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
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.
/. ++
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/