I realized last week I forgot to post about our Ahmad v University of Michigan discussion! This was a complicated case study, and I don’t envy the archivists at the University of Michigan, who had to deal with this case. It demonstrates the dueling issues of privacy and access, which are at the heart of archival duties.
In class, I came down generally on the side of access, particularly when a strong case can be made for the public good. I think that in certain cases, archival materials can be considered public records, and although donor agreements are legal contracts which should be followed as closely as possible, ultimately public institutions should be accountable to the public.
But as Brian Whittledge noted, years of litigation in court is not the easiest or most productive way to resolve these issues. It is also clear that archivists need to be consulted if and when these laws and obligations are clarified. It is frustrating to see professionals unfamiliar with archives and archival theory make decisions about what archivists should have to do!
I am also sympathetic to the challenges that public universities face: structurally, they are a disadvantage when competing with private universities. I also realize the chilling effect that the Ahmad v. University of Michigan could have on potential donors (especially conservative ones, like the John Tanton collection). However, I found Eira Tansey’s question, “So What?” to be a persuasive one. I think the principle behind the Freedom of Information Act is too important to be watered down.
Ultimately, I agree with Tansey’s take, that archivists should be realistic with their donors about what the archives will be able to promise in terms of restrictions. Perhaps this is a new future in which archives will simply have to readjust their balancing act between privacy and access.