United States Attorney General John Ashcroft knows you read “Charlotte’s Web” in the third grade.

Well, that may be a stretch. But under Section 215 of the controversial USA Patriot Act Ashcroft could seize our current reading records without probable cause and without ever giving us notice.

This is a blatant violation of Fourth Amendment guarantees against unlawful search and seizure and also an infringement on our First Amendment rights of free speech.

According to the language of Section 215, the Federal Bureau of Investigation may seize “any tangible thing” it “specifies” is sought for an investigation.

A judge is not required to issue the order. Judges are only required to approve applications. These applications must be approved if they meet the minimal standard that intelligence sought is, “relevant to a criminal investigation.” So much for judicial oversight. And the guardians of these “things” are prohibited from telling anyone they have been approached.

Librarians, internet service providers, book sellers and civil libertarians across the nation immediately recognized the Orwellian implications of this Oct. 26, 2001, law on their constitutional rights.

However, only 181 communities and three states have passed resolutions decrying the act. Fewer than one in ten libraries reported having adopted or changed policies in response, according to a recent study by the Library Research Center at the University of Illinois.

What has the Sacramento State library done about this?

In the two years since the passage of the Patriot Act, surprisingly little has changed in our library. The policy on subpoenas and search warrants was updated last May to include precise procedures staff are to follow in the event the FBI knocks on their door.

Terry Webb, the dean of the library, viewed this as a violation of civil liberties that warrants a more vehement protest. But the new policy only challenges the expanded powers of law enforcement officials by requesting a specific subpoena signed by a judge. Library officials must comply and are barred from informing the subject of the investigation.

In the face of our new and improved Big Brother government, drastic steps must be taken.

If we are scared of reading certain books then we may also be intimidated from speaking our minds. The “chilling effect” this might create is much like one America saw during the hearings of the House of Un-American Activities Committee under Joseph McCarthy. The Patriot Act scraps the tighter judicial oversight of police investigations made into law in 1968. This was a reaction to clandestine investigations of innocent citizens like a young Martin Luther King Jr. during the HUAC perpetuated “Red Scare” of the Fifties and Sixties.

As students and citizens we must do everything in our power to prevent this from happening again.

Enter Rhonda Rios Kravitz, head librarian of access services. Her plan takes a more proactive approach to protecting student records. She hopes to post signs warning library patrons that they are being watched. She also intends to call for reforms to destroy sign up sheets daily and to regularly shred other disposable records. She also wants an investigation into every record kept by the library and the reason for its retention.

Most importantly, she wants a review of identity attachment to records. This would be a great benefit for students and other library patrons because any resulting policy would detach our identities from our reading habits even more than they already are.

For now there are no long term patron records. Only currently checked out books can be linked to individual readers. Your name is expunged the next time the book or other material is checked out.

Our library should follow the lead of some other libraries by shredding unnecessary records and deleting the histories from internet terminals daily. The FBI cannot seize records that do not exist.

This encroachment on our rights should make all citizens seething patriotic ideologues. The Patriot Act is scaring law abiding citizens from fighting for the constitutional rights guaranteed to us all. It must be dealt with accordingly.

If our librarians really agree with civil libertarians that our rights are in jeopardy — Rios Kravitz, for one, does — then they ought to combine proactive precautions with civil disobedience. If and when the FBI knocks on the library door, our dutiful librarians should stand up for their practice students, with an outright refusal to cooperate with any request for information made under Section 215 of the Patriot Act.

We students should support them by getting involved in these important civil liberty issues that affect us all. Learn about the horrors of this law from Rios Kravitz in the reserve book room or visit the American Civil Liberties Union’s website at http://www.aclu.org.

Is Ryan a real patriot?

Send comments to

[email protected]