James Sumpter on 06/16/2010

As a ninth generation Virginian, and third generation University graduate, I have immeasurable love for UVa and Jefferson’s vision for his public University.  It is then a very sad day to realize that certain University members, the Board of Visitors, John Wynne and John Casteen are patronizing the height of hubris rather than Jeffersonian ideals and in the process tarnishing the sterling reputation we have had for over 190 years. 

For it seems to me that this clique is engaging in a folded-hands affair to elevate activities of professional academics above public welfare, the education of Virginia’s most gifted children, scholastic integrity and the very pursuit of “truth”. 

The most senior agents of the University—those very individuals who are responsible for the ongoing welfare and advancement of the University—have drawn a line in the sand.  Rather than stand with students, the state, and a public eager to learn the facts of one of the most highly contentious topics of our time, these agents have feigned both burden and elitism—engaging in an egoist’s charade when responding to the Attorney General’s request.

One is made to believe that all professors are angelic sages well above the vices of mankind.  I fail to see the logic in such a belief system—professors are human as well.  Indeed we are experiencing a spawning of the “activist academic”, that is one who uses his shielded position to promote memes of his personal persuasion.  It is tragically laughable that the nebulous and narcissistic concept of “academic freedom” be used to defend professors who desire to do anything they want, say anything they want, use public and alumni funds indiscriminately, be free from any form of accountability and cultivate thought fiefdoms without oversight from within state-sponsored serpentine walls.  Tragic in that this compromises our students to one-sided thoughtlessness in the classroom and laughable because in any other arena such demands would be summarily dismissed.

The University’s elite had a simple and legal request to fulfill.  Rather than complying with this request, they morphed it into an issue that will be played out in both the courts of Virginia and the courts of public opinion.  In doing so, they have hijacked the welfare of students, the University’s prestige and the public’s faith in the school’s soundness as an unbiased center of learning.

Already many are questioning, “What does the University have to hide?”  If academic truth and transparency were goals, all materials would have been released already.  If adhering to the laws of the Commonwealth were the goal, all materials would have been released already.  If preserving valuable capital resources for University students were the goal, all materials would have been released….already.

These obviously are not their goals.  Rather the language emanating from the Rotunda is erroneous, antiquated and offensive—that the professorial class is beyond reproach and granted “privileges” for which mere citizens can only dream.  Blazingly ignorant that PhDs are fallible and at times rogues themselves, the University’s elite clique have informed the state, University students and alumni that University administrators and teaching staff power trump the concerns of all others.  If ever there were politicking, it is here.

As members of the University community, we all have fond memories of specific professors.  We have grown intellectually and personally from these interactions.  We must hold on to these memories and demand that the current superintendents assure the integrity of the University as an unbiased, apolitical and open place of learning.  Those who would do harm to this goal are clearly in control and threaten the future for the next generation. 

Lastly, upon reflection of other postings, perhaps what bemuses and at the same time horrifies me most, is the simultaneous haughty and sycophantic language coming from some University alumni in defense of the elite’s actions.  Professors are, of course, going to defend any and all power they have to the bitter end.  But as former students, we were taught to employ our intellect, weigh all factors of an issue and be courageous.  To defend a position of subservience automatically—instinctively even—to the elite’s authority screams of abdication of the most important gift the University bestowed upon us.

Chris Carson (Class of '72) on 06/16/2010

The issue here is science and scientific research, not whether someone believes in the subject of the research.  I do not see any reason to fight transparency in science.  Part of the reason why this issue has been elevated to politics is that some of the scientists evidently have not been transparent with their research.
As I read the publication by the Max Planck Society, arguably the top research organization in Germany, “Rules of Good Scientific Practice”, I am reminded of the ethical and scientific rigors required by good research.  A few excerpts from that document quickly helped me decide that releasing the information supports the stand of defending good scientific practice:
“a)  Regulations governing day-to-day scientific practice
– precise observance of discipline-specific rules for acquiring and selecting data,
– reliable securing and storage of primary data; clear and comprehensible documentation of all important results,
– the rule of systematic scepticism: openness for doubt, even about one’s own results and about the results of one’s own group,
– a realisation of tacit, axiomatic assumptions; watchfulness for any “wishful thinking” motivated by self-interest or even morals; systematic alertness for any possible misinterpretations as a consequence of the methodically limited ascertainability of the object of research (over-generalisation).”
b)  Regulations governing relations with colleagues and cooperation
– no hindrance of the scientific work of competitors, for example by delaying reviews or by passing on scientific results which have been acquired in confidence,
– active promotion of junior scientists’ scientific qualifications,
– openness to criticism and doubt expressed by other scientists and team colleagues,
– careful, non-self- interested and unprejudiced assessment of colleagues; avoidance of bias.
c)  Regulations governing the publication of results
– publication on principle of results obtained through public funding (principle of the public availability of the results of basic research),
– publication also of falsified hypotheses in an appropriate manner and admission of mistakes (principle of a science culture open to the possibility of error),
– strict honesty in the recognition and appropriate consideration of the contributions of
predecessors, competitors and colleagues (principle of recognition).”

“4. Securing and storing primary data
Primary data as a basis for publications must, as far as possible, be stored for at least ten years on durable, secure carriers in the institutes or research establishments in which they arose. Access to the data has to be granted for persons with a justifiable interest.
Scientific examinations, experiments and numerical calculations can only be reproduced or
reconstructed if all the important steps are comprehensible. For this reason, full and adequate
reports are necessary, and these reports must be kept for a minimum period of ten years, not least as a source of reference, should the published results be called into question by others.
The institute management is responsible for regulating and setting out in writing all further details and responsibilities, in particular for detailing proper reporting standards and access regulations for the use of data.”

The full text is admirable and well-worth reading, and I trust that any research work done under the auspices of the University of Virginia meets ethical and scientific standards at least as rigorous as those delineated in the Planck document.  Fighting the release of scientific records just makes it appear that there are problems with the scientific conclusions.  Cooperate and then it’s quickly over, I don’t understand why anyone would want to fight this.  As a top research facility, our University should cooperate in providing all records requested.

Robin Meyer Frye (1976) on 06/16/2010

Well said, Mr. Garland.  I have not been a Virginian for 33 years, but was completely chagrinned to see this game being played when there are so many, many more devastating issues facing the localities in the state (for example, southwest Virginia).  I am guessing Mr. Cuccinelli’s concerns are focused on Richmond, DC, and himself.

Brent Garland (CLAS '91) on 06/16/2010

Dwight,

This is a classic example of government infringing on academic freedom. The work of Mann has been peer-reviewed and found to be scientifically and academically acceptable. The grants relevant to the time that Ken is interested in are not reachable by his office on fraud grounds under the very terms of the statute Ken cites. (Ken is my former dorm-mate, so I feel OK calling him by his first name.)

This is a political action, not one concerned with possible crime or fraud, and it is exactly the sort of action the University should question and resist. We shouldn’t let politicians hassle, discourage, threaten, or otherwise interfere with the functioning of the University and scholarly inquiry.

Discovering, developing and preserving knowledge remains at the core of the University’s functions. I applaud my Alma Mater for retaining their own counsel and resisting this attempt to use them as a political football.

And Ken, if you’re reading this: knock it off. Go work on issues of actual import. Resist the urge to become the caricature of a politician to bolster your political career—try instead to build your career by making substantive change.

Dwight Baptist on 06/16/2010

Let the truth speak for itself.  This doesn’t appear to me to be an on attack academic freedom.