Uh-Oh. The Pentagon Considers Well-Traveled, Broke Indian American Women Threats

by Guest Contributors The Aerogram Editors, originally published at the Aerogram


The Huffington Post’s Matt Sledge recently introduced readers to “Hema,” a character in an online training given to Pentagon employees to teach them how to identify “insider threats.”

Writes Sledge:

A security training test created by a Defense Department agency warns federal workers that they should consider the hypothetical Indian-American woman a “high threat” because she frequently visits family abroad, has money troubles and “speaks openly of unhappiness with U.S. foreign policy.”

As you can imagine, reading that line caused all of us here in The Aerogram’s headquarters to have a “Hey! That sounds like me!” moment.

Sledge goes on to say that the training was designed to help catch future Bradley Mannings and Edward Snowdens, who are both white men. (Editor’s note: We think the training would have been much more true-to-life if Hema had been the child of a Welsh immigrant a la Manning.)

Visits twice a year; inadequate work qualityBecause the training is declassified, anyone can now take it here. Examining the slides, we were struck by the fact that a character that regularly plays high-stakes poker was considered less of a threat than Hema, and that Hema’s propensity of travel made her as much of a risk as a recently divorced man mired in debt who openly worries about paying child support. Hema’s foreign travel, the slide notes, is a threat because it “gives foreign agents a chance to contact foreign intelligence services. She also demonstrates possible divided loyalty and financial difficulties. She is a high threat.”

Emphasis ours. Let’s break down exactly why labeling Hema as a threat to security is problematic. Using this training’s criteria, in order to be classified as low risk (0 indicators) by the Defense department, one would have to:

1) Estrange oneself from family and friends, not to mention cultural connections and heritage by not going back to India regularly. (Besides, who needs grandparents or your aunties when you have Uncle Sam?)

2) Be politically apathetic or somehow always support U.S. foreign policy, even though that policy could vary wildly from administration to administration. But never mind that. U-S-A! U-S-A!

3) Be financially well off. (But don’t you dare spend any of that money on foreign travel or political causes, like other well-off people do. Always remember: brown-skinned individuals have to be extra careful.)

For us, the strangest part of seeing someone like the fictional Hema classified as a high risk threat is that traveling internationally, exercising the rights to free speech and having political opinions are generally indicators of a well-rounded, actively involved citizen. Couldn’t the government use more inspired young people who know that the world is a big and complicated place? Why are these traits considered undesirable and threatening when the person possessing them is a South Asian American woman?

  • SunGotMe

    Interesting. Just came back from a solo trip to the Caribbean (I am Caribbean-American) and I go once or twice a year. I got asked a bunch of questions at both immigration and customs. Came home to a “suspect” tag (no, seriously, I can post it) on my checked bag and the lovely TSA notice of inspection inside.

    First time ever they asked me continuously if I had family in the Caribbean, nature of my trip and even asked me to confirm adjacent neighborhoods to mine in my home city. It was the first time I ever faced such scrutiny and it was all too weird.

  • Derek Vandivere

    Well, yes, from the perspective of the Pentagon, people without close ties to other countries, people without financial difficulties, and people who either blindly support or ignore American foreign policy are lower threats for treason. The two other examples you list match only one criteria – financial problems.

    And “well-rounded, actively involved citizen” isn’t necessarily the same as a Pentagon employee with a low risk of treason. You’re using the wrong yardstick to evaluate the training, I think.

  • Cranium Rinse

    “well-traveled” “divided loyalties” “financial difficulties”
    They could have just left all that out and said exactly what they really meant: she’s brown, so she’s dangerous.