In early December, at least five public-policy, law, and similar advanced-degree programs across the country sent out e-mails to their students warning them against reading and sharing information from the WikiLeaks website. Federal government employees and contractors were instructed in December not to read the still-classified information disclosed to WikiLeaks, leading to speculation that those who plan to apply for jobs requiring a security clearance should not access the website.
When classes reconvened in January, professors were confronted with a unique problem; should WikiLeaks, which contains information that would be valuable and insightful to their students, be read or discussed in their classrooms? TAP spoke to Shoon Murray, program director and associate professor of U.S. foreign policy at American University (full disclosure: she is the interviewer's professor as well), about how her program is handling the WikiLeaks question.
Are academic institutions asking students not to read for school purposes and activities or just warning them not to even read these documents in general?
Our concern is that the students know the potential consequences. I don't think anyone knows for sure if there will be consequences. These are just warnings that there could be consequences when applying for security clearances. Students need to know that, and then they can make their own choices.
Is there any hint that the government has a uniform policy against hiring people who have written about or shared items released by WikiLeaks?
The government policy is entirely ambiguous. It probably is not set. It's probably fluid. It's probably evolving. There have been warnings in the papers. There was the article in The Washington Post that people who are seeking employment with the government should not access WikiLeaks. Various universities have warned students that they should not discuss WikiLeaks on social network sites. As far as we know, though, there is not a government decision on this yet.
Could reading them hurt career prospects for students in other jobs as well?
The way that I understand it is that the government sent a warning to its own employees and federal contractors that these documents are classified and the government will continue to consider them classified. Then the question is whether that policy applies to the people that are applying for jobs with the government that require security clearances and whether they will be questioned about their ability to handle classified information. I can't see how it would extend to jobs beyond the government and contractors.
Should professors be teaching their students the information distributed by WikiLeaks?
The concern that it could cause students harm puts us in a real dilemma. We feel that teaching everything that's in the public domain is part of our mission. Students should be fully informed with what's going on in current events. The whole world can read the WikiLeak documents. They're affecting relations with other countries. In order to be a fully informed citizen and have knowledge of what's going on in international affairs, you should know what's going on. You're handicapped if you're restricted from reading them. We, as professors, feel like it's against our mission. But on the other hand, we don't want to harm students in their future employment prospects. Also, we have students that are current government employees in our classes, and we don't want to put them in a compromising position. It's having a very chilling effect, and it places us in an uncomfortable position.
Do you think academic institutions have a role in the larger debate over the merits of WikiLeaks?
I think academics are having a debate, and I think they should also be a part of public debate and a part of questioning public policies. As far as I know, the idea of restricting the reading of information that is in the public domain from citizens, whether they are government employees or not, is unprecedented. It's something that is new. If you're a government employee, you can read the Pentagon Papers. If you're a government employee you can read Bob Woodward's book. Both of which have classified information. So this is unprecedented, and I would call it ill-conceived. I do think that academics should petition that there be clarity and a change to this policy.
Do you think that by enabling access to diplomatic cables and other classified documents, WikiLeaks might provide an opportunity for students to learn something new?
Yes, they talk about the current relations between nations, and it's arguably having an impact upon the historical revolution in countries like Tunisia and elsewhere. Others are also reading it, and it's affecting and influencing politics. It makes sense for people to be informed about what others are reading.
Recommending that this website is not assigned seems like censoring what students read. Is this limiting freedom of information?
You have to be careful what the warnings say. When we warn our students, we are warning them that they should know that the policy is ambiguous, and there is a potential that it could have an impact on their ability to get a security clearance in the future. We do not tell them not to access WikiLeaks. That is a decision they make on their own. It's just one they should make knowing the risks. They need to have a sense of awareness.
This Q&A has been edited for clarity and length.
