Resolving Academic Freedom: Professional Groups Defend Intellectual Openness

Libraries and USA Patriot Act

The American Library Association Council adopted the following Resolution on the USA Patriot Act and Related Measures That Infringe on the Rights of Library Users on January 29, 2003.

WHEREAS, The American Library Association affirms the responsibility of the leaders of the United States to protect and preserve the freedoms that are the foundation of our democracy; and

WHEREAS, Libraries are a critical force for promoting the free flow and unimpeded distribution of knowledge and information for individuals, institutions, and communities; and

WHEREAS, The American Library Association holds that suppression of ideas undermines a democratic society; and

WHEREAS, Privacy is essential to the exercise of free speech, free thought, and free association; and, in a library, the subject of users' interests should not be examined or scrutinized by others; and

WHEREAS, Certain provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the revised Attorney General Guidelines to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other related measures expand the authority of the federal government to investigate citizens and noncitizens, to engage in surveillance, and to threaten civil rights and liberties guaranteed under the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights; and

WHEREAS, The USA Patriot Act and other recently enacted laws, regulations, and guidelines increase the likelihood that the activities of library users, including their use of computers to browse the Web or access e-mail, may be under government surveillance without their knowledge or consent; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the American Library Association opposes any use of governmental power to suppress the free and open exchange of knowledge and information or to intimidate individuals exercising free inquiry; and, be it further

RESOLVED, That the American Library Association encourages all librarians, library administrators, library governing bodies, and library advocates to educate their users, staff, and communities about the process for compliance with the USA Patriot Act and other related measures and about the dangers to individual privacy and the confidentiality of library records resulting from those measures; and, be it further

RESOLVED, That the American Library Association urges librarians everywhere to defend and support user privacy and free and open access to knowledge and information; and, be it further

RESOLVED, That the American Library Association will work with other organizations, as appropriate, to protect the rights of inquiry and free expression; and, be it further

RESOLVED, That the American Library Association will take actions as appropriate to obtain and publicize information about the surveillance of libraries and library users by law enforcement agencies and to assess the impact on library users and their communities; and, be it further

RESOLVED, That the American Library Association urges all libraries to adopt and implement patron privacy and record retention policies that affirm that "the collection of personally identifiable information should only be a matter of routine or policy when necessary for the fulfillment of the mission of the library" (ALA Privacy: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights); and, be it further

RESOLVED, That the American Library Association considers sections of the USA Patriot Act are a present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library users and urges the United States Congress to: (1) provide active oversight of the implementation of the USA Patriot Act and other related measures, and the revised Attorney General Guidelines to the Federal Bureau of Investigation; (2) hold hearings to determine the extent of the surveillance on library users and their communities; and (3) amend or change the sections of these laws and the guidelines that threaten or abridge the rights of inquiry and free expression; and, be it further

RESOLVED, That this resolution be forwarded to the President of the United States, to the Attorney General of the United States, to Members of both Houses of Congress, to the library community, and to others as appropriate.  

Intellectual Freedom in a Time of War

The National Council of the American Studies Association adopted the following statement on November 14, 2002.

As teachers and scholars of American culture and history, we are deeply concerned about the storm of attacks on intellectual freedom and the ebb of open public debate, in the name of patriotism and a war on terror.

Free and frank intellectual inquiry is under assault by overt legislative acts and by a chilling effect of secrecy and intimidation in the government, media, and on college campuses. This atmosphere hinders our ability to fulfill our role as educators to promote public debate, conduct scholarly research, and most importantly, teach our students to think freely and critically and to explore diverse perspectives. Democracy is predicated on the right to question our government and leaders openly and to express dissent without fear. We are told, in fact, that our nation is ready to go to war to protect this precious freedom. The threat of war should not restrict public debate, as it often has in our nation's past. Vigorous debate and the widest possible discussion are crucial to the health of our democracy. We would like to draw attention to the following developments since September 11, 2001:

1. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Immigration and Naturalization Service are asking universities and colleges to monitor and provide information about students from countries outside the United States. This creates a climate of intimidation and suspicion inimical to free participation and exchange of ideas. Government contracts for scientific research now specify that international students be excluded from funded projects. Such conditions discourage international students from participating in our long tradition of international academic exchange crucial to the development of U.S. higher education. We applaud those universities that turn down these contracts and challenge the legality of FBI collaboration, and we encourage all administrations to follow suit. Denying equal rights and due process to foreign students creates an atmosphere of suspicion and fear for all of our students and drastically limits their intellectual universe.
2. The U.S. Department of Justice's new limits on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) jeopardizes our rights as scholars and citizens to have access to government information. For scholars seeking to understand our nation's history, this law has been profoundly important in providing documents from all branches of government. These documents have shed especially important light on the history of movements for social change and American intervention abroad, histories which can better help us understand our own times. Access to documents also helps citizens make informed decisions about current policy and keeps government accountable. The FOIA was intended to reverse what now seems an alarming trend toward unprecedented government secrecy. It is imperative today that scholars and journalists in all fields have the widest possible access to information generated by our own government.
3. The USA Patriot Act severely limits our most important tasks as scholars and teachers. Books and CD-ROMs are being removed from federal depository libraries, and Web sites are being closed for presumed terrorist ties. The ability of librarians to do their work is threatened by federal agencies that demand they turn over patron records. The rights of library users and book buyers are at risk when federal agencies can request these records, and our right to privacy—even to our own thoughts—is at risk when the government can monitor what we read. We urge the repeal of this act, which threatens to erode the foundation of intellectual freedom.
4. University administrations are under pressure to silence faculty and researchers who take unpopular political positions. Organizations such as Campus Watch publish lists of faculty and students critical of U.S. foreign policy, especially vis-à-vis Israel. They represent a broad trend among conservative commentators, who call for the censorship of faculty dissent and equate criticism of the government with being anti-American and anti-patriotic. We call on colleges and universities to resist external pressure to curtail academic freedom and to stop aiding federal agencies in the surveillance of teachers and scholars with scholarly or familial ties to other countries.

History teaches us that we must reflect on who the "we" of the American polity is and who the "enemy" is, especially in a time of war when lives are at stake at home and abroad. As students of American history and culture, we hear disturbing echoes of World War I and the McCarthy era, when the government imprisoned its critics, and institutions of higher learning dismissed antiwar or "subversive" professors. The presumption that foreign students and teachers and Americans of Arab, Muslim, and South Asian descent are either "terrorists" or "the enemy" evokes shameful memories of the deportation of political dissidents during World War I, and the internment of Americans of Japanese descent during World War II. The intimidation of political dissidents and those perceived as foreign threatens the right of free speech for all and debases our American traditions of civil liberty, tolerance, and inclusion.

To avoid repeating that ignominious history, we urge our colleagues, university administrations, and elected representatives to repeal those policies, laws, and acts of censorship that endanger intellectual freedom. We affirm our commitment to classrooms where ideas are exchanged freely, to libraries where scholars can work free from intimidation for their political beliefs, to laboratories where students and teachers are free from suspicion because of their ethnic affiliations, and to campuses open to the widest range of opinions. Intellectual freedom—the freedom to ask questions, to uncover facts, to speak independently without fear—is the foundation of our democracy and remains of critical importance, especially in a time of crisis.

Scientific Publishing and Security

The Journal Editors and Authors Group issued the following statement in January 2003.

The process of scientific publication, through which new findings are reviewed for quality and then presented to the rest of the scientific community and the public, is a vital element in our national life. New discoveries reported in research papers have helped improve the human condition in myriad ways: protecting public health, multiplying agricultural yields, fostering technological development and economic growth, and enhancing global stability and security.

But new science, as we know, may sometimes have costs as well as benefits. The prospect that weapons of mass destruction might find their way into the hands of terrorists did not suddenly appear on September 11, 2001. A policy focus on nuclear proliferation, no stranger to the physics community, has been with us for many years. But the events of September 11 brought a new understanding of the urgency of dealing with terrorism. And the subsequent harmful use of infectious agents brought a new set of issues to the life sciences. As a result, questions have been asked by the scientists themselves and by some political leaders about the possibility that new information published in research journals might give aid to those with malevolent ends.

Journals that dealt especially with microbiology, infectious agents, public health, and plant and agricultural systems faced these issues earlier than some others, and have attempted to deal with them. The American Society for Microbiology, in particular, urged the National Academy of Sciences to take an active role in organizing a meeting of publishers, scientists, security experts, and government officials to explore the issues and discuss what steps might be taken to resolve them. In a one-day workshop at the academy in Washington, D.C., cohosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies on January 9, 2003, an open forum was held for that purpose. A day later, a group of journal editors, augmented by scientist-authors, government officials, and others, held a separate meeting designed to explore possible approaches.

What follows reflects some outcomes of that preliminary discussion. Fundamental is a view, shared by nearly all, that there is information that, although we cannot now capture it with lists or definitions, presents enough risk of use by terrorists that it should not be published. How and by what processes it might be identified will continue to challenge us, because, as all present acknowledged, it is also true that open publication brings benefits not only to public health but also to efforts to combat terrorism. The statements follow.

FIRST, The scientific information published in peer-reviewed research journals carries special status and confers unique responsibilities on editors and authors. We must protect the integrity of the scientific process by publishing manuscripts of high quality, in sufficient detail to permit reproducibility. Without independent verification, a requirement for scientific progress, we can neither advance biomedical research nor provide the knowledge base for building strong biodefense systems.

SECOND, We recognize that the prospect of bioterrorism has raised legitimate concerns about the potential abuse of published information, but also recognize that research in the very same fields will be critical to society in meeting the challenges of defense. We are committed to dealing responsibly and effectively with safety and security issues that may be raised by papers submitted for publication, and to increasing our capacity to identify such issues as they arise.

THIRD, Scientists and their journals should consider the appropriate level and design of processes to accomplish effective review of papers that raise such security issues. Journals in disciplines that have attracted numbers of such papers have already devised procedures that might be employed as models in considering process design. Some of us represent some of those journals; others among us are committed to the timely implementation of such processes, about which we will notify our readers and authors.

FOURTH, We recognize that on occasion an editor may conclude that the potential harm of publication outweighs the potential societal benefits. Under such circumstances, the paper should be modified or not be published. Scientific information is also communicated by other means: seminars, meetings, electronic posting, etc. Journals and scientific societies can play an important role in encouraging investigators to communicate results of research in ways that maximize public benefits and minimize risks of misuse.

Journal Editors and Authors Group: Ronald Atlas, president, American Society for Microbiology, and editor, CRC Critical Reviews in Microbiology; Philip Campbell, editor, Nature; Nick Cozzarelli, editor, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences; Greg Curfman, New England Journal of Medicine; Gerry Fink, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Annette Flanagin, managing senior editor, Journal of the American Medical Association, and president, Council of Science Editors; Jacqueline Fletcher, president, American Phytopathological Society; Beth George, Department of Energy; Gordon Hammes, editor, Biochemistry; David Heyman, Center for Strategic and International Studies; Thomas Inglesby, editor, Biosecurity and Bioterrorism; Samuel Kaplan, chair, American Society for Microbiology Publications Board; Donald Kennedy, editor, Science; Judith Krug, American Library Association; Rachel Levinson, Office of Science and Technology Policy; Emilie Marcus, editor, Neuron (Cell Press); Henry Metzger, National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal, and Skin Diseases, National Institutes of Health; Stephen S. Morse, Columbia University; Alison O'Brien, editor, Infection and Immunity; George Poste, Health Technology Networks; Beatrice Renault, editor, Nature Medicine; Robert Rich, editor, Journal of Immunology; Ariella Rosengard, University of Pennsylvania; Steven Salzburg, Institute for Genome Research; Mary Scanlan, American Chemical Society; Thomas Shenk, president-elect, American Society for Microbiology, and past editor, Journal of Virology; Herbert Tabor, editor, Journal Biological Chemistry; Harold Varmus, president, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; Eckard Wimmer, State University of New York, Stony Brook; Keith Yamamoto, editor, Molecular Biology of the Cell.

 Printer-Friendly Page