

UWisconsin Chancellor’s message on academic freedom and open records - aarghh
http://www.news.wisc.edu/19190

======
nkassis
From my understanding the Professor was ask to give an analysis on the
situation currently going on in wisconsin and the it was critical of the
governors. The republican party in wisconsin sent a freedom of information act
request to the school. The professor thought it was shady tactics and and a
violation of his privacy.

Frankly, I've worked in a state University (Florida) and these request are
very common. The Professor can't complain here, state employees from the
governor all the way down to the lowly secretary can receive such request.

I many cases these things are vital, for example the media makes heavy use of
these and this is why I think they are important and should be kept. State
employees need to be better informed about this because that should affect how
they use government ressources. Your work email should be strictly for
business.

~~~
crocowhile
When you are a respected faculty in an important university, your "business"
should include speaking on controversial issues and sending political messages
to media (via a blog, in this particular case). This should really be
encouraged and not intimidated. Clearly it's the latter case here.

~~~
nkassis
That's all fine and as the University has stated they found nothing in his
records that would show any kind of misconduct, personal use of ressources
etc...

My point is just that the Professor in question shouldn't have been surprised
by the request. There will always be people abusing whatever the government
gives them the right to do. The professor was directly attacking the request
and the fact that the person who requested it didn't have to state his
intentions (an important protection in the FIA) (this was from a previous
article).

I'm against the motives here but strongly support open government and the
right to get information like this.

In fact I think the whole controversy has just done exactly what the
"executive director of the state's Republican Party" wanted. Intimidate and
cause a huge stupid story showing how the "liberals" can't handle being open
blah blah blah.

~~~
Maxious
> I'm against the motives here but strongly support open government and the
> right to get information like this.

Concurred. I found the Chancellor's message re: "academic freedom vs. right to
know" objectionable based on the premise that all should be equal under the
law. (Personal information such as interactions with students or casual
interaction with colleagues are of course rightfully exempt)

Specifically exempting documents on the basis of ensuring that "the
development of ideas can be undertaken without fear of premature exposure or
reprisal for unpopular positions."

To give you a concrete example of why it is necessary to prematurely expose
unpopular ideas, in Australia there was a proposal within some circles to log
all internet traffic. What do you mean "log all internet traffic"? Do you mean
like HTTP URLs or IP addresses or what? Is it only against bad people or based
on keywords or what? Well nobody really knew. What was known is that
bureaucrats had been holding meetings with ISPs to discuss something about
data retention.

So, there's a sort of secret idea being investigated using public money - the
public has a right to know what it is and how far along is it, especially if
industry are allowed to know, right? FOI request comes back.... pages filled
with only heading numbers and black ink:
[http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/no-
minister...](http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/no-
minister-90-of-web-snoop-document-censored-to-stop--premature-unnecessary-
debate-20100722-10mxo.html?autostart=0)

> The Attorney-General's Department legal officer, FoI and Privacy Section,
> Claudia Hernandez, wrote in her decision in releasing the highly-censored
> document that the release of some sections of it "may lead to premature
> unnecessary debate and could potentially prejudice and impede government
> decision making".

Doesn't it seem obvious that people will try to "impede decision making" (via
their elected representatives) of an unpopular decision? Isn't it a waste of
public funds to explore an idea thoroughly without first consulting with the
most populous stakeholder?

~~~
kd0amg
_To give you a concrete example of why it is necessary to prematurely expose
unpopular ideas, in Australia there was a proposal within some circles to log
all internet traffic. What do you mean "log all internet traffic"? Do you mean
like HTTP URLs or IP addresses or what? Is it only against bad people or based
on keywords or what? Well nobody really knew. What was known is that
bureaucrats had been holding meetings with ISPs to discuss something about
data retention._

In this case, what you're dealing with isn't just an idea anymore: it's a
proposed policy. Academic freedom does not mean making policy in secret.

------
tptacek
Jack Shafer at Slate has a good take on this; to wit: any objection you might
have about the WI GOP trawling through this guy's email, you should temper
with the knowledge that the same objection could be used by the WI GOP itself
to hide government actions from the people. Most FOIA requests are political
in nature. And government officeholders have always tried to use that as an
excuse to dodge records requests.

It's more important that we ensure there are never any excuses for not
complying with open records than it is that we make sure open records aren't
"abused" for political purposes. "Political abuse" is not an exemption for
open records.

------
makeramen
As a UW Alumni, I say props to Biddy Martin. If you read the note from the
legal counsel (<http://www.news.wisc.edu/19196>), they are actually
withholding quite a bit of information. Not to mention the general tone of the
statement is a polite "fuck you, we're not doing anything wrong, and we stand
by our faculty."

------
crocowhile
It's just hard to believe and sad that in 2011, a major USA university will
find themselves in the position to explain what academic freedom is, why it is
important and why it is a stake.

~~~
awarzzkktsyfj
It's just hard to believe and sad that in 2011, a major taxpayer sponsored
university releases a statement explaining that an open-records request is
totally reasonable, and compliance in no way affects academic freedom.

------
ccorcoran
Whatever your take is on this situation I think most will agree the creation
of knowledge is key for any society's advancement. It's critically important
for the future of the US that we don't let the prevailing political winds
interfere with the creativity that will keep us competitive. Burdening the
pursuit of knowledge with politically driven oversight will create research as
useful as most legislation. Politicians need to say out of academics. Most of
them spent a majority of their lives avoiding them anyways, it shouldn't be to
hard to keep avoiding them.

