CAMPUS CORRESPONDENCE : There’s Nothing Wrong With the CIA on Campus, Unless It’s Covert

The Rochester Institute of Technology continues to be shadowed by its ties to the CIA.

The relationship between the school and the spy agency was first disclosed in April. RIT President Dr. M. Richard Rose informed students and faculty that he was spending his six-month sabbatical at the CIA’s headquarters in Langley, Va., where he was helping to redesign the agency’s training and education program. Students and faculty felt deceived, since Rose had earlier implied that he was leaving to work on the war effort in the Persian Gulf. Some called for his immediate resignation.

Soon after, a reporter for the local newspaper wrote a series of articles exposing the extensive funding relationship between the school and the CIA. The stories also revealed that the institute’s research corporation had been producing a series of reports for the intelligence agency, one of which was titled “Japan 2000.” Critics called it racist.

The controversy intensified when other news reports disclosed memoranda of agreement outlining the relationship between RIT and the government. The school’s board of trustees quickly formed a review panel to investigate the CIA connection and report its findings. With allegations multiplying, the faculty council insisted that Rose return from his sabbatical. He refused.

Throughout, the reaction of RIT’s administration has not been helpful. When the memoranda first appeared in the local newspaper, school officials claimed the documents had never been approved. Although the administration may have been technically honest, it was clear that the memos were the basis for a growing relationship with the CIA.

Furthermore, by acknowledging its formal ties to agencies in Washington and to certain corporate sponsors, but not to the RIT academic community, the administration committed a major injustice. Had there been no revelation that Rose was working in Langley, the majority of the RIT community might still be ignorant of the connection.

Still, is the school’s relationship with the CIA wrong? Properly governed and overseen, no.

While many may not agree with what the agency does, the CIA is a legitimate branch of the federal government. To prohibit the CIA from sponsoring research and development at premier universities and colleges would undercut the agency’s ability to carry out its missions. If the CIA is to exist, it should have the latest technology at its disposal.

The review panel set up by the board of trustees endorsed this view. It also recommended that faculty and students who are invited or directed to participate in a CIA-sponsored project be made aware of the project’s nature and purposes.

The same recommendation was applied to the curriculum. The report indicated that the CIA had influenced the imaging-science curriculum. There is nothing inherently wrong in this. All industry should have an influence in the curriculum-making process. It is only natural that an academic institute attempt to design its curriculum to meet the needs of industry.

But it is important that no single member of industry--or government agency in this case--be allowed to dominate the curriculum process. Nor is it appropriate that any attempt to shape studies be done covertly. Curriculum changes should not be made to satisfy sponsors but to produce the highest quality of student possible. When course-change recommendations are made, the “who” and “why” should be passed, along with the “what,” to those committees with oversight responsibility. Had the extent of the CIA’s interest in imaging science been made known to the faculty council, graduate council, policy council and board of trustees, much of the current controversy could have been avoided.

The review panel did not fully resolve the issue of classified research. Its report recommended that no classified research be performed within RIT proper. A few panel members also felt that such research should not be carried on at the RIT-owned research subsidiary, because effective academic oversight would be impossible.

The purpose of academic research is to learn and to educate. If the research cannot be shared and discussed with colleagues and/or students, how does it educate? Classified research is the antithesis of academic research and should not be performed on campus. But it would be appropriate at the research subsidiary.

The argument against permitting classified research at the RIT subsidiary pivots on the inability of an oversight committee without security clearances to effectively review the materials. Even if committee members had the proper clearances, it is argued, they could not relate their findings, since the specifics--and the generalities--of the research would be classified. We would thus have to trust their judgment. Any checks and balances would be sacrificed. Supporters of this view relied on RIT’s recent experience to make their case.

I disagree. If the oversight group is selected by the school’s academic community and its members periodically reviewed and rotated, our trust would not be misplaced. Many successful systems in academia rely on trust. A trustworthy panel could be formed that would ensure that the CIA-sponsored research being performed is not inconsistent with the school’s mission.

The Rochester Institute of Technology has learned a valuable lesson. When too much authority is vested in an individual, without proper oversight or governance, he may be off pursuing goals that he , rather than the school, set. RIT should act on this lesson by taking a long, hard look at its current system, with the aim of correcting it. Similar institutes may wish to do the same.