At least, this is how you answer it if you’re a university. Here’s some brief backstory–Wisconsin Republicans want the emails of a University of Wisconsin professor because he wrote a blog post critical of Governor Scott Walker’s anti-union bill. Here’s how the university responded, according to Talking Points Memo.
“We are excluding records involving students because they are protected under FERPA. We are excluding exchanges that fall outside the realm of the faculty member’s job responsibilities and that could be considered personal pursuant to Wisconsin Supreme Court case law. 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.”
In other words, this isn’t a carte blanche release of emails, which is important because it was pretty clear that Wisconsin Republicans didn’t really have a reason to request this information. They don’t know what’s in the emails–they were just trying to find something they could smear an eminent historian with. Congratulations to the University of Wisconsin for not bowing to this request.




One response
I strongly disagree. University of Wisconsin must be forced to release all emails (except where student privacy is a concern), whatever the ulterior motives of the Republicans requesting them. Imagine if neocon war criminals were trying to duck a FOIA request with this kind of high-minded garbage? We would all be livid.
Let’s not be hypocrites. The FOIA is a powerful tool for transparent government, truth-seeking, etc. Do we really want to weaken it so that some profs can avoid the release of personal emails? What are we worried about anyway? Note to profs: use your gmail account if you really don’t want your email to ever be seen publicly. Is that so hard?
Do we really want FOIA disclosures to be subject to redaction based on the personal beliefs of the discloser (e.g. “academic freedom”)?
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment, or log in if you’re already a paid subscriber.