HaCKeRz Kr0nlcKLeZ 1/HaCKeRz Kr0nlcKLeZ.iso/drugs/liberty.article

Text File | 1996-05-06 | 20.6 KB | 315 lines

  A  little  over  six  months  ago  I set out to test the limits of government
control over universities.  My experiment became very real on April  12th  when
national  drug  "czar"  Bob Martinez accepted my challenge and all but demanded
that Stanford University, my employer, fire me.  Stanford has since done so and
I find myself at the center of a controversy concerning drugs, free speech, and
the relationship between universities and government.

  As a libertarian, I disagree  with  many  of  the  policies  of  the  federal
government.   High on that list has always been the war on drugs, because drugs
have been a positive influence in my life and I know  from  my  own  first-hand
knowledge of drugs that the government is using distorted propaganda to whip up
hysteria over this issue.   The  last  straw  came  for  me  when  the  federal
government,  under the provisions of the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act,
forced Stanford University to adopt a new stricter alcohol and drug policy last
October 1st in order to continue to qualify for federal funds.

  I  have  been  at Stanford for over ten years, and one of the elements of its
philosophy that I have come  to  appreciate  most  is  its  decision  to  treat
students  as adults.  Stanford's previous policy on alcohol and drug use was to
respect the privacy of students, faculty and staff as long  as  people  behaved
responsibly.    I consider this a very libertarian attitude, and the definition
of responsible behavior was almost always drawn along libertarian lines  (i.e.,
individuals  were  not  allowed  to threaten the rights or property of others).
This policy  has  worked  extremely  well  at  Stanford,  proving  a  long-held
libertarian   belief  that  when  you  give  people  freedom  in  exchange  for
responsible  behavior,  they  behave  more  responsibly  than  they  do  in  an
atmosphere of mistrust and regulation.

  To protest the new policy, I wrote an article for The Stanford Daily in which
I discussed my views on drugs, my opposition to the new policy and my intention
to  violate it.  I chose my backpack as a battleground, because it seemed to be
a good symbol of my concern over privacy.  If  they  can  limit  what's  in  my
backpack, I reasoned, then they can require me to take a drug test and they can
limit  what  student's  do  in  their  dorm  rooms  (actions  that  I  consider
incompatible  with  the  university's  mission).  So I mentioned in the article
that I had carried illegal drugs in my backpack while  on  campus  and  that  I
would do so in the future.

  As  I  expected,  Stanford ignored my article.  Nobody at Stanford wanted the
new policy anyway, and I think everyone hoped to ignore it.  Some  even  argued
that  because the government had played politics by forcing it on us, we should
reciprocate by having it on the books  but  not  enforcing  it.    Just  before
Thanksgiving  The  Stanford  Daily  ran  an  article  in  which  two government
spokesmen gave their opinions on how Stanford should approach alcohol and  drug
use.    Ronald Bucknam, for example, suggested that we needed more "rules-type"
staff members in our residences.  Bucknam typified  the  entire  situation:  an
ignorant  man  in  Washington setting policies for an institution that he knows
nothing about because  the  war  on  drugs  is  currently  high  on  everyone's
political agendas.

  Another   incident   that   has   become   important  to  my  story  happened
coincidentally just after Thanksgiving.  I was at the airport waiting  for  the
bus  that  goes  back to Stanford when a former student asked me whether I'd be
willing to advise him about whether or not to experiment with a drug called MDA
that  I had mentioned in my article.  We had an hour-long conversation in which
he told me about his previous  experiences  with  LSD  and  marijuana  and  his
particular  fears  about  MDA.  I told him that the two fears he had (addiction
and loss of control) were bad reasons to avoid MDA and that my own  experiences
with  the  drug  were  excellent.    In essence, I advised him to try it.  This
conversation on  the  bus,  which  happened  off  school  grounds  and  at  the
initiation of the student, has become the focus of the public controversy, even
though it is not covered by Stanford's alcohol  and  drug  policy  nor  by  the
Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act.

  Getting  back to my story, I decided to test the waters a bit more by writing
a letter to several government officials, including Bucknam and Jesse Helms, to
see  if they could prod Stanford into taking action.  I enclosed my article and
to make them angry, I mentioned that nothing  bad  had  happened  to  me  since
writing  it, that in fact nothing but good things had happened.  As an example,
I cited the conversation with the student who wanted advice about MDA.

  I heard second-hand that Bucknam was very angry about my letter and  that  he
was  trying  to get people in Washington to do something, but nothing happened.
I never wrote to Bennett because he left office the  same  week  I  decided  to
launch my letter campaign.  Nothing happened for several months, mostly because
my attention was diverted by the Gulf War.  But towards  the  end  of  March  I
wrote  Bucknam another letter to let him know that Stanford still had not taken
action and that I was giving dorm talks explaining my views on drugs.

  When I noticed that Bob Martinez had been sworn in as the new  national  drug
czar,  I  sent him a letter as well, telling him that it was "about time that I
included you on my list of government officials  to  harass."    I  was  a  bit
whimsical that day and went on to say that "I am doing everything I can to make
fools of you."  Much has been made of the "rudeness" of my letter to  Martinez,
so let me quote a bit to give you an idea of the challenge I posed to him:

      The  students  that  I talk to find it very encouraging that I can so
    openly defy government and Stanford policy without reprisal, proving my
    point that such policies have an effect only to the extent that people,
    out of fear, voluntarily change their behavior.  I do not fear  any  of
    you,  I  have  not changed my behavior, and nothing bad has happened to
    me.  On the contrary, my stand against you has  brought  me  additional
    respect,  new  friends, and an apparently endless stream of invitations
    to discuss my beliefs with  students  who  are  trying  to  make  tough
    decisions  about whether or not to experiment with drugs and/or whether
    or not to take the  risk  of  continuing  to  use  drugs  in  light  of
    government persecution.

      If  your  office  gives you any power to try to force me to change my
    behavior, I suggest that you apply it immediately, because right at the
    moment  you  look  rather  silly  at  Stanford  to  me and the numerous
    students that I talk to.

I included all of my correspondence to Bucknam in my letter to Martinez  and  a
copy of my previous article.

  Three  weeks  later I received a phone call from Mike Isikoff, a reporter for
The Washington  Post,  asking  for  my  comment  on  Martinez'  letter  to  our
university  president.    I  hadn't  heard  of  the letter, so he explained the
situation to me.  Martinez had written to Stanford expressing concern about  me
and  reminding  them  of their legal responsibility.  In part, he said, "In all
candor, I would find it beyond comprehension that a man who openly professes to
have  encouraged an undergraduate to ingest MDA could continue to enjoy faculty
privileges at a pace-setting institution  like  Stanford  University.    I  was
myself  a  teacher  for many years.  I can think of no action more radically at
odds with the responsibilities an educator has to his students."

  I was handed a letter explaining that I had  been  placed  on  administrative
leave  pending  an  investigation  as  I  walked out of my class that afternoon
(Friday, April 19).  Within an hour,  the  university  had  broadcast  a  press
release  announcing my suspension (ironically, they were careful enough to have
a press release go out, but they didn't even bother to inform my  boss  or  the
chairman of my department).

  The  whirlwind of national attention began on Sunday when the Washington Post
ran their article.  In retrospect, I think I was very  fortunate  that  Isikoff
framed  the  debate  as  a  question  of  how the war on drugs will be waged at
universities, particularly as it relates to  freedom  of  speech  and  academic
freedom.  The next week and a half was one of the most hectic times of my life.
The Washington Post begat National Public Radio, The Los Angeles Times, and The
New York Times, who begat CNN news, who begat CBS Evening News, who begat CNN's
"Crier and Company" and "Cross Fire," and so on.  I have also become  the  most
popular  speaker in the dorms.  I have spoken at nineteen dorms since the story
broke, with an average attendance of 50-60 people and the discussion  going  on
for an average of two and a half hours (a couple have gone on for four hours).

  Although  I  had expected the backpack to be the major focus in the media, it
in fact became just an amusing backdrop to  the  real  issue:  whether  faculty
members  should  be  allowed to advocate drug use.  My backpack is probably the
most photographed backpack in history, but almost all of the news  stories  and
debate has centered on advocacy.  Let me quote a few sources:

   - In responding to an editorial in The Stanford Daily that supported my
     right to express my  opinion  on  drugs,  Stanford  President  Donald
     Kennedy  said  that  "we  are talking about conduct and not protected
     speech.  While the distinction is not always simple, it is notMas The
     Daily   editorial   suggestsMtrue   that  words,  or  even  'personal
     conversation,' necessarily constitute  protected  speech.    Criminal
     conspiracy,   incitement   and   other  long-established  crimes  are
     primarily verbal, but that does not protect  those  who  commit  them
     from   prosecution   and  punishment...It  seems  unconscionable  for
     responsible persons on this campus to recommend the  use  of  illicit
     drugs."

   - House  Narcotics  Chairman  "Charlie"  Rangel  issued a press release
     about me on April 24th saying, in part,  that  "free  speech  is  one
     thing,  but  speaking  freely  about an illegal activity such as drug
     abuse and drug possession should not in any way be rewarded."    I've
     never  asked  to be rewarded, so I assume that he means that I should
     be punished.  I debated Rangel on CBS "Night Watch" and CNN's  "Cross
     Fire"  and he repeated the same position.  I got him to all but admit
     that he doesn't obey the speed limit laws, but he  won't  accept  the
     idea  that  there are unjust laws and that citizens have the right to
     encourage people to disobey them.

  I share Jefferson's view that ideas should compete freely with each other and
that  if  you perceive that someone is spreading untruth, you should fight them
with truth (not government).  Here is a relevant passage from Notes on Virginia
(Jefferson was discussing religious freedom):

      Reason  and  free  inquiry  are  the  only  effectual  agents against
    error...They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only.   Had
    not  the  Roman  government  permitted free inquiry, Christianity could
    never have been introduced.  Had not free inquiry been indulged at  the
    era  of the Reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have
    been purged away.  If it be restrained  now,  the  present  corruptions
    will  be  protected,  and  new  ones encouraged.  Was the government to
    prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our  bodies  would  be  in  such
    keeping  as  our  souls  are  now.   Thus in France the emetic was once
    forbidden as a medicine, the potato as an article of food.   Government
    is  just  as  infallible,  too,  when  it  comes to systems in physics.
    Galileo was sent to the Inquisition for affirming that the earth was  a
    sphere; the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and
    Galileo was obliged to abjure his error...It is error alone which needs
    the support of government.  Truth can stand by itself.

  I  believe  universities should be the citadels of "reason and free inquiry."
As a result, I don't believe that faculty members should be  censured  for  the
opinions they express, even if those opinions involve recommending the breaking
of university policies or laws.  I'm willing to concede that speech  can  cross
over  into  conduct  in certain rare circumstances such as libel or incitement,
but such cases should be handled by the court system and not by the  university
(and my legal advisors indicate that I am not guilty of any such crime).

  Few people, however, seem to agree with my view of the university.  Bob Novak
articulated a position on CNN that many seem to share:  that  the  parents  who
spend  so  much money sending their children to schools like Stanford should be
able to decide how it is run.  I firmly believe that parents should be able  to
choose  where  they will send their children (i.e., where they will spend their
money), but I also believe that universities should resist such pressure to the
extent  that  they  are  able  to  do  so.   Obviously if nobody wants to go to
Stanford, it will go out of  business,  but  I  think  it  is  better  for  the
university to stick to its ideals and risk failure than to allow public opinion
to govern what opinions may be expressed on campus.

  Unfortunately, many people seem to disagree with me, including  many  faculty
members.   An interesting parallel is the attempt to suppress communists during
the McCarthy era.  In 1949 Stanford's President Wallace Sterling made a comment
that  sounds  much  like  Martinez' comments about me.  Sterling said, "I doubt
very much that a member of the Communist Party is a free agent.  If he is not a
free  agent,  then  it would seem to follow that he cannot be objective.  If he
cannot be objective, he is by definition precluded from being an educator."  In
a  recent  poll  Stanford  faculty  members  were  asked,  "Do  you  think that
recommending that a student should use an illegal drug is punishable conduct or
protected  free  speech?"   The results were: 54% punishable conduct, 28% don't
know, and 18% free speech.

  Most ironic of all is the fact that President  Bush  made  a  speech  at  the
graduation   ceremony   for  the  University  of  Michigan  on  May  4th  about
universities and free speech.    He  was  addressing  the  issue  of  political
correctness  and  the  alarming  trend  towards silencing unpopular opinions (I
agree with Bush, by the way, that this is  a  frightening  trend).    He  said,
"Ironically,  on  the  200th  anniversary  of  our Bill of Rights, we find free
speech under assault throughout the United States, including  on  some  college
campuses...Disputants   treat   sheer  forceMgetting  their  foes  punished  or
expelled, for instanceMas a substitute for the  power  of  ideas.    Throughout
history,   attempts  to  micromanage  casual  conversation  have  only  incited
distrust...We all should be alarmed at the rise of intolerance in our land, and
by  the  growing  tendency  to  use intimidation rather than reason in settling
disputes."  Was the speech-writer a libertarian, do you suppose?  It's a  great
speech, and seems highly relevant to my case, but I doubt that Bush can see the
connection.

  It would take me too long to explain my impression of the politics and  media
coverage  (I'm  thinking  of  writing  a  book about it), but let me make a few
observations.  My story has been  investigated  almost  entirely  by  newspaper
reporters, with TV news and radio programs immediately following suit (in fact,
I've always gotten a new series of phone calls each time my story  was  covered
in  another  city's  newspaper).    The media has done a fairly good job of not
distorting my message,  but  my  opponents  have  twisted  my  words  and  used
emotional  appeal  to  sidetrack the real issues.  First, they try to reduce my
case to an argument about crack cocaine and heroin, even though  I  have  never
publicly  or  privately advocated the use of either and am not myself a user of
either substance.  Second, they  talk  about  the  "kids"  and  "impressionable
youngsters"  at  Stanford  who  might  be  led  astray  by a person they deeply
respect.  This is an example of a myth that I think libertarians know  all  too
well  is  perpetuated  by  government  and  others who would control our lives;
namely, that there are people who are so weak and ignorant that they need to be
taken  care  of  and protected.  Martinez, in fact, likes to portray his entire
struggle as an attempt to extend the protective atmosphere of high school  into
the  colleges to save children.  Perhaps Martinez is right in trying to protect
children before they come to college (although  we  disagree  on  how  best  to
accomplish  this), but my view of a university (one shared by many at Stanford)
is that college should be the time when children become  adults  and  learn  to
make their own choices.

  I'm  sure they would have attacked my professional record if they could have,
even though it is not really relevant to the fundamental questions in my  case,
but  they  have  been frustrated to find that my job performance is quite good.
Stanford President Kennedy gave me an award  at  graduate  six  years  ago  for
"Outstanding  Service  to Undergraduate Education," the Dean of Engineering the
next year at graduation  gave  me  the  "School  of  Engineering  Distinguished
Advisor Award," and the undergraduates recently voted me among their top twelve
favorite instructors.

  Let me also quickly  point  out  that  my  case  raises  several  interesting
questions for libertarians and for me as I decide whether or not to go to court
over my case:

   - By contract, I can expect to be employed through at least  August  of
     1992.   They can only terminate me for "professional misconduct," and
     I believe it is a matter of opinion as to whether or not  that  is  a
     fair characterization.  This also constitutes a kind of "professional
     libel" (I doubt that West Point is going to rush to  snap  me  up  if
     Stanford lets me go).

   - Stanford  is not an entirely private institution.  The fact that they
     accept federal funds might actually  increase  rather  than  decrease
     their obligation to respect my constitutional freedoms.

   - It's  not  clear  that  Stanford wants to fire me.  The government is
     forcing them to act, and the government shouldn't be using  my  money
     to lobby for the firing of individuals they disagree with.

  This afternoon (Friday, May 10) the university informed me that my employment
would be terminated effective May 15th.  They chose not to  fire  me  over  the
advocacy  issue,  although they expressed concern about it.  They fired me over
the backpack issue and my claim that I allowed some underage students to  order
a  before-dinner  drink at a restaurant.  They have held out a carrot by saying
that if I promise to abide by the policy in the future,  I  might  qualify  for
reinstatement.   The alcohol issue was never central to what I've been fighting
for, so I intend to make such a promise as  it  relates  to  allowing  underage
students  to  drink.   I do not intend, however, to make any promises about the
backpack.  I will file a grievance, but I doubt that I will  manage  to  change
their minds.

  I believe that the backpack is just an excuse and that they are really firing
me because the government is pressuring them  to  do  so  because  of  my  drug
advocacy.    This  is  most  evident  from  the  fact  that they did nothing in
November, not even writing a letter of concern, even though I broadcast to  the
entire  campus  that  I was carrying illegal drugs in my backpack.  They didn't
act until Bob Martinez wrote a letter five months later.  It seems  clear  that
their  action  was  motivated  by government pressure, not by a desire on their
part to censure me over the backpack.

  Let me close with one last observation.  I have never been found guilty of  a
drug-related  crime.    The  captain of the Stanford Police has stated publicly
that he can't even get a search warrant issued based on what I've said.  All  I
have done is to talk, and the government can't take me to court for that.  They
have succeeded in punishing me nevertheless by forcing Stanford to take on  the
enforcement role.  Stanford has been coerced into becoming a partner in the war
on drugs, extending the government's ability to punish drug users, and that  is
a  big step backward for this institution and for the future of freedom in this
country.