Bishop Hill Public secrets
Apr 28, 2011 Climate: Mann FOI A group of concerned citizen groups (I'm sure you can guess the kinds of groups I'm talking about) have written to the University of Virginia, urging it to withhold the Michael Mann emails that have been requested under FOI laws.
A dozen organizations, including the American Association of University Professors, had written [University President Theresa] Sullivan asking that she clarify how the university would respond to the Freedom of Information Act request.
In a letter dated April 21 and released by the Union of Concerned Scientists on Wednesday, Sullivan told the groups that the university’s legal tussle with the attorney general was evidence that the school is “quite conscious of the academic freedom interests about which you express concern.”
Sullivan has replied in essence that she is going to do the minimum possible under the law.
While the University is, of course, committed to comply with the requirements of law, I wish to reassure you that this commitment will be carried out to the fullest extent possible consistent with the interests of faculty in academic freedom and scholarship
(H/T Shub)
Reader Comments (21)
Funny how many people are in favour of Freedom of Information, as long as it’s not theirs.
IIRC, ex-president Blair has expressed deep regret for his hand in the introduction of FoI, ironically one of the few decent things he did. IMO, of course...
"I didn't get a 'Harrumph!' outta that guy..."
“U-Va filed a brief [on] Tuesday with the Virginia Supreme Court arguing that Cuccinelli’s civil investigative demand violates Mann’s academic freedom and should be quashed. The court is likely to hear the case in the fall.”
As C Northcote Parkinson (of Parkinson’s Law) observed, delay is the deadliest form of denial.
Sorry I am being a bit slow here. In what way does the requirement to make available documents produced by people receiving public money impinge on their academic freedom? I cannot see what effect the FOIAs have on academics' ability to pursue their hobbies at puiblic expense, other than enabling the exposure of any naughtiness they may have been up to.
Idiots, proud to break the law and proud to shout about it.
On what planet do they think an attitude like that is going to impress anyone.
1. Earth, which they believe they own and run and we are supposed to be impressed because they are "concerned", but ...
2. ... who said they were trying to impress anyone? This is a backside-covering exercise. "There, but for the grace of the Virginia Supreme Court, go I.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is only "concerned" at the possibility that the great unwashed might ask awkward questions
This is from a document explaining provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which Mann's advisors have urged the University to consider using, in order to deny the FOI requests for his emails.
Shub - does that mean that Mann is using his students' material? I thought he was supposed to doing his own research (and therefore already educated) so FERPA would hardly apply...
'..supposed to be doing..'
Sorry - brain-finger interface failure.
What about Pat Michaels?
Not all academics are equal.
Presumably "academic freedom" includes the freedom to produce fraudulent results.
Does Academic Freedom mean that authors can contribute to learned journals without fear of being shut out by the gatekeepers?
Does it allow Scientists to hold non-consensus views and theories?
Would it frown on the practise of withholding academic awards to students whose father has annoyed the Great and the Good?
Surely the lofty ideals of AF would necessitate its followers to publicly denounce and denigrate those in Academia who flaunt the principles of Integrity, Transparency and the Scientific Method?
I like the sound of this Academic Freedom but what the h*ck has this got to do with these jokers?
The anti-liberal, ant-law opinions expressed by many Americans puzzles me; how does the concept of 'justice and freedom for all but only when it suits me' work? I understand that if citizens don't like a law, they are free to appeal to have it repealed or rescinded through due process. I don't like motorway speed limits, but I generally obey them as I understand the hassle and expense coming my way if I don't. If I felt strongly enough about them, I would join a lobbying group, but I don't feel strongly enough so I grudgingly comply. The U of V might not like the FOI laws, but they have a duty to comply, however unwillingly, and the university officials know it.
Forgive me, shub, if I'm a bit thicker than usual (head cold and I think I ate something :-( ).
My interpretation of FERPA would be that that refers to data about students and not data created by students as part of their course work.
Still, any port in a storm I suppose!
Sam (and James),
I am as clueless as you are. But the University President, in her response letter to these organizations wrote:
One guess, is that if a FOI request goes out for emails from a specific time period (say, like the period Mann was at Univ of Virginia), the concerned authority could use the FERPA thing to simply deny the request on the grounds that it would result in students' private information being released.
And I thought I was a twisted bastard! I bow down before a real expert.
What has Mann been up to? Quite clearly the university doesn't give a FF about passing emails out because they've already done it for Professor Michaels by giving his emails to Greenpeace. It is difficult to see what defence they can offer for not providing Mann's when the AG simply has to point out that the freely gave Prof Michael's emails to a non-governmental organisation, which, as far as I know, doesn't provide any financial support to the UVa.
So-called Freedom of Information Acts need to get much more explicit, and specific: State deadlines, mandate uncritical compliance in all publicly-funded matters, enumerate areas of inquiry where delays, denials, evasive appeals to "cost" or time-and-effort are strictly prohibited, with penalties for failure to meet statutory obligations punishable prima facie-- by default.
Of course, the root of this extraordinary corruption is the tsunami of Big Science public funding that has converted dedicated private scholars to wards of the State, pegging their careers to grant monies disbursed by mendacious ideologues infesting academic and public-sector PCBS apparats. As the current "education bubble" expands to S&L and Subprime proportions, the precise syndrome gutting banks and mortgage brokers applies in spades to climate researchers (read AGW catastrophists, Green Gang hysterics).
Only when public funds dry up will true scholars resume their (alas) monastic avocations. Ninety percent if not all mere verbalists will then seek employment elsewhere, say as cosmeticians, waitresses, hair-stylists. They will not be missed.
I think a lot of the faithful know that their beliefs will not hold up under the light of day.
The convoluted arguments against complying fully with the law and common decency is a sad cowardly display from groups that tout themselves as being for the advancement of knowledge and truth.
"..Sullivan has replied in essence that she is going to do the minimum possible under the law..."
That works...no requirement that she do more...just not less.