Seeing No Evil: The Archival Profession's Failure to Respond to the National Archives' Breaches of Professional and Ethical Duties

Abstract

Eric Ketelaar (1998) has argued that the primary duty of archivists is to maintain the integrity of the archives. This principle is included in the mission statement of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which reads in part: "[NARA] serves American democracy by safeguarding and preserving the records of our Government, ensuring that the people can discover, use, and learn from this documentary heritage. We ensure continuing access to the essential documentation of the rights of American citizens and the actions of their government." The Society of American Archivists (SAA), in accordance with its status as the largest archival professional association in the U.S., declares that its mission is "to provide leadership to ensure the identification, preservation, and use of records of historical value."Some commentators believe that SAA has turned a corner and in recent years has taken more of a leadership role in speaking out on matters of import to the archival profession (Montgomery, 2009a). However, two recent controversies involving NARA suggest otherwise, indeed, suggest that SAA lacks the will to take any role whatsoever in matters involving archival ethics and professional standards of practice. In 2006, an independent researcher brought to light that NARA had entered into secret agreements with several government agencies to pull and reclassify publicly available records from its open shelves; the agreements stipulated that NARA would hide the reclassification program from the public. In 2008, another independent researcher made public his unsuccessful attempts to access NARA's own records, those of the Office of Presidential Libraries. He documented a course of improper handling of the records, unprofessional responses to his requests for information, and inappropriate withholding of these records.SAA's failures to take a leadership stance with respect to these situations were compounded and enabled by the majority of individual archivists who chose to remain uninformed, and silent, about issues raised that were of critical importance to their profession. Howard Zinn commented on this phenomenon thirty years ago, arguing that "professionalism is a powerful form of social control" (Zinn, 1977). He described professionalism as "the almost total immersion in one's craft, being so absorbed in the day-to-day exercise of those skills, as to have little time, energy or will to consider what part those skills play in the total social scheme" (Zinn, 1977). He defined social control as "maintaining things as they are, preserving traditional arrangements, preventing any sharp change in how the society distributes wealth and power" (Zinn, 1977). Zinn's conception of professionalism as social control is played out in the failures of archivists to speak up and take action when confronted with activities antithetical to the foundational principles of their profession.The Reclassification ScandalBackgroundIn 1995, President Clinton signed Executive Order (E.O.) 12958, requiring government agencies to declassify all of their historical records that were 25 years old or older by the end of 1999. The E.O. provided exemptions for certain categories of records, such as those relating to intelligence sources and methods. A few agencies, notably the State Department and the Department of Energy (DOE), acted quickly to comply with the E.O.'s comprehensive mandate, making significant headway in declassifying many of their older records (Aid, 2006). By 1999, however, the tide had turned in the Clinton administration's approach to security classification issues. DOE officials became concerned that implementation of the E.O. had resulted in the release of classified data on nuclear weapons by other agencies; Defense Department and intelligence community agencies were also resisting the mandatory declassification requirements of the E.O. (Aftergood, 2005).Beginning in the late 1990s, these agencies, concerned that sensitive information may have been improperly declassified under the provisions of the E. …