Last month, according to reporting in the Wellesley News, the Central Intelligence Agency called off a scheduled information and recruiting session at Wellesley College after the school’s career center warned the agency of “potential event disruption.” A petition signed by some two hundred current students and alumnae had been circulating before the event scheduled for November 13, calling for Wellesley to “permanently disallow the CIA and other organizations which engage in similar repression and human rights abuses—including but not limited to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, etc.—from the on-campus recruiting process.”
The information session’s cancellation is especially disappointing to me because I have Wellesley professors and alumnae to thank for inspiring me to pursue a career in public service. I can’t help but see the parallels between last month’s effort to exclude the CIA and other government agencies from on-campus recruiting and the deeply misguided closures of campus ROTC programs in the 1960s and ‘70s. The story of ROTC’s exile from and return to universities like Harvard and Yale teaches an important lesson: when college administrators acquiesced to anti-ROTC protesters’ demands to kick out ROTC, this didn’t have any measurable effect on policy, but it did make things more difficult for students who wanted to pursue careers in national security.
Banishing ROTC from campus made it burdensome, and in some cases impossible, for students from certain schools to join the military while still continuing their studies. Before Harvard welcomed back Navy ROTC in 2011 and Army ROTC in 2012, Harvard students had to commute to MIT or Tufts University for all their military science classes, meetings and trainings. Harvard athletic facilities were not available to them for training, as they were to recognized student organizations, and students personally bore the transport costs of participation in the program. At Yale, students had to travel over an hour to the University of Connecticut for training. Thankfully, cadets and midshipmen at schools without ROTC programs persevered. They commissioned through other schools’ programs and became officers and public servants. But they never should have borne this burden in the first place.
In recent years Harvard and Yale have been providing more institutional support for students interested in public service, which makes the recent incident at Wellesley is all the more disappointing. The threat of protests raised a real barrier that’s keeping students from learning about and working for the CIA. Opportunities to speak with CIA representatives are hard to come by. The “Contact” section of the CIA’s website states that the agency does not “routinely answer questions about employment beyond information on this Web site.” Current employees don’t identify themselves as intelligence officials online, so LinkedIn isn’t particularly helpful for students considering careers in intelligence. While the CIA does list job openings and internships on its website, an on-campus recruiting event is the best chance many students have to learn about careers with the agency.
It’s understandable that young and sincere critics want to reform these institutions, but they shouldn’t prevent their peers from learning about them. Instead, they should consider that it might do more good to encourage their like-minded colleagues to join US intelligence agencies and advocate for changes from within. Barring the way for their classmates is unproductive and does real harm to their career prospects.
Administrators have a role to play, too. They can do their part by keeping open access to government employment. When recruiting sessions are threatened by protesters, administrators shouldn’t give in to the pressure. Instead, they should stand up for students interested in public service and move the event to a safe location. It’s too bad that didn’t happen at Wellesley, but at least the career center offered to connect interested students directly to CIA recruiters even though the event was canceled.
Our public institutions won’t disappear overnight if some students at top universities turn up their noses at them and disrupt their campus outreach. But the government will lose opportunities to recruit talented, hardworking students who want to serve their country. This disconnect between university and government ultimately endangers the health of both. In recent years, the reopening of ROTC programs at places like Harvard and Yale has provided hope that one of America’s many wounds is finally healing. Let’s not dash those hopes.
Caroline Bechtel is an officer in the US Army and an alumna of Wellesley College. The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.
Just as DOD threatened VMI (and indirectly, every other male-only college) to open its enrollment to women or risk losing its ROTC program, Wellesley's discriminatory, single-gender student body restriction should preclude it or any of its current students from receiving any support or assistance whatsoever from DOD or the Intelligence Community. This should include preventing Wellesley students from receiving any aid or support from ROTC programs (training, stipends, material) through cross-school ROTC enrollment. If a male-only environment is unacceptable to the Federal government, then female-only environments should also face the same pressure to integrate.
Everybody wants equal treatment, right up until they actually are treated equally.
The Government has a role in combating this type of anti-American activity on college campuses as well. All Federal funding to the University and all Student loans to any person attending such a university needs to be immediately ended. If the US Government is not allowed on campus, then the US Government's money should be not allowed on campus as well.
Obviously agencies such as the CIA, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement:
a. Do not act on their own or as independent organizations but — rather —
b. As (extremely valuable) arms of the government of the United States.
Thus:
a. What agencies such as the CIA, U.S. Customs, etc., do
b. This is done ONLY at the direction of the leadership of the government of the United States.
Thus, properly understood, the problem these students, etc., have; this:
a. Is not with the CIA, U.S. Customs, etc., but — rather —
b. With the leadership of the U.S. Government?
Thus it it the "master" (the leadership of the U.S. Government) — and not the "slave" (the CIA, U.S. Customs, etc.) — that these students, etc., should ban from their campus?
If we follow this logic, then the "leadership" of the past administration was greatly at fault when they set the IRS against those who were not of the same political persuasion; the Justice Department giving automatic weapons to Mexican gangs; allowing a U.S. ambassador and his security personnel to be killed; the intelligence agencies of the government to engage in politics; and the list goes on.
Federal agencies are created and chartered to serve a specific function, not to roam freely to stick their noses where it doesn't belong.
The CIA chose to cancel not the school. If the CIA believes in the legitimacy of its core mission and its history they should not have cancelled and should have met those who were advocating against their on campus recruitment activities face to face and made their case. People have every right to speak up about things they disagree with, and trust me, the CIA has a lot of bad history to answer for. However, and most importantly, the CIA cancelling its recruitment activity only says one thing, that it too recognizes it would have issues making a coherent case for its activities throughout the world, which is something I hope those perspective candidates made note of.
Bob:
I did not suggest that anyone — either the "leadership" of current administration or the "leadership" of the past administration — did anything wrong" and/or is, or is not, "at fault."
Nor did I address or take issue with whether the contentions made by the Wellesley folks (“the CIA and other organizations engage in repression and human rights abuses") — or for that matter you above — are biased, erroneous, accurate, factual, or not.
Rather, I simply suggested that the complaining students and alumnae should understand that these federal agencies are not independent organizations — and as such — take their orders from the leadership of the U.S. government.
Thus, not to blame — and/or to ban — (Wellesley) the CIA, the U.S. Customs or (Bob) the IRS, the Justice Department, etc.
Instead, to blame — and/or to ban — the appropriate leadership (should include Congress; they have "oversight" responsibility?) of the U.S. government?