I would argue for institutional transparency, tempered by individual privacy.
For example, in this situation UPenn is not sharing the information out of "Privacy concerns". These could be alleviated by the scientist in question saying that they are free to share information about that time -- leaving no reason to continue hiding the information except for embarrassment.
Interesting idea. But that sounds dystopian. If the scientist declines, then does the university get to publicize that they wanted to release the information but the scientist blocked it (thus casting suspicion on the scientist)? If not, then people wouldn't be able to tell if the university asked the scientist for release, or the scientist prevented it, which is still the same problem as before (the public doesn't know what happened).
Basically, it sounds like an institution at any time can announce "hey we did nothing wrong, and we would like to explain why, and have just asked the employee if they accept but they haven't responded yet" while the employee would need to confer with lawyers how to control what now becomes a public spectacle (along with its usual problems of libel, PR, fake news, etc.).
> the university get to publicize that they wanted to release the information but the scientist blocked it (thus casting suspicion on the scientist)?
The situation without this rule, is that the university can and will release information that is in its interest and fail to release information that is not. This status quo is worse than what you are describing.
The point is that this biased information about a private individual shouldn't be public information. If the private individual is lying or misrepresenting the situation, then take it to court: don't use their private information against them for public spectacle.
I don't know why you've been downvoted, there are valid criticisms that you've brought up. Especially:
> the employee would need to confer with lawyers how to control what now becomes a public spectacle (along with its usual problems of libel, PR, fake news, etc.).
I don't think I even have a good armchair solution for this, let alone a real one.
--
I think in general it's a difference of where I would draw the line. This:
> Basically, it sounds like an institution at any time can announce "hey we did nothing wrong, and we would like to explain why, and have just asked the employee if they accept but they haven't responded yet"
seems like a feature to me, not a bug. If an employee is making accusations against a organization, than the organization should have a chance to clear their name.
---
However I don't have a good response to the issues of libel, PR, fake news, etc., except possibly to have a requirement that whatever is put out in the press release from the organization be approved by the ex-employee in question.
This guarantees that
A) The organization is not lying in a way that the employee is harmed by.
B) The employee is not lying in a way the organization is harmed by.
If it's impossible for the two to come to a conclusion, than either party can say something about it, or contest what the other says. This also allows the employee to say "I wanted to do a joint press release with $org, but we could not come to an agreement about what to release.", so at least the damage from this can be turned either direction.
For example, in this situation UPenn is not sharing the information out of "Privacy concerns". These could be alleviated by the scientist in question saying that they are free to share information about that time -- leaving no reason to continue hiding the information except for embarrassment.