University of Wisconsin’s Response to FOIA Request Emphasizes Importance of Academic Freedom

[midnight]

"We are also excluding what we consider to be the private email exchanges among scholars that fall within the orbit of academic freedom and all that is entailed by it. Academic freedom is the freedom to pursue knowledge and develop lines of argument without fear of reprisal for controversial findings and without the premature disclosure of those ideas.Scholars and scientists pursue knowledge by way of open intellectual exchange. Without a zone of privacy within which to conduct and protect their work, scholars would not be able to produce new knowledge or make life-enhancing discoveries. Lively, even heated and acrimonious debates over policy, campus and otherwise, as well as more narrowly defined disciplinary matters are essential elements of an intellectual environment and such debates are the very definition of the Wisconsin Idea.

When faculty members use email or any other medium to develop and share their thoughts with one another, they must be able to assume a right to the privacy of those exchanges, barring violations of state law or university policy. Having every exchange of ideas subject to public exposure puts academic freedom in peril and threatens the processes by which knowledge is created. The consequence for our state will be the loss of the most talented and creative faculty who will choose to leave for universities where collegial exchange and the development of ideas can be undertaken without fear of premature exposure or reprisal for unpopular positions."



"Of course, this won’t end it. It’s this concept of freedom that the Republicans are trying to assault, not to mention the autonomy of universities.

But I’m glad UW made such a statement in support of academic freedom."

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/04/01/university-of-wisconsins-response-to-foia-request-emphasizes-import-of-academic-freedom/

[pnwmom]

1. I completely agree. But the Wikileaks supporters would not.

They think that the value of "transparency" trumps everything, and that since these are government employees, they have no right to the privacy of their communications.

How come they're not jumping on this, calling for the leak of all the emails between the professors?

[glinda]

2. As a Wikileaks supporter and an Anon supporter, requesting transactions like this with the "intent"

to censure and attack academics just doing their jobs,( which is to discuss, learn and reason), is unreasonable. Scholars are not a big threat. Large Corporations and Government intrusion to personal/individual freedom of speech is.
This is my observation and my opinion on this matter. I am married to a retired University Professor and am aware of how academics work in regards to having it envelope their whole lives.

[pnwmom]

3. I completely support academics' right to privacy. But diplomats

who are "just doing their job" should have the same right to privacy in their internal communications, the same right to debate privately, to confer privately, and to develop their ideas. But most DUers applauded the leaking of hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables. (I'm not referring to the Iraq war documents, I'm specifically referring to the diplomatic cables.)

The Chancellor's statement could have been easily re-written to apply to diplomatic e-mails:

"We are also excluding what we consider to be the private email exchanges among diplomats that fall within the orbit of diplomatic communications and all that is entailed by it. Diplomacy requires the freedom to pursue knowledge and develop lines of argument without fear of reprisal for controversial findings and without the premature disclosure of those ideas. Diplomats pursue knowledge by way of open exchange of views. Without a zone of privacy within which to conduct and protect their work, diplomats would not be able to conduct sensitive negations or make discoveries. Lively, even heated and acrimonious debates over policy, are essential elements of diplomatic work."

On the other hand, I don't blame Wikileaks for publishing what was handed to them. I do blame Bradley Manning, or whoever was responsible, for leaking to them.

[glinda]

4. Two different jobs with two different levels of Government involvement and influence.

[pnwmom]

7. And they both require privacy in their communications. n/t

[starroute]

5. The situations are not just different but exactly opposite

Academics need to be protected from outside intrusion in order to allow for the maximum freedom in exploring ideas and theories.

Diplomats do not have that sort of freedom. They are agents of their respective governments. Their desire for secrecy mainly has to do with protection from embarrassment.

I do understand that most of diplomacy takes place under a set of elaborate fictions where nobody says in public exactly what they think of everybody else and this permits them all to save face. But the protection of those fictions has almost nothing in common with the protection of academic freedom.

When academics speak in private, the sum of human knowledge increases. When diplomats speak in private, the rest of us get screwed.

[pnwmom]

6. Wrong. All diplomats aren't evil. And diplomats who are

carrying out sensitive negotiations that promote peaceful solutions to problems require secrecy. For example, in China we were negotiating secretly about North Korea with members of the Chinese administration but -- thanks to Wikileaks -- these talks were leaked to the Chinese Communist Party, which is closely linked with the party in North Korea. This isn't a matter of embarrassment. This puts the people we negotiate with at risk and it hampers our sensitive negotiations.

Academics employed in public universities who think that they require privacy but diplomats don't are full of it. They're both government employees and have the same need and right to privacy in conducting their work.

[starroute]

8. I'll grant you there's a theoretical argument for diplomatic privacy

But I would also guess that 90% of the time it's used to conduct negotiations that are not in the interests of the peoples of the respective nations and would not be approved of if they were carried out in public.

Case in point being the deal that we've just learned the Obama administration made with the Saudis to give them a free hand in Bahrain in exchange for their support for a no-fly zone in Libya.

Diplomats have a centuries-old and well-deserved reputation for insincerity in public and covert dealings in private. If you can demonstrate that the same applies to the professional activities of academics, I'd be willing to concede that they should be considered in the same terms.