In class, we went over the case study of Ahmad V. University of Michigan. The debates we have in class over these case studies are great, and help me with better understanding the issues. I was on the side that the donor contract has to be honored and that Michigan University did the right thing by fighting it in court to defend keeping the records sealed until their release date. Donor confidence is important, and institutions should do their best to appease donors when applicable. These records most likely had a 25-year seal on them because they most likely contained information on right-wing networks and movements. Which is why Ahmad wanted access to them. This can be a dangerous precedence that could prevent orgainzations, political activists, or other groups not wanting to donate their records. Something Margery said in class has been sticking with me. She mentioned something along the lines of, what is 25 years to 200 years of use.
This also could lead to donors not wanting to submit their records. They might just choose to destroy them instead of endangering members of their organizations or movements. I understand the frustration some classmates felt that these should be public records and that they should have a right to them, but I don’t know if we have a right to them. What I have an issue with is that we don’t have a right to everyone’s documents who ever lived, so why can we demand access to documents that are sealed? I can see this being weaponized against groups and we could lose a lot of counter-culture, or radical histories. The archive already has so many absences from the record, why should we be endangering those who want to entrust their records to us? Yes, this person is deceased but the people referenced in those documents may not be. I’m the furthest away from agreeing politically with John Tanton, but I want to see his records and I don’t want to rush his papers coming out because I wouldn’t want left-wing groups to face the same threat.