Linda K. Kerber: Protecting the Nation's Memory
[Linda K. Kerber is a professor of history at the University of Iowa and president of the American Historical Association.]
You may have read that the National Archives and Records Administration has allowed some federal agencies to withdraw declassified documents from public view. That the Smithsonian Institution has
signed an agreement with Showtime Networks to create an on-demand cable-television channel. That the Federal Bureau of Investigation wants to search the papers of the late investigative journalist Jack Anderson. But have you thought about what those controversies mean taken together?
Historians view them as three serious threats to the integrity of access to documents and artifacts of national importance. The cases are very different, but all should be matters of concern to the entire scholarly community and the larger public. Each involves the excessively generous definition by a federal agency of what the public has no right to see. If allowed to continue, all threaten our understanding of the past, and the present.
For two months, a firestorm has raged around the discovery that the archives secretly allowed agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Air Force to reclassify documents in the interest of national security. A newly released audit by the archives' own inspectors concludes that it "acquiesced too readily to the re-review efforts or withdrawal decisions of agencies": Some 25,000 records (nearly twice the number historians had feared) have been reclassified, and more than one-third of them contained no sensitive information.
Another storm erupted in March, when the Smithsonian announced that it and Showtime plan to produce a package of programs — for which viewers will pay — using the institution's collections. The Smithsonian has said that proposals from independent producers that involve more than "incidental" use of its materials will have to go through a special review process; that whether a proposal is deemed scholarly or commercial (which seems to include the Public Broadcasting Service) will be weighed. Lawrence M. Small, secretary of the Smithsonian, has written to me that he wants to "avoid competing with our own venture." Defending the deal to Congressional critics, he has said that it will allow new audiences to see the Smithsonian's collections, although he has promised that the institution's board will review the arrangement. As I write, a Congressional subcommittee in charge of Smithsonian financing has just forbidden the institution from signing any new contracts that might "limit access by the public to the Smithsonian collection." It has also cut $5.3-million from the Smithsonian's proposed budget, and a leading Democrat, Rep. David R. Obey, of Wisconsin, has criticized Mr. Small's leadership.
Just a few weeks ago, The Chronicle broke the story that the FBI was demanding entry to George Washington University's library to search some 200 boxes of Anderson's papers promised to the university — and to remove classified documents that may have been leaked to him.
These different scandals raise related questions about open access to the materials of history, the ability to follow the evidence wherever it leads, and the opportunity to disseminate freely the results. Will the work of historians — whether produced in traditional print modes or, as is increasingly the case, in documentary films, videos, and podcasts — be undermined by the very agencies charged with protecting the historical record? Will the reliability of an individual's papers be compromised by the government's reach into them?...
Read entire article at Chronicle of Higher Education
You may have read that the National Archives and Records Administration has allowed some federal agencies to withdraw declassified documents from public view. That the Smithsonian Institution has
signed an agreement with Showtime Networks to create an on-demand cable-television channel. That the Federal Bureau of Investigation wants to search the papers of the late investigative journalist Jack Anderson. But have you thought about what those controversies mean taken together?
Historians view them as three serious threats to the integrity of access to documents and artifacts of national importance. The cases are very different, but all should be matters of concern to the entire scholarly community and the larger public. Each involves the excessively generous definition by a federal agency of what the public has no right to see. If allowed to continue, all threaten our understanding of the past, and the present.
For two months, a firestorm has raged around the discovery that the archives secretly allowed agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Air Force to reclassify documents in the interest of national security. A newly released audit by the archives' own inspectors concludes that it "acquiesced too readily to the re-review efforts or withdrawal decisions of agencies": Some 25,000 records (nearly twice the number historians had feared) have been reclassified, and more than one-third of them contained no sensitive information.
Another storm erupted in March, when the Smithsonian announced that it and Showtime plan to produce a package of programs — for which viewers will pay — using the institution's collections. The Smithsonian has said that proposals from independent producers that involve more than "incidental" use of its materials will have to go through a special review process; that whether a proposal is deemed scholarly or commercial (which seems to include the Public Broadcasting Service) will be weighed. Lawrence M. Small, secretary of the Smithsonian, has written to me that he wants to "avoid competing with our own venture." Defending the deal to Congressional critics, he has said that it will allow new audiences to see the Smithsonian's collections, although he has promised that the institution's board will review the arrangement. As I write, a Congressional subcommittee in charge of Smithsonian financing has just forbidden the institution from signing any new contracts that might "limit access by the public to the Smithsonian collection." It has also cut $5.3-million from the Smithsonian's proposed budget, and a leading Democrat, Rep. David R. Obey, of Wisconsin, has criticized Mr. Small's leadership.
Just a few weeks ago, The Chronicle broke the story that the FBI was demanding entry to George Washington University's library to search some 200 boxes of Anderson's papers promised to the university — and to remove classified documents that may have been leaked to him.
These different scandals raise related questions about open access to the materials of history, the ability to follow the evidence wherever it leads, and the opportunity to disseminate freely the results. Will the work of historians — whether produced in traditional print modes or, as is increasingly the case, in documentary films, videos, and podcasts — be undermined by the very agencies charged with protecting the historical record? Will the reliability of an individual's papers be compromised by the government's reach into them?...