The Washington Post today publishes a letter from someone named Mike Levin of Hillandale (VA). (He's not identified as such but I believe he is a Federal retiree.) The letter is available at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091000897.html
Mr. Levin writes that Bill Leonard and I "miss the point" in our letters to the editor on the Matthew Aid matter. He says that the Post was correct to publish the story: "Both writers felt that this old history was personal and unrelated to the integrity of National Archives materials.
But they miss the point. Had Mr. Aid adopted as his stock in trade ancient history or some other field of endeavor, his past would not have been disclosed via the Freedom of Information Act and subsequently published by The Post."
Mr. Levin believes that because Mr. Aid was a researcher involved in trying to gain access to once classified materials, the matter was relevant and suitable for publishing.
However, the records about Mr. Aid's past would have been released under FOIA whether he wrote about ancient history or modern history or never dealt with issues related to history. So Mr. Levin's assertion that "his past would not have been disclosed via the Freedom of Information Act" is not correct. FOIA exemptions are supposed to the applied consistently and according to 30 years of case law. You don't selectively release info about one person but withhold the same class of info about someone else.
The greater issue is whether, as Bill Leonard questioned, there was a public interest in the Post publishing the story. Obviously, this is an area where people may disagree. Some may feel that in the public arena, anything goes. As I've said here on the List before, for me, the greater responsibility lies with those who hold the records (NARA and the Federal agencies) not with those clamoring for their release (such as Mr. Aid). That is because they, not he, hold the power in this situation. He cannot compel them to release information. Given the power imbalance, in any such situation, it is the Federal archivist or records manager who must be held to a greater standard of integrity. Also, I'm not a fan of mud slinging. preferring discussion of principles and issues over what someone can dig up through "oppo research," when the information that is dug up is not relevant to the issue at hand. However, I recognize that others, especially those who never have seen their own colleagues attacked in the press, may have differing sensitivities about such tactics, etc.
The Post is not going to be publishing any rebuttals from me. I can't send one in because once they publish a letter, they tend to wait 6 months or up to a year before publishing another from the same person except in rare cases involving individuals far more prominent than I. If anyone else who subscribes to Archives List wants to send in your views on any of this, pro or con, to the Post, in a letter to the editor, that option remains available to you.
Maarja
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]>