Search News


Browse Archives

News

Detectives at Office Hours

March 13, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Miguel Tinker-Salas, a professor of Latin American history at Pomona College, had two unexpected guests during his office hours on Tuesday.

Mixed in with the line of about five students were two detectives from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, one of whom, according to a business card he gave Tinker-Salas, works for the Joint Terrorism Task Force, a Federal Bureau of Investigation collaboration with local detectives. According to Tinker-Salas, the detectives said they wanted to "develop a profile of the Venezuelan community in the United States."

Tinker-Salas, who provided business cards and cell phone numbers for the detectives that the two left during their visit, described the 20-minute encounter as pervaded by "verbal jostling." Tinker-Salas said that one of the men had a folder, in which he had Tinker-Salas's profile from the Pomona Web site, among other papers. Tinker-Salas specializes in contemporary Venezuelan and Mexican politics, as well as issues related to oil in Venezuela. “They praised my academic credentials,” Tinker-Salas said. “Why are you really here?” he said he asked the visitors. “What is your level of education to have an opinion on my credentials?”

The detectives then asked questions for which answers are publicly available, Tinker-Salas said. “They asked if there’s a Venezuelan consulate in L.A. and if I have relations to it. They asked things like, how many Venezuelans are there in L.A. and in the U.S.,” Tinker-Salas said. “There is no Venezuelan consulate in L.A. I interpreted this as a fishing expedition.”

Tinker-Salas has been an outspoken critic of U.S. foreign policy in Venezuela, most recently about the "inoculation strategy" that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said is an attempt to form "a united front against some of the kinds of things that Venezuela gets involved in." The professor said he guessed that his prominence, particularly in the news media, drew the detectives to his door.

According to an e-mail Tinker-Salas wrote to colleagues about the visit, the detectives “were especially interested in whether or not I had been approached by anyone in the Venezuelan government or embassy to speak up on Venezuelan related matters.”

Neither the FBI nor the Sheriff’s Department would comment on the matter, and neither of the detectives returned phone calls Friday.

Before they came into Tinker-Salas’s office, the detectives roamed the hallway a bit, according to Tinker-Salas and students present, and talked to a few students. “They asked [the students outside Tinker-Salas’s door] what courses he’s teaching, do they like him,” said John Macias, a graduate student at the Claremont Graduate University who is taking Tinker-Salas’s Latin America Since Independence course. Macias said that the detectives didn’t identify themselves to the students, but that, though they were not in uniform, “they were obviously older.... They stood out.”

Macias was outside his professor's office when the interview took place, and he recounted it much the same way as Tinker-Salas did, including when the detectives asked Tinker-Salas if he's a U.S. citizen. Tinker-Salas was born in Venezuela, and is a U.S. citizen. Macias said he also noticed that one of the detectives took a keen interest in "Boondocks" and "La Cucaracha" comic strips -- both of which take jabs at the government regularly -- posted outside Tinker-Salas’s office door. Macias, who was annoyed that the detectives cut to the front of the office hours line, said that Tinker-Salas mentioned the encounter to his class on Thursday. “I’m pretty sure they would know if there’s a consulate in L.A.,” Macias said. “I think they just did it to arouse suspicion.”

Jonathan Knight, director of the Department of Academic Freedom and Governance at the American Association of University Professors, said that it isn’t that worrisome for the FBI to talk to faculty members about their expertise or to solicit advice, but that this was different. "These kinds of inquiries,” Knight said in an e-mail, “focused on what a faculty member teaches, the sources for his ideas, and what students have to say about the content of classroom presentations, are fraught with risk for the free exchange of ideas.”

Knight noted that the Joint Terrorism Task Force’s mission is to detect and prevent terrorism, and to prosecute terrorists. Tinker-Salas said the detectives told him that he is not the target of an investigation, and Tinker-Salas said that the only other Venezuelan faculty member, in the math department, was not contacted.

David Oxtoby, president of Pomona, sent an e-mail message on Thursday to students and faculty members about the detectives’ visit. “I am extremely concerned about the chilling effect this kind of intrusive government interest could have on free scholarly and political discourse,” Oxtoby wrote. “I am also concerned about the negative message it sends to students who are considering the pursuit of important areas of international study, in which they may now feel exposed to unwarranted official scrutiny.” Oxtoby added that Pomona is consulting with legal advisers about the most effective way to register "a strong official protest about this intrusion into our scholarly and educational activities, and we will take appropriate action as soon as their advice is received.”

Said Tinker-Salas: "They also wanted to know where the Venezuelan community congregates. The largest Venezuelan community is in Miami. They know that. One would expect that if they want to ask about my expertise, they would set up an appointment.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Detectives at Office Hours

  • Additional questions
  • Posted by L.L. Barry , Ex-court reporter at Small college on March 13, 2006 at 5:00am EST
  • First: Were the alleged officers politely asked to show their sheriff's department ID cards and badges? That's always Rule No. 1. Any fool can print a business card -- and impersonating a police officer is a very serious criminal offense.

    Secondly, it would help, in this week promoting the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), if someone posted those business cards as PDFs somewhere. Then the reader could assess how "real" the cards appeared. For example -- do the alleged business cards have a sheriff department's telephone number on them?

    Third: did the college police department confirm that the alleged detective-deputies were, in fact, sworn police officers? Further -- was the college police department contacted, either by those campus officials involved and/or the alleged detective-deputies?

  • And languages . . . ?
  • Posted by Andrew Purvis on March 13, 2006 at 7:10am EST
  • Let me begin by saying that my general feeling on this story is probably colored by my having earned a degree from Claremont Gradate University. This just hits home, for me, a little more than a story about Distant Midwestern College ever could. My comment, however, is about languages.

    Last week President Bush spoke again about expanding the number of people studying certain languages such as Korean, Chinese, and Arabic. The so-called strategic languages should be studied, and probably more than they are at this time. What people do with those studies is not of concern to me (nor should it be of most other people), though I am always pleased when some initiative leads to a more varied and interesting educational landscape.

    Here's the problem: as we expand the instruction of these languages, we will need to draw in educators who are, more often than not, native speakers. This will almost certainly include people who are critical of whatever administration is then in power, and I wonder whether this will turn the very people we claim we want into the hosts to such visitors.

    Do we run the risk, as we try to increase the number of Americans fluent in the languages of our militray and economic rivals, of producing phantoms in our closets? Will the JTTF end up dropping in on the very people it needs to teach future JTTF members these strategic languages?

    It is all well and good that this took place where others could witness it, but I have to wonder what value to place on claims by our law enforcement personnel that a person being interviewed is not under investigation. When warrants can be executed without even notifying the individual under investigation, what worth can such an assurance truly have? I know I would expect it to be as likely a lie as the truth were I in that situation.

  • Posted by Larry on March 13, 2006 at 7:45am EST
  • Not that it really matters too much, as police can generally ask anyone any questions they want (as can I), but asking a cop what level of education he has doesn’t advance any conversation. It was simply an insult, and probably somewhat misguided, as many cops have an advanced enough education to have some idea about someone’s credentials.

    Perhaps deep in the background there are a couple of constitutional issues here – but the Supreme Court has not spoken to them. But merely visiting someone and asking questions (at their office) during office hours does not create a problem.

    As the above posters say, it is best to get ID cards, printed business cards, call the phone book number for their office. Moreover, it is perfectly permissible to have your own lawyer present at any of these interviews, or to have the interview conducted in their office. This way, everyone gets what they want. Perhaps the government has legitimate questions they can have answered, and nobody feels intimidated. From reading the story quickly, it seems that the officers used a few terms of art that do not mean too much to most people, but do know what these mean.

    (In many, though not all universities, legal representation is paid for by the university in such cases. Foreign academics may be wise to inquire about such procedures in advance.)

  • In general
  • Posted by Richard Beldin on March 13, 2006 at 7:45am EST
  • People are too submissive when someone asserts authority. Recently it was reported that someone who identified himself by telephone as a police investigator was able to intimidate a KFC manager to stripsearch an employee just on his say-so.

    The general behavior of supposed authorities has become more aggressive with the revelation of illegal actions on the part of the federal government. Bush & company have set a very low moral tone for the country, worse, in my mind, than the Clinton pecadillos. A president who asserts that he gets his direction from a Higher Authority, should consider just what kind of example he is setting for the country. If one person can pretend to have the moral high ground, others will follow. In particular, minor police officials who resent their lack of authority are likely to act-out with civilians.

    The real police authorities are obligated to carry out a prompt and vigorous investigation to see if their employees have violated internal regulations.

  • provide specifics, Richard
  • Posted by Larry on March 13, 2006 at 8:35am EST
  • Richard, What internal regulations do you think the violated? In order for your comment to have some merit you would at least have to provide some specifics. Nothing appears to have violated any procedure in any entity that I know of. You might not like it, but most internal regulations do not go too far above what is required by the construction of the constitution favored by that government entity. (Nothing wrong with this: it just means we must have a robust amount of constitutional case-law to fill in the blanks and void overly aggressive constructions.)

    While I generally agree that people are “too submissive” most academics on this board seem unable or unwilling to even call a lawyer when confronted with police (giving all sorts of, quite frankly, lame excuses), which is pretty fundamental. Indeed, while it is all well and good to declare that academics need to be a bulwark against tyranny, most of them are, unfortunately, unwilling to engage in even light conflict to the tune of making a phone-call. Librarians, whom most academics consider not to be academics, are much more willing to, at a minimum, seek legal advice.

    Here is my suggestion. All faculty members should keep, in their wallet (and in their cell phone) the phone number of a lawyer that they know will quickly represent them in such a situation. All administrators should make sure that faculty have access to such representation. All in-house counsel should cooperate with local state and federal law enforcement to develop procedures for representation, as well as develop a familiarity with the relevant officers, so that it will be easy to spot a fake. (As a practical matter, interviews should probably be conducted with outside counsel.)

  • Not a question of "regulations"
  • Posted by Mr. Huntly on March 13, 2006 at 10:40am EST
  • Who knows what "regulations" were violated, and why does it matter? What these detectives violated was common sense and professional courtesy. Police officers don't simply show up at office hours and start asking questions about politics, unless they're trying to surprise or intimidate someone. If they were seeking information or advice on a professional basis, there would be a phone call or correspondence of some kind, stating the nature of their interest and setting up an appointment. What's more, they have no business whatsoever questioning the professor's students about anything, unless he's being investigated for a crime.

    I think there's a little too much lawyerly bullshit on this board sometimes--quoting legal code and demanding citations when none are needed to see the inappropriateness of an activity like this. Policemen, officials, administrators, students, or whoever else aren't entitled to behave in any way they feel like simply because there isn't a statute prohibiting them. Perhaps they can't be legally sanctioned for it, but we as citizens can certainly speak out against it and demand some accountability. Laws and regulations aren't the ultimate authority on how people can or should behave in a civil society--and we can certainly demand more of our public servants.

  • Posted by Thane Doss on March 13, 2006 at 11:00am EST
  • Office hours are for students, and these fellows had no business interfering with student/professor interactions. As others have said, they should've scheduled an appointment (outside of office hours so they would not interfere with education). Of course, to do that, they might have found it necessary to give a more substantial reason for their interview.

  • Another "FBI library book' crisis? Or 'thugs beat me up?'
  • Posted by Art D. on March 13, 2006 at 11:55am EST
  • Before this gets to "the sky is falling" stage --

    Still waiting for someone to post PDF's or JPG's of the alleged business cards that were left behind by the alleged police officers.

    Until that happens -- what sense does it make to get all worked up?

    Also: the legal notes are fine with me. Thank you, ol' Lar, ol' buddy.

    There are some academic mutts who'd rather pick which laws to obey.

    Well, if it is so terrible here, why don't they go find a better country to live in?

    Hey -- Eldridge Cleaver fled to Algeria -- look what happened to him.

  • Detectives Visit
  • Posted by CAP on March 13, 2006 at 12:30pm EST
  • You may all be interested to know that late Friday, the FBI released the following statement.

    CAP

    FBI STATEMENT
    LOS ANGELES FIELD OFFICE

    FBI  11000 Wilshire Blvd.  Los Angeles, Ca 90024  310-996-3804,3343  Fax: 310-996-3345

    For Immediate Release

    DATE: March 10, 2006

    FBI STATEMENT REGARDING INFORMATIONAL INTERVIEW OF POMONA COLLEGE PROFESSOR

    Agents of the FBI and its state, local and federal task force partners routinely conduct interviews in the course of daily activity. Being interviewed by FBI Agents or Task Force Officers should not suggest wrongdoing on the part of the interviewee. The FBI takes great pains to avoid publicity when interviews are conducted.

    The FBI and its task force partners in state, local and federal agencies are mindful of the need to respect the circumstances that might surround the timing and location of an informational interview. When requested to participate in interviews, individuals are free to indicate a preference regarding these issues.

    With regard to the interview of the professor, the purpose of the interview was to seek information. There was no intent on the part of the FBI, regarding the timing or location, to place the professor, his students or Pomona College in an uncomfortable situation.

  • Sky still up there
  • Posted by Larry on March 13, 2006 at 12:45pm EST
  • Art D., Unlike the library book story, I find this to be credible. But I still think that the sky is not falling.

    First of all: showing up at someone’s place of business during business hours is not intimidation. It is a normal investigative practice utilized by both law enforcement AND investigators for criminal defendants. Most people are trained to charm someone rather than threaten them. (Lt. Columbo’s MO is a prime example of this. He never beat anyone up, and rarely, if ever, would he obtain a court order or a search warrant.)

    As a constitutional matter, this professor would not have felt intimidated, as they were free to terminate the interview at any time, and were not in a situation where they would have not felt free to leave. No threats were made.

    Mr. Huntly, understanding the law is key to knowing when it has been broken and what one’s rights are. I understand how you may find yourself not understand legal questions, but when one is discussing constitutional matter, one must naturally result to legal terms, which, of course, you are free to ask for definitions of. Few “codes” are ever quoted on here, except in reference to specific statutes or regulations at issue. But, I should note, that people are generally entitled to behave in any way that isn’t illegal. If an agent of the government’s behavior results in a constitutional violation there are certain remedies for it ranging from money damages, to exclusion of evidence to injunctive relief. I don’t know what you expect the police to do or not do, but you do not provide an argument as to why a visit with someone during business hours is improper, except perhaps to say that “office hours” are not business hours, and only students can visit during “office” hours.

    Individuals outside the government obviously, are not constrained by the constitution.

  • Old story, told again: no one likes working with the FBI
  • Posted by L.L. Barry on March 13, 2006 at 12:45pm EST
  • Just watch any old episode of NYPD Blue.

  • Old tricks?
  • Posted by Andrew Purvis on March 14, 2006 at 4:25am EST
  • Art, let's get back to the issue. Your "find a better country" comment is not only irrelevant, it is insulting to the level of discussion this issue deserves. This is not about how bad things are, it is about the nature of the questions being asked and about the legitimacy of those questions.

    You may further choose to believe this story or not ("alleged business cards"?), but why don't you address the story and the issues it raises rather than question the claims of people whose character you have not demonstrated is worth second-guessing?

    What does "There are some academic mutts who’d rather pick which laws to obey" mean, anyway? Is it only academics who do this? We can catch speeders more efficiently, if that is true. What makes them "mutts"?

    Please dispense with the fallacies.

  • Sorry, Barney
  • Posted by Art D. on March 14, 2006 at 9:05am EST
  • " .. Your “find a better country” comment is not only irrelevant, it is insulting to the level of discussion this issue deserves .."

    That's your opinion. I have mine. If you're unhappy that everyone doesn't ape your opinion -- that is your problem, sir.

    " .. This is not about how bad things are, it is about the nature of the questions being asked ..

    No, this is about how alleged intellectuals go bonkers every time some minor issue -- e.g., traffic stops, following police orders during a student riot -- that the rest of society somehow manages to deal with, every day -- without going bonkers. That's the point, pal.

    "You may further choose to believe this story or not ("alleged business cards"?) .. but why don’t you address the story .."

    Sure .. using that thinking, let's address Holocaust denial and Joe Stalin getting abused by the CIA.

    " .. What does “There are some academic mutts .."

    See above, about alleged intellectuals.

    "Please dispense with the fallacies."

    You first, sir. Deny there are academic fields, so over-populated, there isn't a snowball's chance in Hades of the average PhD or MA graduate getting a full-time position. Deny many students at mega-universities are put in some institutional anomie with huge debt loads, a la The New York Times' series. Deny there isn't an endless amount of money for education, medicine, etc.

    Oh, yeah -- deny that alleged intellectuals are four-ulcer Barney Fife's in a one-ulcer world.

  • Higher standards
  • Posted by Mr. Huntly on March 14, 2006 at 11:45am EST
  • Larry: I have no problem understanding the law or legal questions. My point is that the law and the Constitution aren't the end-all and be-all of what's appropriate conduct by either our officials or our citizens. And I heartily disagree with you that people are entitled to behave in any way that isn't illegal. What you mean is that people can't be legally sanctioned for behavior that isn't illegal. But just as the law isn't the only standard of civil behavior, legal sanction isn't the only mechanism available to us for remedy. We, as citizens, have every right to demand something more than "the letter of the law" from one another and from the police. This is where things like "professional ethics," "civil conduct," "common courtesy," and, yes, personal "morality" come into play. While you may not recognize any of these as having any force of authority over you, the community around you can certainly bring them to bear, and it can have very real effects (for better and for worse, I admit).

    In this case, the detectives may have violated a law or some departmental regulation, I don't know. If so, they should be formally punished. But even if they didn't, they certainly violated this person's basic sense of security and dignity. You want to claim that he couldn't be intimidated because the law wasn't broken? What nonsense! Two men, in an apparent position of authority, arriving unannounced at your office, asking ambiguous and pointless questions, talking to your students, making it very clear that they want to know about your politics, and seeking "information" about minority communities that you are affiliated with (information easily available at the library or online)...Oh no, not intimidating at all! Very Columbo-like (remind me, he is a fictional character, right?). Rather, very McCarthy-esque (most of his "inquiries" were legal too).

    This matter goes beyond legal definitions and wrangling and gets at the heart of what a free, democratic, and civil society should expect from its government. Among those things are respect, courtesy, sensitivity, common sense, and the judicious restraint of even "legal" powers. Art D. may whine about "alleged intellectuals" and order all malcontents out of his imaginary country, and you can demand all the legal citations you wish, but it won't silence those of us who know we have a right to expect more.

  • Imperial hubris?
  • Posted by Art. D. on March 14, 2006 at 3:05pm EST
  • " .. Art D. may whine about “alleged intellectuals” .."

    Is this the same "huntly" who claimed imperial authority in dealing with students, several months ago? If so .. my, my, how times change.

    " .. it won’t silence those of us who know we have a right to expect more."

    Why, yes .. now that we are in "March Madness" and there is a 60% chance that a violent, drunken riot will erupt somewhere -- Mr. Huntly and his brilliance will rush in and show everyone the academic way to calm things down.

    That, or he'll be fatally stomped, before those mean old police officers clear a path for the EMTs to pick up his broken body.

    Are police officers perfect? Of course not.

    Are tenured academics perfect? Not the last time that I checked -- they just think they are -- and it can cost more than $2 million to remove obvious incompetents.

    I seriously doubt claiming "academic freedom" every five seconds will make the world a better place. It's more like "The Boy Who Cried Wolf."

  • Earth to Art
  • Posted by Mr. Huntly on March 14, 2006 at 4:35pm EST
  • Art D.: How is it that your comments here never seem to have anything to do with the topic at hand? It's like you're engaged in some private, internal debate with liberal demons from the netherworld plaguing you about basketball and business cards and whatnot. Read and respond to the issues (in complete sentences, preferably) or take a pill to collect your thoughts. Better yet, love this liberal, humanistic, and intellectual America or leave it (that is, pretty much, your answer to all dissent isn't it?)!

  • Thanks for the delusions
  • Posted by Art D on March 15, 2006 at 6:40am EST
  • Oh, huntly .. you were so much funnier, when claiming Imperial authority in distributing your "splendificant" (Chappelle, 2003) knowledge to only those you deemed worthy. The view from the TA's desk is yummy, isn't it?

    Yeah, those cops goofed. The CIA's already got all that info in their data banks, from the Ivies and MIT, paid for like the U.S. military paid Noam Chomsky. That prof couldn't have added anything new. Another gub-mint SNAFU, paid for by taxpayers. Some things never change, unfortunately.

  • Posted by Larry on March 16, 2006 at 9:10am EST
  • Art, I still don't get it. Huntly is right.

  • Nothing legal, 'ol Lar, 'ol buddy
  • Posted by Art D. on March 17, 2006 at 6:05am EST
  • Well, gosh darn, ol' Lar .. there are postings of yours that I don't understand .. but what the heck ..

    Utopian idealists (UIs) like huntly, ACLU, AAUP, et al., knee-jerk criticize everything
    required of police, GWB, Slick Willie, and anyone not GLBT in cleaning up society's dirtest jobs -- fights, domestic disputes with guns involved, post-Final Four riots, et al.

    Of course -- UIs could never get involved themselves. That would be, far below them. Plus, if they did, they'd probably be killed within a few days. But they're very happy to relentlessly critique those having to do the dirty work (e.g., premature, late, too little, too much, not enough, etc.)

    That is not to say, police officers, attorneys, judges, et al., should not be held to high standards. They should.

    The problem the UIs face is, after a while, a complaint filed every 20 minutes makes you a running joke on Letterman ("Volcano? It's Bush's fault.")

    Yeah -- those deputies probably screwed up. Local cops, working with FBI, stumbling
    over the CIA and NSA. Like GWB and Hiliary saying they are for limited government --
    then spending more billions.

    The deputies probably wasted their time, thinking the Claremont prof, knew anything of value. They'd been better off, reading FBI files.

  • complaining is American
  • Posted by Larry on March 20, 2006 at 11:25am EST
  • Art, I stated from the start that I don’t think the police did anything wrong. Visiting people at their place of business is employed by all sorts of investigators, even those for criminal defendants! Heck, in law school I did it!

    As to “filing complainants.” People are free to petition for redress and air grievances. In fact, the framers were quite clear on this one and put it in the First Amendment. While many complaints may be without merit, sooner or later people will get an idea of what constitutes merit, and stop filing non-meritorious ones. But, listening (or reading) complaints is a small price we pay for a democratic system.

  • Detectives at Office Hours
  • Posted by Pat on March 21, 2006 at 4:20pm EST
  • Hoover rides again! I'm not a member of your local academic community, but I do have an interest in detectives asking question, why they're asking, and at whose direction. The detectives had said they wanted to develope a profile of the Venezuela community in the United States. Huh! Wouldn't this be more properly conducted by sociologists, as apart from detectives? I read it as an effort to intimidate, to collect trivia to use or misuse, or even to influence negative thinking about the subject, i.e.,Venezuela.
    I've grown suspicious of our current administration and its "diplomatic" policies.
    and consequently, of governmental issue news items, most recently about Venezuela.