When The Sacramento Bee Publisher Janis Heaphy questioned government policies limiting civil rights and press freedom in the war on terrorism at the fall graduation ceremony, she was literally booed off the podium. A number of Sacramento State students, alumni and guests at the ceremony charged that the speech was out of place both at a graduation ceremony and during wartime.

Ready acceptance of these assertions is a mistake.

Attorney General John Ashcroft was quoted as saying, “Those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty only aid terrorists. For they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve.” In short, the immediate concern of national security should override any traditional American concerns of open debate and individual rights. This idea had clearly taken hold by that Saturday afternoon.

However unintended, the speech created a fervor in the Sacramento area and even nation-wide. In the days following the commencement, citizens and students swarmed onto popular Sacramento message boards sacstate.com and statehornet.com, mostly lambasting Heaphy for writing a “soapbox” speech. Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh also chastised Heaphy. The incident became something of a joke from the left as well, as evidenced by an article by The Nation titled, “The Constitution Makes it Our Right to Challenge Government Policies. Our Culture Makes it Our Duty. But Sacramento Still May Shoot You Down.”

However infamous a picture the article paints of Sacramento, it has a point. Contrary to Ashcroft?s statement, debate and dissent have a place in American democracy, no matter how unpopular. In fact, universities are traditionally places where public debate begins.

So were Heaphy?s unpopular assertions part of a “soapbox” speech? Of course.

Informing a group of educated citizens on an important issue is perfectly acceptable at a graduation ceremony, especially in today?s tumultuous climate. Remember that John F. Kennedy was not booed off of the stage in 1963 when he suggested that American University?s graduates join the Peace Corps. Nor was George Bush Sr. ridiculed at John Hopkins University for preaching a decline in family values. For that matter, Winston Churchill coined the phrase “Iron Curtain” at a graduation speech.

In any case, what makes Heaphy?s speech most compelling is that it was correct. In the speech Heaphy posed a question that few in the media have: “Specifically, to what degree are we willing to compromise our civil liberties in the name of security?”

So far, the degree of compromise that Americans have allowed is disturbing. Authorities have questioned 5,000 legal immigrants based solely on race, gender and country of origin. Hundreds have been detained without charges (or on minor charges unrelated to terrorism) with limited attorney rights. Also, basic rights such as attorney-client confidentiality can now be revoked at the whim of the justice department. Much of the information about the detainees has been kept secret, as has some evidence being used against them. Planned use of military tribunals on suspects caught in the United States further cloak the anti-terror campaign into secrecy, and away from public scrutiny.

Ironically, Heaphy also criticized the press, mentioning the release of the Osama bin Laden video that was censored at the request of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and other instances of delayed reporting of ground troops entering Afghanistan. In response, Heaphy asked, “Should we then censor the words of anyone who might oppose the administration or disagree with a United States policy?”

Accrording to some in the press and government, the answer to this question has been a resounding yes. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has made a joke out of the free press, bullying reporters at Pentagon press conferences. In the face of this, the mainstream press has lacked the spine to cross this official Washington line.

The media have failed to question the government on how 650 U.S. troops and Special Forces are to be used against terrorist cells in the Philippines, what grounds justify the expansion of the war into Iraq (and how that expansion would be successful), and what uniform long-term policy the Bush Administration will adopt. And finally, the press has failed to ask how the government justifies suspending civil liberties at home when the greatest challenge to federal crime fighting has historically been infighting and lack of communication between the numerous federal bureaucracies.

Educated citizens (i.e. Sac State graduates) must be exposed to critical voices if they are to play any role in the future of democracy. In these pivotal times, debate is needed.

Bring on your soapboxes.

Think Josh Leon is an idiot?

Tell him why at

[email protected]