The field of national security law has changed dramatically in recent decades. It has both expanded conceptually (national security has reached new areas like climate and health, often with troubling implications) and attracted a more diverse set of individuals desiring to devote their professional life to national security issues. The culture of national security law academia, however, has not kept up with this evolution. As scholars in the field or in adjacent fields whose work intersects with national security, we commit to acknowledging and actively reckoning with national security’s conceptual enlargement, including the ways in which that expansion has further bolstered state power as well as its regressive impact on communities of color. An integral element of this reckoning includes ensuring the field reflects the full spectrum of relevant views and experiences by committing to the diversification of faculties, conferences, and symposia participants, as well as embracing critical perspectives on national security.

This letter describes national security’s evolution in recent decades and makes the case for it to more fully embrace critical perspectives, as well as diverse scholars. It ends with concrete proposals for pursuing that goal. As signatories to this letter, we encourage our colleagues and peers to support and expand upon these initiatives.  
 
The Conceptual Expansion of National Security

Since the end of the Cold War, the Executive branch has expanded the national security umbrella to encompass not only international conflict, foreign affairs, and border issues, but also economic, climate, and health issues, to name a few examples. After 9/11, the government’s approach to national security also intensified domestically. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002 was the most concrete manifestation of this intensification. Other agencies, from the FBI to the Justice Department’s newly minted National Security Division to the Treasury Department and beyond, also devoted significant attention and resources to combating domestic security threats in the immediate wake of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. These efforts took myriad forms—from the roundup of immigrant Muslim men in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks to aggressive criminal counterterrorism prosecutions of inchoate offenses against U.S. citizens and entities, confiscation of property under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and pervasive FBI and NSA surveillance—all  of which frequently and disproportionately affected Arab and Muslim communities.  
 
In the nearly twenty years since 9/11, national security has become a framework for reconceptualizing many areas of law and society, often in ways that further enhance state power to the detriment of communities of color. Immigration was already conceptualized as a national security issue before 9/11 but became even more securitized after the attack, especially for non-white communities. Non-criminal terrorism prevention programs, which have been repackaged as “countering violent extremism,” have exacerbated anti-Muslim and anti-Arab stereotypes and subjected those communities to greater government scrutiny.  Air travel within the United States has been entirely reconceptualized as a matter of national security importance, often leading to the profiling of Arabs and Muslims. The “national security” imperative to adopt a  preventive approach to criminal law enforcement has spread beyond the counterterrorism context, bolstered existing preventative practices within domestic policing, and, again, disproportionately impacting black and brown communities. As various experts have documented, two decades of a “war on terror” mentality has also transformed many domestic policing practices, resulting in law enforcement agencies that have become militarized in terms of equipment, weapons, personnel, and practices. As the protests following the killing of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery have shown, the national security apparatus, including individuals drawn from the National Guard and Homeland Security, is participating in domestic law enforcement. America’s “forever wars” have furthered national security’s intrusion into domestic law in other ways as well, profoundly reshaping procedural rules concerning pleading standards, impacting qualified immunity doctrine, and narrowing the availability of Bivens claims brought by individuals adversely impacted by national security policy.  

National security’s conceptual expansion reinforces perennial issues in the field, including the way national security framings often disempower marginalized communities—especially minority groups—erode civil rights and socio-economic power, and bolster government authority at the expense of citizen and non-citizen rights and interests. These issues have always been problematic and they are only more troubling now.

Diversifying National Security

There is a notable silver lining to this expansion. It has attracted a new kind of national security scholar, one who views these realities through a critical lens and sees them as central, rather than marginal, to the field. Yet while critical perspectives have had a substantial impact in other areas of legal academia, like criminal and international law, they have failed to make similar inroads in national security law. These new perspectives are integral to understanding and grappling with national security’s expansion, and must finally be treated as such.

Embracing these critical perspectives requires diversifying national security academia. In some ways, the dominance of white, male voices in the field does not differentiate it from legal academia writ large. At the same time, there are structural factors unique to national security that exacerbate the phenomenon. Many legal academics are veterans of the field in which they teach. So, where traditional national security jobs in military, intelligence, and foreign affairs skew in a certain demographic direction—a direction that has long been disproportionately white and male—academia follows.  

To encourage a new, more diverse cohort of scholars to enter the field, legal academia must make a conscious, concerted effort to welcome individuals who have traditionally remained at the margins of national security discourse because of their critical perspectives, their demographics, and/or their professional experiences. These are people who haven’t worked for the State Department, the Department of Justice, the U.S. military, or other parts of the national security apparatus. Many of them belong to the black and brown communities disproportionately impacted by U.S. national security policies. A number of them approach issues of national security through fields that are distinct from but overlap with and are impacted by national security, such as immigration and criminal law.

To recruit and elevate this diverse, critical cohort of national security academics, we offer two concrete proposals. While they will not be sufficient to diversify the field and ensure critical perspectives are taken seriously, we believe they are meaningful starting points. The first is a repository that identifies diverse and critical national security law scholars who are interested in participating in conferences and other events. The second is a mentorship program to provide guidance and other resources to diverse national security law scholars with critical perspectives.
 
 Database of Experts
 
To help organizers facilitate inclusive events, we will establish a database of female, black, and brown national security law scholars, indicating their area(s) of expertise, whether they self-identify as critical national security scholars, and their contact information. This database can then be shared with conference organizers, members of the media, or other individuals seeking national security law analysis. We would encourage our male and/or white colleagues to pledge not to serve on panels that lack diverse participants. Many male experts, particularly in the STEM disciplines, have taken a similar pledge not to participate in so-called “manels”—panels made up solely of men.  That pledge says, “At a public conference, I won’t serve on a panel of two people or more unless there is at least one woman on the panel, not including the chair.”  We would encourage a similar pledge to insist on inclusion of women and/or diverse national security academics with critical perspectives.
 
Mentorship Program
 
A central aspect of diversifying national security is creating a pipeline of individuals who aspire to join the field. Mentorship is a powerful way to facilitate this pipeline. Women and people of color, particularly those with critical perspectives, who have achieved success in their field can serve as an inspiration for future generations of scholars who share their demographic background. But representation is not enough. As most legal academics know, there are unwritten rules and norms that shape expectations for young, aspiring scholars. Absent effective mentorship, individuals from historically underrepresented demographics, especially those who are critical of the field, often lack access to this vital information.  

To facilitate this mentorship, we will create a network of established scholars willing to serve as mentors and connect them with diverse, critical candidates aspiring to become academics in the field of national security law or who focus on national security issues in adjacent fields. The nature of the mentorship relationship will be determined by the mentor and mentee, but may include substantive feedback on scholarship, referral and connections to other national security scholars, and/or advice on the legal teaching market or fellowships. In the future, we may consider organizing events for law students, judicial clerks, or junior lawyers in various security-related fields to introduce them to or provide a channel for them to explore their interest in national security academia.
 
While countless individuals and institutions have declared their commitment to anti-racism over the last few months, it is important that those expressions be accompanied by concrete policies and programs. As signatories of this letter, we dedicate ourselves to operationalizing the proposals describe here. For more information or to participate in these initiatives, please contact Maryam Jamshidi at the University of Florida, Levin College of Law and Emily Berman at the University of Houston Law Center.

We invite others to take this initiative even further within their own institutions and communities.

(This letter was drafted by Maryam Jamshidi and Emily Berman with input from Peter Margulies, Jon Michaels, Aziz Rana, Shirin Sinnar, Asli Bâli, and Sahar Aziz)