It’s been a while since we heard anything about the University of Virginia’s legal fight to keep the emails and other materials of former Prof. Michael Mann away from prying eyes. In May, a Prince William county judge ordered the University to stop stonewalling and obey Virginia’s FOIA law. It wasn’t a blanket order for UVA to expose every electron Mann committed to screen, but it was broad enough to satisfy the American Tradition Institute, which had to take the state-funded school to court in order to get a look at the documents.
Tthat prospect rankles the gaggle of leftist groups who egged the university on in its expensive legal fight to keep the emails secret. So they sent a letter to UVA pleading with the school to use each and every FOIA exemption at its disposal.
It’s a rather remarkable document, displaying as it does the sort of rhetorical gymnastics that are usually reserved for poorly-scripted episodes of “Law and Order.” Consider this amusing bit:
We fully embrace the university’s responsibility to respond appropriately to open records requests. Freedom of information laws are critical for keeping public institutions and their employees accountable to the people who support them. We also support the university’s equally important obligation to protect its employees’ privacy and preserve researchers’ ability to privately and freely correspond with one another.
Sounds noble, doesn’t it? But it’s really just throat-clearing, as the next paragraph shows:
Unfortunately, the university’s agreement with ATI does not adequately balance these two responsibilities. We find it troubling that the agreement would allow ATI lawyers, including the very individuals who filed the open records request, to review all documents in the university’s possession, including material which will ultimately be exempt from disclosure. While the agreement asserts that ATI representatives would be under a gag order regarding exempt documents, we are concerned that giving requesters this level of access sets an entirely new precedent and would create a chilling effect for current Virginia researchers.
In other words, FOIA is great, except in this case. And really, how on earth can the “very individuals who filed the open records request” be allowed to view the items they requested?
They signers resort to familiar tropes to defend their stance: freedom of thought is at stake. Chill winds will blow. A climate of fear will ensue.
A cynic might suggest they are taking their cues not from the law, or even their ideology, but “Blazing Saddles”:
