Letter to Editor

June 2, 2003

Letters to the Editor
The Times Union
Box 15000
Albany, NY 12212

To the Editor:

Your May 29 editorial about the legislative proposal to exempt classroom materials used at public colleges from the state's Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) fails to mention that no private institution has to turn over these materials to anyone who asks for them. In this respect, the bill -- supported but not initiated by United University Professions (UUP) -- is about equity. It's about being able to compete for outstanding faculty with private colleges on a level playing field.

It's also about the very complicated issue of the fair use of copyrighted materials. In SUNY, academic materials are the intellectual property of the faculty members who create them. If we want creative people to be productive, we must allow them to retain control of what they create and to decide how it should be used. These rights should not be taken away simply because one works for a public university. In addition, absent the appropriate legal prohibition to obtain intellectual property through FOIL provisions, what is to prevent the misuse of classroom materials on the Internet?

There are similar issues of the "availability of information" related to the print media. For example, sources used in newspaper reports are not often revealed nor subject to a "FOIL-type" law. Should protection of information sources that are provided to a free and open press be subject to FOIL? UUP supports your protection.

As your editorial correctly points out, the nation shows "signs, in the period after the 2001 terrorist attacks, of reduced tolerance for thinking that falls outside the safety of the political mainstream." That is a dangerous trend in a university setting, where diversity of ideas and opinion should be encouraged and debated. Yet your editorial seems willing to accept the chilling effect that the misuse of FOIL would have in the classroom to promote an undefined sense of "public accountability."

Taxpayers certainly deserve an accounting of public dollars. All courses should be academically rigorous and of high standards. But this isn't the issue raised by those who seek a shorthand, armchair approach to criticize a course's content based on their own personal beliefs. They want to review course materials, taken out of context and without the discussion and explanation that takes place in the classroom, and subject them to an ideological litmus test that threatens academic freedom and, ultimately, the quality of programming that we offer our students. If students are interested in the content of a particular course, let them read the course catalog and then decide whether to enroll. One does not need classroom materials in advance to make that decision.

William E. Scheuerman
President
United University Professions