I'm very interested to see the extent to which NARA is able to speak
candidly about the situation involving records declassification and
reclassification. In 2001, I ended up being the sole defender of the
National Archives in a debate among historians on H-Net's H-Diplo List.
(Yes, me, who was once labelled as part of a group of "disgruntled
archivists" during Don Wilson's tenure as Archivist, speaking out in
defense of NARA, LOL.) At the time, my sister Eva still was alive and
employed at NARA's Declassification division.
For those of you who are following the NARA Declass story, here are a
couple of extracts from the H-Diplo postings:
"From: Jeffrey Kimball <[log in to unmask]>
List Editor: "H-DIPLO [Johnstone]" <[log in to unmask]>
Author's Subject: State Department Lot Files
Date Written: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:41:00 -0400
Date Posted: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:41:00 -0400
On April 11 the National Security Archive (NSA) posted on its web site
(http://www.nsarchive.org) a list of unprocessed U.S. State Department
lot files, which are in the custody of the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA) but unavailable for research. Lot files
are among the most important sources for research on the history of
post-World War II U.S. foreign relations. During the mid-1990s the
State Department released what NSA described as a "plethora" of lot
files, but in the last few years, as NSA explains, "progress in
releasing lot files has slowed considerably." The fundamental problem
lies not with the State Department but with NARA, which has
responsibility for the final processing of lot files but has reduced
the number of security-cleared staff assigned to this task.
Diplomatic historians who are concerned about this matter can find a
fuller description of the problem and the list of unprocessed lot files
at NSA's web site. Since there is a need to put diplomatic pressure on
NARA to assign more staff to these collections, diplomatic historians
may also want to consider calling or writing NARA about their concerns:
NARA, 8601 Adelphi Rd., College Park, Maryland 20740-6001.
Jeffrey Kimball"
This led to a lively debate among Warren Kimball, Jeffrey Kimball,
Hayden Peake, and me. For example, I wrote in part:
"From: Maarja Krusten <[log in to unmask]>
List Editor: "H-DIPLO [Johnstone]" <[log in to unmask]>
Author's Subject: NARA's critics (Krusten)
Date Written: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:59:11 -0400
Date Posted: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:59:11 -0400
Warren Kimball writes that "as an organization and a bureaucracy, and
despite the best and courageous efforts of some individuals within NARA
-- is too weak, too timid, too unimaginative, too lacking in purpose
and commitment, too hidebound and procedural, to be an effective force
for declassification." He asserts that "It is definitely not committed
to declassification of those records. Even when other agencies provide
declassification guidelines for NARA personnel to use, timidity and
over-caution prevail. NARA routinely refers "unclear" issues back to
the agency with equity in the information, lest declassification upset
another agency, something NARA tries to avoid at all cost."
Is this a fair assessment? Having worked at the National Archives and
still having many friends at NARA, I know that it is not. To understand
NARA's position, you have to look at where it stands in relation . . .
to other federal agencies.
Warren Kimball supports creation of a new declassification agency along
the lines suggested by former Senator Pat Moynihan. But it is not the
guidelines and the NARA officials and employees that are the problem.
Instead, it is the lack of support within the rest of government for
declassification that has hindered NARA. That being the case, why would
this not also hinder the new agency Kimball has in mind? Wouldn't the
new agency be as affected by the Kyl and Lott amendments as NARA
currently would appear to be?
Before attacking NARA as an ineffective force for declassification,
scholars need to recognize that the National Archives is not
autonomous; in fact, there is no mythical, totally independent
"[fourth] branch" of government that can be totally committed to
openness and public accountability. But many critics act instead as if
there is some kind of firewall around the agency which protects it from
pressure from other government entities. There is no such firewall. To
be useful, any criticism of NARA must take into account all the sources
of pressure on the agency and look for ways to protect it, not tear
down the agency.
Who is going to speak out on NARA's behalf? Obviously, as with every
federal agency, management counts on NARA's employees to be team
players and to submit to message discipline. Sometimes the message is
imposed from outside NARA, from the White House, from the Department of
Justice, from other agencies that have prevailed in access battles.
Remember, 'the government speaks with one voice,' regardless of
internal debates. But if employees do speak out about perceived
problems, it is all too easy to dismiss them as 'disgruntled
archivists' as was the case with some of the working staff who
testified in the Nixon public access litigation in 1992. If employees
are limited in what they can do, that leaves NARA's customers as the
best advocates for its mission.
Yet it is my experience that few scholars or academics bother to learn
how the Archives really works or what the sources of pressure are on
the Archives. Lack of information and understanding substantially
weakens their ability to assist NARA in carrying out its mission."
A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List sponsored by the Society of American Archivists, www.archivists.org.
For the terms of participation, please refer to http://www.archivists.org/listservs/arch_listserv_terms.asp.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to [log in to unmask]
In body of message: SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
*or*: UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to [log in to unmask]
Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html
Problems? Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>