Today, the secretary of state, Colin Powell, will deliver a foreign policy address at the City College of New York — his alma mater. Instead of a hero’s welcome, Mr. Powell, perhaps the most dovish member of the Bush administration, will be greeted by student protests over the war and occupation in Iraq. While such demonstrations by misguided youth are to be expected, what is appalling is that the Professional Staff Congress of CUNY will be lending significant heft to the student protest. As reported in today’s New York Sun, an e-mail has been circulating from the account of the union president, Barbara Bowen, imploring members to lend their voices and gravity to the anti-war cause.

Instead of cordially welcoming the ideal City College graduate — aside from his other accomplishments, Mr. Powell and his sister set up the Maud and Luther Powell America’s Promise Scholarship program at City College in memory of their parents — the union that represents more than 20,000 faculty and staff at the City University of New York will use Mr. Powell’s appearance to bash him and by extension President Bush.”As Secretary of State in the Bush Administration, Powell bears major responsibility for U.S. foreign policy, including the war in Iraq and the continuing U.S. occupation,” the e-mail said. “His appearance at CCNY — in our own University — demands a response from those of us in the University community who oppose U.S. policy.”

Exactly why a response is demanded of the staff union when a graduate makes his first visit to the school since being appointed as secretary of state is mighty unclear to us. In the e-mail, Ms. Bowen makes the case that the war is diverting money from higher education. Thus will the union members brandish signs reading: “Money for Education, Not War.”The union, according to the e-mail, will also distribute fliers explaining “the impact of the war and occupation on education, healthcare, labor rights and academic freedom — as well as on global human security.”

We wonder, though, would the union protest if an expensive plan for universal health care threatened funding for higher education? How about the adoption of the Kyoto global-warming accord, which would sink the American economy? Or what about more spending on social welfare programs? Somehow we doubt the union would find these goals to be in conflict with its interests and demanding a response. If Ms. Bowen and others in the union want to protest the war because they are against the war, that’s one thing. But dressing the issue up as having anything at all to do with fighting for the interests of the union’s members is absurd. Those union members who either support Mr. Bush or resent the union wasting time on such matters may well have their own protests to lodge.