Slashdot Mirror
Exporting Knowledge Via Students
brainhum writes "SF Weekly reports that proposed Department of Commerce regulations will require foreign students at US universities to apply for export licenses to use dual purpose technologies in the classroom. From the article: 'Inherent in the new rules is a discriminatory contradiction: Students from India, which has cordial relations with the U.S., will need licenses to study, but students from Saudi Arabia -- home country for most of the participants in the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, and much of the financing and ideology behind Islamist terrorism -- will not.' The proposed regulations point out that current export license requirements are based on the person's most recent citizenship, which they believe, could allow a person born in Iran to avoid licensing if they held Canadian citizenship. More information is available in the SF Weekly story "Student of Concern"."
They've got it backwards! We don't want to restrict American information, we want to export as much of it as possible! We have to make the world a safer place by ensuring that every street corner in the world has a McDonalds and Starbucks! Not to mention Plasma TVs and DVD players so that our current enemies are too busy drooling in front of the television to be worried about such a thing as killing Americans! (Don't laugh, I'm halfway serious.)
:-)
To sober up a bit, this is a silly restriction. Nearly all the information you can obtain in higher education can be now found on the Internet. Why bother even trying to restrict it? Besides, competition keeps the world healty. Without it, what desire is there to continue developing new and better technologies? Not to mention the matter of helping our fellow man. India has improved a lot, but my understanding is that there are still plenty of poverty-ridden areas. Many African countries are another good example of this. Why stop them from developing their country? If you want to be effective, close the legal holes in our own country that effectively allow for the import/out-sourcing of slave labor. (e.g. We should open our borders and allow people to legally immigrate in order to work, and then start prosecuting the abuses of the H1-B system.)
There's probably not too much that can be done about out-sourcing (other than ensuring working conditions are required to be to american code), but that doesn't matter quite as much. In a short period of time, the out-sourcing bubble is likely to collapse as companies find that they aren't saving money. Alternatively, foreign wages will rise to a sufficient degree to make such out-sourcing impractical.
Sorry about the American-centered post, but the original story is all about us and our laws. Europeans and other world residents may feel free to chime in with their anecdotes and feelings on the issue.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
How much oil is the US getting from India?
(Note, I haven't read TFA, so I really don't have an informed opinion of what's going on, it was just a thought that struck me.)
CC Licensed Serialized Story and Podcast: Ingenioustries
This is another nail in the coffin of the US education industry. Universities in Canada and Australia probably celebrated the news with champagne.
Students from India, which has cordial relations with the U.S., will need licenses to study, but students from Saudi Arabia -- home country for most of the participants in the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, and much of the financing and ideology behind Islamist terrorism -- will not.
I think what's far scarier is that the country that Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski come from doesn't have this restriction. They're able to go to US universities without licenses.
CC Licensed Serialized Story and Podcast: Ingenioustries
It seems that by if this were in the interest of security, they would be required to include Saudi Arabi in the list of contries. By including India, it almost seems like a backwards attempt to limit foreign students from replacing Americans in the technical fields. I am not sure if that is a conspiracy theory/tinfoil hat kind of thought, but something seems odd about this entire piece of legislation.
First of all, like someone mentioned, anything you can learn in the US in a classroom is already published somewhere. The same textbook you buy for your class is probably on Amazon.com for anyone in any country to purchase. Teaching an Indian student about Nuclear Engineering is really not a security concern. If that student was intent on learning nuclear technology to create WMDs, there are other countries they could go to anyway to learn.
Placing restrictions on education is the last thing we should be doing. With the general population dumbing down, we should be accepting anyone willing to learn. Highly educated people are becoming few and far between. I don't care if the next guy that designs the power plant that keeps my house lit up is Indian or American, as long as someone learns how to do it.
I don't want to get politcal, but this seems like a situation entirely fabricated by the government for some kind of hidden agenda.
/. ++
but students from Saudi Arabia -- home country for most of the participants in the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, and much of the financing and ideology behind Islamist terrorism -- will not.
Aside from making me wish I could mod the article -1, Flamebait, what does this matter? The only possible purpose to this statement is to inflame the debate.
NEWS FLASH: The USofA is home to the majority of terrorists that have attacked abortion clinics and is the source of the financing and ideology of right wing militants. We should immediately move to ensure that all Americans that attend universities apply for licenses to use the knowledge the acquire.
Ridiculous, right? Feel better now?
Somebody please explain why our government panders to a the terrorist capitol of the world.
The Saudi Arabian government panders to the terrorist capitol of the world because the US government is headed by their friends.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Blanket statements such as these always invite the inevitable discussions. ("No your wrong!" "You suck!" "No YOU suck!"). World War II had many causes. Unlike some other wars which can be traced back to a single cause, WWII's causes included:
European theater
- Hilter's desire to return Germany to first class world power status after being humilated by the Treaty of Versailles.
- Hilter's policy of "living space" which demanded the forced exodus of people of slavic origin in order to make space of his "Master Race." And my forced exodus I also mean the systematic genocide of entire races. (The eugenics you speak of).
- Domination of the European continent, politically. Hilter's Germany probably would not have occupied France and other Western European countries if Germany had won the war. Instead they would have set up satellite states similar to the Soviet Union's Warsaw Pact.
- Mussolini's desire to elevate Italy to first class world power status.
- His own imperial desires to conquor the Balkens, Greece, and North Africa in order to make modern Italy a second "Roman Empire."
- Britian and France's inability to recognize Facsim as a threat they had to match early on, instead appeasing Hilter and letting him "annex" the Sudatenland, Austria, and Chezkoslovakia. (okay not really a cause but not everything is Hilter's fault)
Pacific TheatreOf course I havn't touched on all the causes and I am sure I got some of my details wrong. In addition I am sure I made a blanket statement somewhere that will invite discussion.
Oh well. :\
From the APS, sent on 22 April 2005
Dear Chairs of PhD-granting Physics Departments,
I am writing to alert you to a possible threat to research in your department
and to urge you and your faculty to write to the Department of Commerce (DOC)
in response to its "Advance notice of proposed rulemaking" published in the
Federal Register on March 28, 2005. The notice calls for comments that must be
received by May 27, 2005. As discussed below, the leadership of the American
Physical Society feels this issue is so important that you should seek to
provide thoughtful and accurate responses by your university administration,
your department and individual faculty who might be affected by the
recommended changes. We believe that your comments can make a difference.
The proposed rulemaking by the DOC is a response to recommendations presented
by the Department's Inspector General. Implementation of these
recommendations would cause two major changes:
1) The operation of export-controlled instrumentation by a foreign national
working in your department would be considered a "deemed export", even if that
person were engaged in fundamental research. As a consequence, a license
would be required for each affected foreign national (student, staff or
faculty member) and for each export controlled instrument. Typical export
controlled instruments are high-speed oscilloscopes, high-resolution
lithography systems, high-end computers and GPS systems. The situation is
complicated by the fact that the list of instruments is different for each
country.
2) U.S. organizations would be required to apply for a deemed export license
for students, employees or visitors who are foreign nationals (but not U. S.
naturalized citizens or permanent residents) and have access to controlled
technology if they were born in a country where the technology transfer in
question would require an export license, regardless of their most recent
citizenship or permanent residency. For example, transfer of technology to a
Chinese scientist who has established permanent residency or citizenship in
Canada would be treated, for export licensing purposes under the proposed
guidelines, as a deemed export to a Chinese foreign national. (The list of
export-controlled instruments for Chinese nationals is particularly
extensive.)
The Department of Commerce officials who have the responsibility for
developing new policies and practices in response to the Inspector General's
recommendations are anxious to determine what the impact of implementing those
recommendations would be. They must seek a balance between increases in
national security that might result from the implementation of the new rules
and the decrease in national security that would result from negative impacts
to US research and development.
In initial discussions by the APS Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) it was
thought likely that consequences would be:
a) research would slow down significantly due to the need to obtain licenses
for each foreign national and, particularly, Chinese student, staff member,
postdoc, or faculty member using export controlled instrumentation. We
believe that a separate license would have to be obtained for each
instrument. In this regard, it should be noted that the relevant DOC office
has the staff to handle about 800-1000 license requests per year. Present
times to process a license request are typically 2-3 months.
b) instruments would have to be secured to ensure that those who do not have
the required license could not use them.
c) the number of Chinese and other foreign national students would decrease
markedly as their "second-class" status on campus became apparent, thus
ultimately weakening the nation's science and technology workforce.
d) the administrative costs of research would rise markedly.
e) national security would ultimately be weakened as a consequence of a
Thesis: World War II (WWII) was fought by the UK, France, USSR, China, and USA (Allies) against Germany, Italy, and Japan (Axis)[1] in order to prove to their citizens, or to whoever, that they were against Anti-Semitism and Eugenics, especially because the governments and leaders of said Allies engaged in Anti-Semitism and Eugenics and they did not want their own bigotry to come to light. By fighting against a greater injustice than their own they could redeem themselves in the eyes of others.
[1]I am purposely leaving out many other combatants due to space limitations.
I am going to write the first part of this post assuming that I have your thesis correct (which I probably don't) and will address what I think about said thesis.
Eugenics and Anti-Semitism are not the same thing. They are related in that they both rely on what we enlightened people would now consider bigotry. Certainly at the time they were probably not considered evil or inhumane. Fortunately by out standards they are. I won't disagree with you that Americans, Britons, and Russians where just as Anti-Semitic as Germans or any other nationality. I also won't disagree with you how Eugenics was used in the US. There are numerous shameful examples that even make headlines today as when the Governor of Virginia apologized for his state's Eugenics programs.
I don't believe that humanitarian reasons had much to do with the reasons why WWII occured. The idea that human rights somehow trump all other international issues began after WWII with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted by the United Nations (UN) in 1948. Of course it was drafted and the ideals developed during the Second World War, but the reasons that caused WWII were a result of state of international affairs in the 1930s.
Finally I'd like to disagree with you about your final point:
Of course the worst thing of all is that the US didn't work up much of a sweat about things even AFTER Poland was invaded. London was being firebombed and we were still discussing "if we get pulled into this war, whose side would we be on?"
The United States of before WWII was a different country than the one that emerged afterwards. In fact US foreign policy was always been defined as a mix of two poles, idealism (Woodrow Wilson) and realism (Theodore Roosevelt). Before WWII idealism coupled with isolationism reigned. The idea that the US should be the "city on the hill," acting as a beacon for all to copy our own shining example of democracy, dominated US foreign policy and the minds of ordinary citizens. By working to make a better democratic republic at home the US could be an example to countries abroad.
But there was a current of realism in American foriegn relations and that was not directed toward Europe but toward the East to China. Trade relations with China was the reason for the friction between the US and Japan in the 1920s and 30s. The US may not have "cared" about Germany annexing Central Europe, but when Japan invaded Manchuria in 1933 the US cared.[2] The embargo against oil which the US imposed against Japan after its invasion of China in 1937 was one of the primary reasons Japan wanted to extend its empire to the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia today), a major source of petroleum. Japan could only do so if the US Navy in the Pacific was neutered. This directly lead to the surprise attack of the US Naval Base at Pearl Harbor. The Japenese were aiming for one decisive blow in order to knock out the US. And with Britian fighting against Germany the British colonies were vulnerable. Japan stood to gain everything with one roll of the dice.
[[2]The real "start" of WWII as far as I am concerned. Of course real fighting didn't begin until 1937 when Japan invaded the rest of China and it didn't become worldwide until 1939 with the invasion of Poland. Europeans/