Homeland security is an essentially broad topic. Its life grew from the rubble of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and has since spawned a cooperative domestic effort, ranging from community watch programs to the USA Patriot Act to the US-VISIT program, designed to streamline immigration.
In a speech to the Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors on Jan. 15, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge outlined the unifying goal of the millions of Americans working in that cooperative effort to protect America. It was a vision for what a safe and secure America will look like by the end of the decade.
Since its inception nearly two and a half years ago, though, the merits of coordinating citizens to reduce the risk of another terrorist attack has been sullied by partisan politics.
That is not to disparage the opinion of any one person or party. To be sure, it suggests that partisan politics has no place in preparing our citizens for the worst.
There certainly exists a likelihood that another terrorist attack will occur. There is also a validity to facing the prospect with confidence as a means to undermine a fearful climate. Fundamentally, though, the motivations and practices for homeland security is needed and appreciated, despite involved politics.
As a result, the decision to extend a course in homeland security to students of the MSU Evening College - a lifelong education program - is an admirable one. Compared to classes at the local or community level, a class designed to inform citizens in the forum of a major university seems only logical.
The objective of the course is on par with a life-saving class already offered by MSU. It's on the same playing field as a Red Cross-sponsored seminar in CPR or a course in self-defense. It remains an important facet of the post-Sept. 11 climate in this nation, and a course to reflect that should exist.
However, as aspects of homeland security have fallen under scrutiny and oppressive legislation has been passed in the name of protection, it is entirely essential that the course remain objective to partisan bias. By now, Americans have formulated their slant on how well - or poorly - the Department of Homeland Security is functioning.
Meaning, a course taught through a major university to members of the community should focus on what the individual can do to promote a safer America. And it is in the course's best interest to understand that many Americans find homeland security repressive to certain individuals.
But what will a course in homeland security actually teach? What subjects will be on the syllabus? Is it realistic to assume that all viewpoints of homeland security can be assessed in what was described as a "crash course"?
"Preparing for the Worst 101" is an unfair generalization of what this course would entail. Unfortunately, the motivation behind homeland security is just that - preparing for the worst.
It is our sincere hope that students are not taking this course in fear of their daily lives as an American. We all have a right to learn more about how we can help our country, free of the political undertones that unfortunately accompany homeland security.
