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.
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.
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.
> 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...
> 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?
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.