It is not a far stretch to imagine that professors are the targets of the interference from foreign powers. Every time, I teach about the French revolution, I worry that some Frenchman will take offense at my PowerPoint and attempt some sabotage. And when I teach about China and free speech, I worry that my bus trip on one of those $1 passages between New York and Washington, D.C. will be cancelled. It is not beyond belief that foreign powers can review our lectures notes and our curriculum strewn all over Blackboard and other “learning management sites”. Given the openness of these files, much mischief will ensue and, actually, is already underway.

Case A

In the spring semester of 2018, I am fairly certain that four undercover agents were planted in my classes trained to destroy my teaching mojo, undermine my professor authority and drive me to seek other employment. I am fairly certain they were foreign agents by their excellent verbal and written skills, certainly better than the students I typically find in my classes. They were also better read than most students and knew a curiously prodigious amount about U.S. politics and civics. In response to a proposal from a what I took to be an American national student that voters should take an IQ test and a quiz about current events before being allowed to vote, a student that I suspect was a Russian plant raised her hand and asked if she might weigh in on this question. She then traced the jurisprudence of U.S. enfranchisement law, related the history of Jim Crow literacy tests in the south and asserted the disallowance of any pre-qualifications for voting as established by the Constitution and a series of court rulings. I must admit the undercover student did a good job outlining these issues for the rest of the class. She was, however, a bit arrogant and suggested that instead of make voting easier for ignorant Americans, we should only have one candidate run for each office. This would greatly simplify having to be informed about the positions of each candidate on major issues. When I saw several students nodding in agreement, I changed the subject. Definitely subversive.

Case B

At the end of that semester, I had a long series of negotiations with a student who could hardly go a day without sending along several email inquiries about topics we had just discussed in class. The student insisted at every turn that all of this was news to him. He stipulated that information stated in the syllabus simply wasn’t there. When I disputed this by reading from the syllabus, he simply stated, “Well, professor, no disrespect intended but there are at least two ways to look at this issue. I simply don’t agree.” This was reminiscent of the movie Gaslight when Charles Boyer tries to drive Ingrid Bergman crazy by suggesting that she is losing her mind. The aim of this scheme was to have her institutionalized so that he could continue his criminal activity—looking for the jewels he was after when he murdered her aunt. While I don’t think the student had that intention, claiming that words on paper didn’t exist was dissimulation of the sort prized by the KGB. These series of exchanges culminated in a conversation where the student contended he shouldn’t have to write the final essay because I knew him well enough to give him an A. When I countered that this wasn’t the way I did things, he suggested something about my adopting a more innovative approach to teaching. I may have heard him whisper something about “draining the swamp” under his breath but I didn’t pursue that line of conversation. No question an oppositional agent attempting to challenge the core principles of intellectual engagement at the university level. No doubt part of a large scale conspiracy which is evident if you ask any faculty colleagues about whether this experience sounds familiar.

Case C

As everyone knows, an important part of espionage is the falsification and trading of important documents. Just this semester, an agent pretending to be an American lacrosse player attempted to pass along false documents in my sociology class. I must confess that the disguise was masterful. The student was approximately six feet tall, with a chiseled chin, deep blue eyes and a blond sweep to his hair, sort of like James Dean if he played sports (which seems out of the question to me). When this student came to class, he always brought his lacrosse stick to better cement the disguise I suppose because none of the assignments in this Crime & Justice class required the use of a lacrosse stick, tennis racket or swimming goggles, for that matter. (Although with the growing power of college sports, this may be the newest innovation in our classrooms. This would save the athletes a lot of practice time and not make their studies such a distraction.)

It was clear that the student’s attention was elsewhere. On several occasions, I found him checking out websites during class. When I asked him about this, he answered that this was part of a “special assignment” for another class, which was much more important than what he was doing for my class. Well, I am no fool; I can decode what “special assignment” means. I have seen plenty of James Bond movies: I know the language from Mission Impossible. At the end of the semester, this embedded agent handed in a paper prepared by another agent. I was alerted about the plagiarism because I had assigned the topics two years ago. To me, the false document handed in by the student was equivalent to trying to pass off an outdated passport from a country that no longer exists. When confronted about the fraudulent use of a term paper, the student simply claimed diplomatic immunity. I countered, of course, citing Chapter 243 from the Geneva Convention, which states that professors can fail foreign agents. He suggested that this could lead to a serious break in our relationship, which I said I would welcome. To violate the norm of intellectual property and academic which each American student prizes so highly was a clear indication that this student was yet another foreign agent dedicated to throwing a monkey wrench into the social order. As noted above, faculty members at other institutions may have also noted this practice. The challenge here, of course, is not just to identify these foreign agents and call them out. What about the influence of these insidious practices on our own students? Such is the danger of Russian interference.

Case D

It was this final case that made me leave my teaching career and seek employment as a barista. As a long-time professor (almost twenty years), I have survived many potentially challenging situations by skillfully combining flexibility and empathy with students while enforcing standards about what should be learned and how that would be demonstrated in the classroom. To my credit, I have had few complaints about my performance overall and receive better than average teaching evaluations from the thousands of students I have taught. This semester, one of the Russian trolls met with my supervisor to file a complaint about my assignments in class. Despite clear instructions, the student seemed to be unable to understand my directions about projects and deadlines. Perhaps, to be fair, the student wasn’t a native speaker and there could have been translation issues. However, the point of the “faculty development” conversation with my supervisor was that the students were paying a lot of money for their educations and we wanted them to be happy. This undercover agent who met with my superior suggested that he wasn’t happy enough and I needed to address that. I laid out a plan and tried to assure the authorities that all was well enough. I promised more happiness and less teaching and that seemed to cool their interests in reprogramming me. The idea that education is about delivering a consumable product and that students should be satisfied customers and eager-beaver workers instead of educated citizens is stunning. It is certainly an affront to the core American ideals of educating young people for active participation in a democracy. If the Russian strategy here is to turn our youth away from citizenship and toward consumerism, I couldn’t imagine a more dangerous trend. This is the sort of poisonous ideas that these Russians are spreading. Can you imagine these implications?

Given these serious hacks, I will demand an investigation to get to the bottom of this breech of security. I would like to avoid a reoccurrence of this next semester. I am also convinced that I am not the only one being messed with like this. There could be collusion here. Of course, this malicious behavior and pernicious intent could also be coming from a party other than the Russians. But, whoever it is, let’s posit that these are the enemies of higher education and of the nation, as well. And they are no friend of mine.