Following recent open records requests targeting controversial professors at other institutions, the University od California Los Angeles releases its mission statement regarding the protection of privacy of scholarly communications.

Inside Higher Ed’s Colleen Flaherty has the details:

Saying that “frivolous” open records requests for faculty members’ emails and other communications have a potential chilling effect on academic freedom, a joint faculty-administrative body at the University of California at Los Angeles has drafted a first-of-its-kind statement to protect the confidentiality of frank, collaborative exchanges among scholars discussing their research.

…[Carole Goldberg, a professor of law and vice chancellor of academic personnel at ULCA and co-chair of the joint Academic Senate-Administration Task Force on Academic Freedom] said the UCLA statement is meant to proactively address what’s public and private information, in the interest of preserving academic freedom (She denied that statement was drafted in response to public information requests from animal rights groups that historically have targeted UCLA for criticism for research concerning animal subjects). It’s the first in the nation to release such a statement, she added.The task force document lists five principles essential to that collaborative process, and therefore meriting protection: “frank exchange” among scholars; ongoing peer review; that topics “relevant to society” may elicit “strong reactions” (its lists climate change as an example); inter-institutional collaboration; and that teaching and research are carried out according to discipline-specific professional and ethical commitments.

It says that clarity as to what is and is not a public record is “essential” to the academic enterprise, and that the university must – consistent with the “letter and intent” of public records law – do its “utmost” to protect:

• The system of peer review “at all levels.”
•  The right of faculty to choose topics and research areas based on “intrinsic criteria,” even those which are potentially controversial or unpopular.
•  Academic freedoms for UCLA faculty that are afforded to academics working at private universities or corporations.
• “Longstanding” traditions of ethical and professional codes of conduct.

“The threat to faculty of forced disclosure of scholarly communication through [public information] requests can damage intellectual freedom and interfere with robust scholarly communication,” the statement concludes. “The proper forum for evaluating and vetting academic research is through the time-honored and rigorous process of peer review.”

The statement also notes that such requests can be time-consuming for faculty and other personnel; requests can often yield thousands of applicable documents, containing requested key words. UCLA did not immediately respond to a request for how many public records requests regarding scholarly communications it has received in the last year.