led by the CIA to attack
Nicaragua. Their tactics are well documented. The CIA was also
responsible for breaking international law by mining harbors in
Nicaragua, among other things. And the last Nicaraguan elections were
found to be fair by many international observers, much fairer than the
elections in the Philippines that were condemned by a similar
international group. Unfortunately for the principles of democracy,
President Reagan accepted the Philippine results as "showing the
existance of a strong two party system" until public and Congressional
outrage forced him to back down.
Barry Shein
Re: CIA recruiting ban, democracy etc
I was listening to a talk radio station and a caller summed up the
frustration in this matter very well:
If congress can vote that Nicaragua (eg) presents a threat to our national
security, as required in the Constitution, then let's send in the 82nd
Airborne and be done with it. If they cannot or will not vote, then let's
get the hell out of there.
Vietnam, Granada, Nicaragua, Chile, etc etc, there is just something
very strange going on in our interpretation of warmaking powers in this
country and I think it has made a lot of people both angry and scared,
we never know what's next or who is going to authorize it (or WHY!) And
it seems damn clear that the intent is to suppress open discussion and
anything even vaguely resembling democracy on this most important issue
(I mean, let's face it folks, people are being killed over there in your
name.)
Given this situation, various protests such as banning recruitment on a
campus by a group may be about the only vote we are going to get. No matter
where you happen to stand on the issue of whether or not Nicaragua (eg) is
a legitimate government, aren't you a little concerned about the decision
making process that is going on here? What happened to all those resolutions
that came out of Congress as a result of the same protestations over Vietnam
that gave the President X days (90 I think) during which s/he could exercise
emergency warmaking powers after which it would be brought before congress
for a declaration of war or else stopped. Seemed sensible to me.
-Barry Shein, Boston University
EECS 195
>If the CIA is banned from campus on the grounds that it promotes terrorism,
>the principle would be carried out--IF you consider the actions of the CIA to
>be promotion of terrorism. But not everyone considers it to be so, and
>so it's deceit to take a vote on the general principle and then "carry out"
>the principle in this manner.
This is very true.
Also, banning the CIA from a majority of campuses may frustrate the CIA's
recruiting effort slightly, but I strongly doubt that it could affect
any REAL change. Such a ban is at best symbolic.
And what about the college graduates who want to work for the CIA with the
intent of rising to a level in the organazation where they can effectivly
change policy. Such is not unreasonable.
So you ban the CIA, you feel real good for a while - your made things better.
Then you start looking for something else to ban. Soon you have and empty
campus.
-- Roger Bly
Clayton Cramer
> Re: CIA recruiting ban, democracy etc
>
> I was listening to a talk radio station and a caller summed up the
> frustration in this matter very well:
>
> If congress can vote that Nicaragua (eg) presents a threat to our national
> security, as required in the Constitution, then let's send in the 82nd
> Airborne and be done with it. If they cannot or will not vote, then let's
> get the hell out of there.
>
This argument boils down to the catchy slogan, "Central America: In Or Out --
The Foreplay Is Killing Us!" However, the problem is that a big chunk of
America (and a big chunk of Congress) see Nicaragua as a threat. Another
big chunk either disagrees or thinks that invasion is too extreme a step.
It's frustrating that the country can't make up its mind, but consider
the general level of ignorance on the subject. Last year one of the major
news organizations commissioned a poll that found only 12% of the American
public could correct identify which side our Government was supporting in
both Nicaragua and El Salvador. (Ah, the joys of democracy.) :-)
> Vietnam, Granada, Nicaragua, Chile, etc etc, there is just something
> very strange going on in our interpretation of warmaking powers in this
> country and I think it has made a lot of people both angry and scared,
> we never know what's next or who is going to authorize it (or WHY!) And
> it seems damn clear that the intent is to suppress open discussion and
> anything even vaguely resembling democracy on this most important issue
> (I mean, let's face it folks, people are being killed over there in your
> name.)
>
Something strange? This is how it's been since the Barbary Pirates were
burned out by the U. S. Navy shortly after America started. U.S. troops
fighting in Central America for decades has been without a declaration of
war. (I'm not saying it's good -- just the way it is. It's NOT an
innovation.)
> Given this situation, various protests such as banning recruitment on a
> campus by a group may be about the only vote we are going to get. No matter
> where you happen to stand on the issue of whether or not Nicaragua (eg) is
> a legitimate government, aren't you a little concerned about the decision
> making process that is going on here? What happened to all those resolutions
> that came out of Congress as a result of the same protestations over Vietnam
> that gave the President X days (90 I think) during which s/he could exercise
> emergency warmaking powers after which it would be brought before congress
> for a declaration of war or else stopped. Seemed sensible to me.
>
> -Barry Shein, Boston University
No, we have a vote. The very strong opposition that you feel is just not
shared by most Americans. The vast majority either don't care, don't care
very much, or support the Contras.
A. Hudson
Some of you guys are so narrow minded that I am truly amazed. Or are
you kidding? I can't tell which. Yes, consider the banning of the CIA a symbolic
act. A symbolic protest is not always meant to have a DIRECT affect,
often times an indirect action speaks louder and more appropriately
for the circumstances.
I don't think that protesting the CIA and its covert imperialist
death policies will bring peace in El Salvador and Nicaragua by next
weekend. It may, however, bring attention to its questionable policies.
I don't think that banning the CIA will appreciably limit its recruiting
and I certainly don't think it is going to scare off any other recruiters.
But eventually things will change for the better.
Andrew Hudson
rochester!ritcv!abh6509
Frank Adams
>the right to attempt to ban the CIA from campus. I doubt that almost any
>major campus has student government elections that get more than 10% voting
>attendance. We certainly don't get that much at the Univ. of Wisconsin.
>A 10% sample of such a large sample space would be considered representative
>under almost any circumstances (except by people who disagree with the
>decision). Pollsters make do with much less than that. Hence I think the MSA
>has the right to view themselves as a representative body, and to proceed
>under those assumptions.
If the 10% were a random sample of the student population, it would indeed
be adequate. There is every reason to think it is not, however. Those who
vote are very much more likely to be political activists.
Furthermore, with a turnout that small, it is relatively easy for a small
minority with an axe to grind to get its members to all vote, resulting in
a very unrepresentative body. (I'm not saying that this happened in this
case, of course; I have no idea whether it did or not. The fact that it can
easily happen is a reason not to give too much power to a body selected by
such a narrowly-based vote.)
Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
Michael Lewis
>
> I don't think that protesting the CIA and its covert imperialist
> death policies will bring peace in El Salvador and Nicaragua by next
> weekend. It may, however, bring attention to its questionable policies.
Everybody here has been talking about the CIA and *its* policies as if
William Casey was autonomous from the Executive, like he's some sort of KGB
head or something. Do you actually believe this, or has "teflon Ron"
discouraged you from direct attack on the source? Don't you think the NSC
knows about and approves what the CIA is doing? "Covert imperialist death
policies"...that's some classic rhetoric.
> I don't think that banning the CIA will appreciably limit its recruiting
> and I certainly don't think it is going to scare off any other recruiters.
> But eventually things will change for the better.
>
> Andrew Hudson
> rochester!ritcv!abh6509
The only way things are going to change for the better is at the polls.
I, among many others at Purdue, interviewed with the CIA and proceeded to
the "background check" stage before I decided it was not for me. I would
have been a programmer...would that have made me a "covert imperialist"?
Gosh, I hope not...
Michael Lewis @ Purdue University
G.FERRAIOLO
OF course, maybe the Tibetans, Cambodians, Cubans, Ukranians, Poles,
etc., etc., etc. would disagree? But they never post anything to the
net, must be they don't have an opinion.
Before you talk about death, pal, get it straight, the Communists are
the ones whose only real tool is just that, death.
Guy
Raif Hijab
> intent of rising to a level in the organazation where they can effectivly
> change policy. Such is not unreasonable.
>
This is really dreaming! Changing the CIA from the inside?
It should be evident to most that the vast majority of CIA
actions implement administration policy. True, the president
may not know every detail, but if he thought the CIA was
working against his policy, or subverting it, he would fire
its chief tomorrow. Further, if the congress really did not
like what the CIA is doing, they have ways of crippling it.
The fact is, the executive and legislative branches, on the
whole, approve of the often - to be charitable - unsavory
actions of the CIA, not to mention other agencies with police
or intelligence gathering powers. They somehow rationalize to
themselves that it is all for the good (of?). If you do not
like what the CIA does, point the finger at the policy makers
(e.g. the National Security Council), and at the sheep in
Congress.
Dr.Schlesinger
It seems to get overlooked that only a relatively ninor percentage
of CIA activity falls into the category apparently alluded to in this
discussion, namely the supposedly covert interventions in other
countries. Intervention in the politics of ours was an aberration of
the Nixon years. The vast majority of CIA personnel and resources are
devoted to the gathering of information. Most of this is obtained by
perfectly overt means, and the CIA task is to sift, analyse, assemble
pieces of the puzzle. Little bits are added by clandestine means.
There is great doubt about how useful all this, because the historical
record shows that most of the time policy makers accept only the
information which fits their previous perceptions and conceptions of
reality.
Considering this, the decision whether to work for it or not,
should be based on the major part of the task, not the occasional
special tasks (they're called "covert operations" in the jargon, as
contrasted with "clandestine intelligence collection.") A partial
analogy would be a very large city police department. Almost all of
them (consisting of 10-20,000 people) either have been, or are at one
time or another, charged with abuses of various kinds... some very
serious. Should that stop someone from deciding to become a
professional police officer? Philadelphia right now would be a
specially poignant example... the mayor stands charged with a
tragically horrible "abuse."
Tom Schlesinger
Plymouth State College
Plymouth, N.H. 03264
decvax!dartvax!psc70!psc90!tos
phoenix
for something they called "Project: Camelot". They were supposed to study
the mechanics of Chilean society, the object being to identify cultural
weak points and hot-spots with the intent of causing a cultural collapse.
The anthropologists refused (since the major idea behind anthropology is
understand cultures, not destroy them). This is documented in the book
*Culture, People, & Nature, 2nd Ed.*) by Marvin Harris.
Does anyone know the results of Project Camelot and what happened to
the anthropologists?
--
The Phoenix
(Neither Bright, Dark, nor Young)
---"A man should live forever...or die trying."
---"There is no substitute for good manners...except fast reflexes."