McCarthyism is Alive and Well in WI

[heliochrome85]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... ory/73010/

some people will never learn.

[AZhitman]

Actually, that's far from McCarthyism.

In fact, that's some real irresponsible journalism.

To term this "intimidation" is to be misleading. To invoke "academic freedom" (uhh, what?) and "the First Amendment" shows an ignorance of law / statute / policy.

I deal with this stuff every day, as part of my function is to investigate misuse of the state's information technology resources... The statute is very clear on this behavior. Not only is the state's computer system not to be used for non-work related activities, it is ESPECIALLY explicit when it comes to political activism, especially expression of opinions that could be misconstrued as being "official" in nature (by virtue of the sender). In fact, "intimidation" could work the opposite way - By using his state-owned PC and state-owned email system, he may have been trying to convince the reader of his importance or "insider" status (or whatever his motivations were).

He's got no protections under the First Amendment here. The author of that article needs to pull his head out and consider the implications of his stupidity. You don't use a taxpayer-funded resource, on taxpayer-funded time, to express your political views.

Do that stuff from home on your personal email account.

James Fallows should think before he types. Shame on The Atlantic.

...oops I did it again. Damn my logical (and well-bearded) noggin.

[IBCoupe]

Are you referring to a federal statute or a state statute? If it's the latter, is that bearded noggin of yours sure that the WI and AZ statutes are similar enough for you to make that criticism?

[AZhitman]

Most states' policies are quite similar...

Not a comprehensive legal analysis, but most of the language is similar across states: http://www.wisconsin.edu/bor/policies/r ... m#_ftnref3
http://www.wisconsin.edu/gc-off/ethics-records-tips.htm
http://www.ls.wisc.edu/handbook/Chapter ... er1-20.htm

[IBCoupe]

According to the Professor's account, Greg, that's not what they were trying to do.

From: Stephan Thompson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 2:37 PM
To: Dowling, John
Subject: Open Records Request

Dear Mr. Dowling,

Under Wisconsin open records law, we are requesting copies of the following items:

Copies of all emails into and out of Prof. William Cronon’s state email account from January 1, 2011 to present which reference any of the following terms: Republican, Scott Walker, recall, collective bargaining, AFSCME, WEAC, rally, union, Alberta Darling, Randy Hopper, Dan Kapanke, Rob Cowles, Scott Fitzgerald, Sheila Harsdorf, Luther Olsen, Glenn Grothman, Mary Lazich, Jeff Fitzgerald, Marty Beil, or Mary Bell.

We are making this request under Chapter 19.32 of the Wisconsin state statutes, through the Open Records law. Specifically, we would like to cite the following section of Wis. Stat. 19.32 (2) that defines a public record as “anything recorded or preserved that has been created or is being kept by the agency. This includes tapes, films, charts, photographs, computer printouts, etc.”

Thank you for your prompt attention, and please make us aware of any costs in advance of preparation of this request.

Sincerely,

Stephan Thompson

Republican Party of Wisconsin

You seem to talk about internal, disciplinary investigations. This looks like fishing for political ammunition.

Under Wisconsin’s Open Records Law, anyone has the right to request access to the state’s public records, and can do so without either identifying themselves or stating the reasons for their interest in those records. But since Mr. Thompson made no effort to hide his identity or his affiliation with the Republican Party, since his request came so soon after my ALEC study guide was published, and since he provided search terms to identify the particular emails that most interested him, it’s not too hard to connect the dots to figure out what this request is all about.

[AZhitman]

Actually, it's a bit of both.

Here's the deal: When you violate those laws, you'd better expect that someone, whether it be an opposition party, a disgruntled passed-over employee, or even a jilted ex-lover, might come looking for such "evidence".

That letter isn't terribly dissimilar to what comes across my desk on occasion.

You can call it "fishing", and you'd technically be right. But it's a legitimate and lawful request, without concealment or anonymity, for public information on the sanctionable behavior of an individual who signed an agreement to NOT do the very things they're looking to expose him as doing.

Jerk move? Sure. So was the misuse of the state IT resource. Only one was prohibited.

It's no different from a PRR I rec'd (about 1.5 years ago) that asked us to do a forensic review for pornographic content. Lo and behold, the evidence was there (child pornography). I did a full investigation, and it ultimately led to a multijurisdictional case including a Federal indictment on multiple charges, and the accused is now a fugitive from justice beyond the US borders.

[heliochrome85]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archiv ... ollide.php

[AZhitman]

Wonder if a right-winger would have gotten this much "yeah, but..." support.

[heliochrome85]

i just dont like the idea that we have the ability of being thought police.

[themadscientist]

Whenever you say something that pisses someone off be ready for push back. You better be right, but that doesn't shield you from retribution. Ideas are dangerous things and your opponents will not let you spread yours without a fight. It's not a right-left thing, it's a power thing. All politics is.

[AZhitman]

i just dont like the idea that we have the ability of being thought police.

"We're" not.

You have the right to think and say whatever you want.

But don't use equipment that *I* paid for to conduct your political efforts (a slight exaggeration in this instance, but he's still in the wrong per the letter of the "law").

If he'd conducted his actions from him home PC, he'd be totally in the clear.

I'm not defending the GOP'ers, I'm adhering to the written rule (which, when I go before an Administrative Law Judge to defend a personnel action, is all I have to rely on).

[IBCoupe]

Actually, it's a bit of both.

Here's the deal: When you violate those laws, you'd better expect that someone, whether it be an opposition party, a disgruntled passed-over employee, or even a jilted ex-lover, might come looking for such "evidence".

That letter isn't terribly dissimilar to what comes across my desk on occasion.

You can call it "fishing", and you'd technically be right. But it's a legitimate and lawful request, without concealment or anonymity, for public information on the sanctionable behavior of an individual who signed an agreement to NOT do the very things they're looking to expose him as doing.

Jerk move? Sure. So was the misuse of the state IT resource. Only one was prohibited.

It's no different from a PRR I rec'd (about 1.5 years ago) that asked us to do a forensic review for pornographic content. Lo and behold, the evidence was there (child pornography). I did a full investigation, and it ultimately led to a multijurisdictional case including a Federal indictment on multiple charges, and the accused is now a fugitive from justice beyond the US borders.

Wait, are we sure there's actually been a prohibited use?

And, Greg, in your example, was the request pursuant to the contents of the blog post of a faculty member on the theory that he maybe might have used his faculty email inappropriately?

I see the appeal in trying to relate this situation to real world experiences, Greg, but it seems a bit presumptuous in this case.

But there’s a much more important reason I feel far less fear than anger at Mr. Thompson’s open records request, which is simply this: I haven’t actually done anything wrong.



Ever since moving to Wisconsin from Yale in the early 1990s, I have been careful to maintain a separation between my public @wisc.edu email address and my personal email address. I use the latter for all communications with family members and friends, and I use it too for any activities of mine that might be construed as political rather than scholarly (though the boundaries between these two categories is harder to draw for a scholar of the modern United States than non-scholars might imagine). I have always owned my own computers, because I haven’t wanted to worry about whether my personal and professional emails are mingling on a state-owned machine in ways that would violate Wisconsin’s rules about using state property for personal or political communication.



The irony goes deeper still. As any careful reader of my blog about ALEC will probably have noticed—though I get the feeling that Mr. Thompson and his colleagues may not be such careful readers—I did not raise the questions I did about ALEC from a partisan point of view. Quite the contrary. I tried to write with real respect about the history of the conservative movement in the United States, because I genuinely do respect that movement and believe it has made many important contributions to our political life. Although I do have serious criticisms of the role ALEC has played in our politics, my concerns have to do with threats to core American notions of due process and transparent governance. I worked hard to avoid partisan criticism, enough so that I’m pretty sure many readers to my left thought that I wasn’t nearly critical enough in what I wrote.

[AZhitman]

Wait, are we sure there's actually been a prohibited use?

Ummm, that typically isn't known until after the records request review.

There's a simple answer, although you're working real hard to find a "way out" for this guy:

If he didn't do anything politically-related on his work PC, then the public records request will turn up nothing.

For him to say "I haven’t actually done anything wrong", then perhaps he didn't do anything non-work-related on his work PC.

In which case, he's STILL subject to the records request, and he needs to get over it. Happens all the time.

[IBCoupe]

I'm aware that it isn't typically known. Which is why I was asking in response to comments like these:

You don't use a taxpayer-funded resource, on taxpayer-funded time, to express your political views.

Especially this gem of absurdity:

When you violate those laws, you'd better expect that someone, whether it be an opposition party, a disgruntled passed-over employee, or even a jilted ex-lover, might come looking for such "evidence".

Jerk move? Sure. So was the misuse of the state IT resource. Only one was prohibited.

If he'd conducted his actions from him home PC, he'd be totally in the clear.

I don't think he's saying he's not subject to the records request. I don't think any of us are saying he's not subject to the records request, Greg. I think you're the only one presuming that he did anything wrong, when it's clear to the rest of us that there's no such indication - a politician didn't like what a college professor wrote on a blog and in a newspaper, and rather than exercise his own free speech, the politician decided he'd go fishing, on the off chance that this professor screwed up.

Which makes this line of comments all the more laughable:

Wonder if a right-winger would have gotten this much "yeah, but..." support.

There's a simple answer, although you're working real hard to find a "way out" for this guy:

You act like we're bending over backwards to make this guy seem like he hasn't screwed up, when there's no need for us to do so - there's absolutely no indication that he HAS screwed up. I really don't think it's me who's "working real hard." I'm just thinking critically and challenging your baseless assumptions.

[R/T Hemi]

Perhaps WI should adopt the policy of the Bush administration for FOIA requests.
I submitted such a request to a government agency. I was thanked for the request and told it would take, due to heavy demand, one year to process and send. I waited one year and my 6 pages arrived. The important page, the one subject to my request, was photocopied so light that it was completely unreadable, far too light to even discern it was a photocopy of anything. Of course, I got a note that it was the best copy possible and that I could file another request, but they were backlogged, and it would take a year.

[AZhitman]

You're more than welcome to bypass my "laughable gems of absurdity".

Go ahead and spit that nonsense in a courtroom and you'll get clowned.

See, despite your current educational level, only one of us actually spends time IN court. And there's nothing illegal about "fishing", nor is there any violation being committed by those who request a review of one's use of a state information resource. Happens all the time - and unlike Hemi's example, obstructionism is not tolerated in my experience. Transparency and expediency is appreciated by the administrative law judges that I deal with.

Whine all you want about not having any reason to believe he's violated the rules - this is an instance where a request is valid, legal, and must be investigated and complied with, whether it offends your delicate sensibilities or not. What you think and what you feel is irrelevant - the only thing that matters is what the forensic review of the PC turns up.

Maybe he DIDN'T do anything wrong. If so, I'll still be right.

I think I already said it was a jackass move. No matter. It's legit and legal. Let the chips fall where they may.

See, my original contention was JUST to counter the notion that the politician did something wrong. And I'm correct. Stay on topic, because in a clear-cut case like this, there's really no room for opinions.

[IBCoupe]

Who's claimed that there's something illegal about "fishing?" Who's claimed that the thing doesn't need to be complied with? Greg, your entire argument seems to be against strawmen.

You admit that he's being a jackass, and then say that your only objective is to say that he's doing nothing wrong. You can come down off your high horse, there, sweetheart, and join the rest of us in logical thought.

McCarthyism wasn't illegal, either. This is about public opinion, not about the legality of the actions involved. Come on, dude - if you think there's nothing wrong with it, own it. But don't go throwing around your purported legal experience when there's absolutely no reason to do it.

For all the fuss you make about my law school education, and all the excuse it provides for you to tell us about your job, I say remarkably little about it. Can you please focus on making good arguments?

[AZhitman]

Perhaps I need to repeat myself so that you can hear me over the sound of your own awesomeness.

Actually, that's far from McCarthyism.

In fact, that's some real irresponsible journalism.

To term this "intimidation" is to be misleading. To invoke "academic freedom" (uhh, what?) and "the First Amendment" shows an ignorance of law / statute / policy.

The OP wasn't about "public opinion". The author invoked "academic freedom" and "the First Amendment".

I responded with clear logic. I'm sorry you don't like it.

Let me do this one more time:

To invoke "academic freedom" and "the First Amendment" shows an ignorance of law / statute / policy.

Call me on my cell phone the FIRST TIME a judge decides a case on the merits of public opinion. K?

[IBCoupe]

So, let me get this straight:

I'm telling you nobody's talking about the law - this is being judged in the court of public opinion.

In response, you're telling me that the OP made it about "intimidation" and "academic freedom." THEN you go on to say that "academic freedom" has no place in a court of law. And then somehow I'm wrong? Do I have that right?

I have to say, Greg, it appears that either you're not paying attention to what we're writing, or you're not paying attention to what you're writing.

I'll sat it again, Greg, in the hopes that you're paying attention this time:
NO ONE is saying that the Republican politician is breaking the law.
NO ONE is saying that the professor shouldn't abide by the law.
YOU are the only person who has suggested that it's a violation of the law which leads (or at least led in this case) to an investigation.
EVERYONE ELSE says that it looks like the only reason the professor is being investigated is because he wrote something political in a private blog and in a public newspaper.
SOME have suggested that the Republican politician is trying to intimidate this professors and other professors fromspeaking their minds.

Did you get all that, pumpkin? Would you like to try again, and then explain how your vast legal experience matters in the slightest?

[AZhitman]

I'm telling you nobody's talking about the law - this is being judged in the court of public opinion.

Actually, you mentioned it early on (asking if the WI and AZ statutes / policies were similar). Not that it's terribly relevant, now that we've established that "nobody's talking about the law".

All of your post is correct. And the end result? So what.

The investigation will play out, "public opinion" doesn't amount to anything in the grand scheme of things, and all that will matter is whether a rule was broken.

And yes, it may simply be that the pol was "fishing for political ammunition". Imagine that! BFD. Happens every time there's an election - from choosing a treasurer for a homeowners' association, to selecting the next POTUS.

Thankfully, both sides still have that right. HOWEVER, perceiving it as "an attempt at intimidation" is in the eye of the beholder. Quite possibly accurate (I think I even conceded that it's a jackass move).

Point out something factually inaccurate. Belaboring minutiae bores me.

[IBCoupe]

I wasn't pointing out factual inaccuracies in what you said. I was calling you on a strawman argument.

The investigation will play out, "public opinion" doesn't amount to anything in the grand scheme of things, and all that will matter is whether a rule was broken.

That's not all that matters, Greg, and that's the point of the thread. That's why you've been wrong this whole time. OP says, "Politician has done something wrong!" and you replying over and over again, "It wasn't illegal."

That something is legal does not make it right.

And yes, it may simply be that the pol was "fishing for political ammunition". Imagine that! BFD. Happens every time there's an election - from choosing a treasurer for a homeowners' association, to selecting the next POTUS.

Similarly, that something happens frequently does not make it right. The distinction between the examples you cite and this situation is that we're dealing with a public official sniping, with the full force of the government at his disposal, at a private citizen who dared voice his opinions in a public forum. You're pointing to the inverse relationship.

Point out something factually inaccurate. Belaboring minutiae bores me.

And this is probably the most important problem, and it's either the greatest display of your foolishness or your dishonesty.

Nobody's disputing the facts, Greg. We all agree as to what happens. What we're in dispute about is the nature of the debate. We're arguing that the politician's actions were inappropriate, and you're hanging your hat on whether they were legal. That's not minutiae, that's the whole of the argument.

[IBCoupe]

Here's an analogy, Greg:

You own a dog, but your supervisor is a cat person. Upon learning that you have a dog, your boss then goes about finding other ways to get you fired. You weren't deficient in your duties, but he's looking for any indication that you might have ever been.

Now, upon hearing about this, Tariq and I remark, "That's f*** up, man. Your boss is a douche for persecuting you based on your pet choices."

You reply, "No, it's not persecution; he's well within his rights as my employer to do it."

Then I tell you, "That's not the point," you challenge me to point to a factual inaccuracy in your assessment.

Do you see why you're being a dumbass yet?

[AZhitman]

Similarly, WBC's actions are disgusting and abhorrent, but legal. So, I'm fine with categorizing this pol's request as a similar act, albeit much lower on the "inappropriate" continuum.

Perhaps (and it's certainly not a defense), it's because I see it all too often. Weak supervisor can't hold subordinate accountable, is too lazy to accurately document performance deficiencies, so they file a Request to Audit - which results in an investigation into this / that / the other.

[AZhitman]

Do you see why you're being a dumbass yet?

...more tantrums.

[IBCoupe]

Whatever, Greg. It wasn't a tantrum, it was meant lightheartedly. I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings.

Before I respond to your REAL reply, who do you refer to by writing WBC?

[AZhitman]

Nothing you could do would hurt my feelings. Dave Mustaine had me in mind when he sang, "...I didn't know you HAD any feelings..."

WBC - Westboro.

BTW, we were typing similar "analogies" at the same time - Cats/dogs, supervisor/subordinate.

[AZhitman]

Check out the parallel argument (echoing your position) at WSJ:

http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2011/ ... _news_blog

...and Slate seems to be (at least partially) echoing my sentiments: http://www.slate.com/id/2289482/

So, let's not be calling anyone a "dumbass" - there's an argument to be made on either side.

[IBCoupe]

I agree in that it's the same kind of situation, but I think I care a bit more about the politician than I do the wackjobs. What's most offensive to me is the abuse of power, not simply the ridiculousness of the pol's actions.

And after reading the WSJ piece, I'm struck by the realization that, had it been another private citizen doing this, it would have been inappropriate, still, but less so. The nature of the parties involved changes things.

[AZhitman]

You can certainly call it "abuse of power". The lawmakers that drafted the FOIA would disagree.

I wonder, and I'm NOT making an accusation here, but is there some element of subconscious disgust attributable to the fact that it's a GOP'er going after a lefty academic?

Maybe not, but I can't help but think that might be the case.

[IBCoupe]

I can't speak for everyone outraged, but I don't feel that way. I can't think of a similar situation elsewhere, but had it been a Democrat who used the government to go dumpster diving to catch an outspoken conservative.

I think, for me, it's the relative power imbalance. Had this been politician-on-politician, I wouldn't give a rat's a**.