Isn’t there a saying something like “save us from politicians who want to save us from something”?  Or did I make that up?  Bear with me.
A recent Sunday edition of the News-Leader featured an Op Ed by Carl Szabo of Net Choice.  It’s entitled Taking Power Away from Parents in a War on Tech.  If you missed it, I urge you to read it.  (https://www.news-leader.com/story/opinion/2019/11/23/taking-power-away-parents-war-tech/4284268002/).  I’m unable to do it full justice in this space.
Szabo addresses a recently introduced bill in Congress called Protecting Children from Online Predators Act, introduced by Missouri’s Senator Josh Hawley.  Clearly this title suggests a noble and needed goal.  But In a most persuasive way, Szabo argues that the bill does nowhere near what it claims, and is, in fact, “all a part of the senator’s ongoing criticism of the tech industry” and his “using child protection to sell his ideas.”
Szabo points out in detail that the bill “really has nothing to do with stopping online child predators at all.”  Indeed, the ONLY thing it does is “ban[s] video-hosting websites from recommending videos with teenagers in them.”  Period.  Szabo then persuasively details how the effect of this bill actually “harms [children], teachers, and parents by making it harder for people to discover educational or helpful content.”
Again, I urge you to read the piece to see many details I’ve had to omit. 
The reference above about harming teachers naturally caught my attention. I began thinking this educational slant was worth discussing in a column. 
In Googling the bill to learn more, however, I discovered another ‘Protecting’ Bill introduced by Senator Hawley:  The Protect Our Universities Act “require[s] students from China, Iran and Russia to undergo background screening before participating in designated ‘sensitive research projects.’“  According to Sen Hawley, “This bill takes much-needed steps to ensure our research stays out of the hands of foreign adversaries who are proactively rooting for our failure.” 
Once again, it is more complicated than that.  This is not a new issue.  The National Security Decision Directive 189, issued by President Reagan in the ‘80s developed a classification system to help control sensitive national information.  In general, universities still prefer this approach that focuses on the category of research information itself, not the researchers. While they share concerns about safeguarding U.S. research, they also warn that taking an overly restrictive approach will harm U.S. science, which is highly international.  They support another bill, the Securing American Science and Technology Act, or SASTA, which was introduced in late May by Representative Mikie Sherrill from NJ. 
I don’t necessarily mean to pick on Senator Hawley.  He is not alone.  One of my pet peeves has always been politicians who meddle, especially in educational matters, beyond their levels of expertise, and for sometimes-questionable motives. 
On the other hand, maybe I do mean to pick on him.  One wonders about his motives for these bills, and if they aren’t mere political grandstanding, given the circumstances.  Do his motives reflect a genuine interest/concern for these educationally related matters, or do they stem from suspicion (fear?) of all things related to technology and/or higher education? Such unexamined fears are often typical of that side of the aisle, and have been especially prevalent with Senator Hawley..
Finally, I can’t help noticing the extreme (political?) irony!   Why is Sen Hawley (apparently) SO interested in keeping possible future research safe from “foreign adversaries who are proactively rooting for our failure” and yet SO totally unconcerned about protecting already-existing threats to our elections from those exact same adversaries?!
When it comes to educational issues, and Sen Hawley’s kind of ‘protection’, perhaps less is much more.