3 ms·
I think that misses the point, and the article discusses why. It's not about what Harvard could do; it's about standard protocol for treating faculty, and it's
by rm999 14y ago
I think that misses the point, and the article discusses why. It's not about what Harvard could do; it's about standard protocol for treating faculty, and it's about trust. In the academic world faculty are usually treated with incredible amounts of respect, and several people interviewed in the article see Harvard's actions as a breach of that standard.
This guy puts it well:
>Harry R. Lewis, a professor and former dean of Harvard College, said, “People are just bewildered at this point, because it was so out of keeping with the way we’ve done things at Harvard.”
- dmor 14y agoI don't think it is disrespectful to search their emails though, Harvard is fundamentally an institution funded by donors. This scandal majorly damage the reputation of the institution and was embarrassing to high profile donors and alumni. Protecting that is obviously worth more to Harvard then whether or not professors feel they have academic freedom. The only problem with all of this now is that the public also knows the emails were searched. Seems Harvard can't keep any secrets anymore.
- michaelt 14y agoI don't think it is disrespectful to search their emails though, Harvard is fundamentally an institution funded by donors. In my mind searching someone's e-mail is like searching their pockets as they leave the office, or asking them to take a supervised drugs test: It's technically legal and some employers do it. On the other hand, the people who work for me are trusted, respected professionals. I'd understand them taking umbrage if I asked them to turn out their pockets, or to piss into a cup, or if I started reading their e-mail.