I'd always thought the point of a university education was to learn how to be open-minded, to learn how to think critically, to learn how to learn. I guess all that has changed. It now looks increasingly like a university education is simply another form of political indoctrination.

Here's what the head librarian of a local San Antonio university had to say about his decision to cancel the New York Times in light of their "violations" of our war effort:

"Since no one elected the New York Times to determine national security policy, the only action I know to register protest for their irresponsible action (treason?) is to withdraw support of their operations by canceling our subscription as many others are doing," Mendell D. Morgan, Jr. wrote in a June 28 email to library staff. "If enough do, perhaps they will get the point."

I have a question for Mr. Morgan. Are you going to cancel the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal too, because they ran the same story on the same day as the Times?

If you are curious as to what his decision is, please email him here: morgan@universe.uiwtx.edu, troyk@universe.uiwtx.edu, and trowsdal@universe.uiwtx.edu . Ask them how this helps young minds learn anything of real, critical value?

Or, you can call the university president's office. He's a good guy, so please be polite. His name is Louis Agnese and his office number is: 210-829-3900. Just ask them if they are going to cancel the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal too? Simple and direct, but again, please be polite.

Update: More at Drive Democracy.

After the jump is the email Mr. Morgan sent to the Times.

E-mail sent by Mendell Morgan:

From: Morgan, Mendell D
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 1:30 PM
Subject: New York Times cancellation

I have cancelled the J. E. and L. E. Mabee Library subscription to the print version of the New York Times effective today. For some years, many have observed a change in quality and shift in coverage in what was once “the national newspaper of record”. Recently they made a very deliberate decision to publish vital intelligence information on specific methods of SWIFT for tracing money transfers used to fund terrorist activities in many parts of the world.

The US government held meetings with them to discuss this sensitive information and had specifically asked them, along with other news organizations, not to make this information public on the grounds of national security interests. Despite the explanation of the serious and sensitive nature of this information, the New York Times decided to make it public, so everyone, including the sworn enemies of the United States, would be fully informed. Now we all know. In time of war—and we are in a time of war—this specific information is not something the average citizen needs and the enemy most certainly does not.

This kind of intelligence operation had been successfully used to apprehend some of the terrorists who have perpetrated crimes, and prevented some other planned actions. These methods are among those that have prevented further 9/11 attacks in our country and kept us relatively safe in our homeland so far. This recent disclosure has now neutralized a valuable method of finding information to keep us safe and placed us and our families in a more vulnerable position. It may also prolong the war effort and claim more American (and other) lives at home and abroad.

Since no one elected the New York Times to determine national security policy, the only action I know to register protest for their irresponsible action (treason?) is to withdraw support of their operations by canceling our subscription as many others are doing. If enough do perhaps they will get the point.

Mendell D. Morgan, Jr.
Dean of Library Services