BY RANDY GOLDSTEIN

In print | Published October 30, 2003

Diebold Election Systems may be poorly managed. Its programming practices may be sketchy and its security assurances may be lacking. Given the prevalence of Diebold products in elections across the country, these allegations merit further investigation and inquiry.

To this supposed end, Why War? and its sympathizers have taken a reckless and illogical approach. By operating from within the Swarthmore network, Why War? has attempted to burden Swarthmore with unnecessary risks and costs.

Why War’s tactics in addressing this issue have not demonstrated a desire for reform but rather seem concocted from some naive notion of protest against corporate America. These tactics may be appropriate as a last resort, but they are being employed at a point when a number of legal, effective alternatives remain unexploited.

Regardless of its implications for a changing notion of democracy, the Diebold issue is not the direct business of Swarthmore as an educational entity. Why War? would like the college to comply with a barrage of cease-and-desist orders while agreeing to a tacit agreement to allow students to transfer the location of the Diebold documents every three days. Though Why War? may argue that this practice would shield the college from legal repercussions, this is no guarantee of safety. If Why War’s actions are brought to court, it is unlikely that Swarthmore can remain an uninvolved party.

And aside from this legal risk, Why War? neglects that fact that the Diebold issue presents a real cost for the college. ITS, which is already overworked this semester, must waste valuable time complying with cease-and-desist orders. And though the college has legal counsel, any time spent on Diebold is time not spent on matters directly pertinent to the college.

Even if the costs were negligible, it would be inappropriate for Swarthmore to take a stance on this issue. Though Why War? argues that the college is neglecting a “pro-democracy” view, it fails to understand that, regardless of its politically charged climate, Swarthmore is an educational, not political, institution. Were the college to adopt every issue that a politically aroused student group deemed morally worthy, it would find its ability to fulfill its academic mission quickly compromised.

In response to Swarthmore’s refusal to knowingly allow this illegal activity on the college network, Why War? has accused the college of the “suppression of the Diebold memos.” If Why War? were truly dedicated to changing the operations of Diebold and influencing American voting processes, it would not find it necessary to attack Swarthmore, essentially an innocent bystander in this fiasco. An issue as important as Why War? claims this one to be could surely subsist without attachment to Swarthmore’s elite reputation.

Why War? is blinded by a romantic notion of protest whose methods are simply inappropriate in achieving their stated ends. It claims that violating the law is acceptable in the name of civil disobedience. Because it disagrees with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Why War? chooses to ignore Diebold’s legal demands. What it fails to realize, however, is that civil disobedience is historically an act of desperation. A situation whose origins are merely a few months old hardly calls for desperate measures.

If Why War? and its associates wanted real change for Diebold, they would follow the route most likely to be effective. They would remove Swarthmore from the situation and seek to correct this injustice based on its own demerits. Why War? should take its own “pro-democracy” stance and use the tools of democracy to pursue change rather than skirt the laws of civil society.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has the right idea in filing legal claims against Diebold. These claims will allow our courts to decide Diebold’s merits rather than a few rogue college students. If Why War? were serious about challenging electronic voting standards, it would take a similar approach. In its self-righteous attempt to bypass the law and create bedlam for Diebold, Why War? has marginalized its chances of effecting any real change.

Randy Goldstein is a junior. You can contact him at rgoldst1@swarthmore.edu.

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »