Social Scientists Work Being Involuntarily Classified
Recently I have run into a fear among social scientists that I think is a little paranoid and perhaps driven by ignorance, however, I may well be the ignorant one.
Several people I have talked to in the Academic community regarding working with the government have given as a reason for not doing so that they are afraid that the government will classify their work. I have heard that such things occuring in the physical sciences such as the young man who's PhD dissertation was on how to make a nuclear bomb. I also have heard that someone wrote a paper (possibly a dissertation) on the vulnerabilities of US civil projects to terrorist attacks.
However, I am talking to Social Scientists. My understanding is that unless they are using classified information to begin with (which they are not), the study should not be classified. Moreover, there should be no reason to classify that information. After all, most social science comes down to postulation, experimentation and theory, not exploitable hard fact. The fact that Dr. Foo of Bar University thinks that one thing is more likely than another is no more exploitable than the contrary argument that will doubtless arise in the journals.
I suppose what I am asking is: Does anyone out there know of a case where a Social Scientist has had their work involuntarily classified? If so, what was that person working on, and why was it classified? If not, is there anyone who has enough authority and breadth of knowledge that not having heard of such a thing is significant? (i.e. you have been in the business for X years and have never heard of such a thing)
I are a "social scientist"
a political scientist, to be exact. I have worked at state universities (currently), private universities, DOD educational institutions (AWC/SSI, NDU, and CGSC), served on active duty and in the reserves. When I worked for the federal government (both as a soldier and as a civilian) I was subject to classification and clearance rules. If I was working with classified stuff, my stuff was classified derivatively. If I was not using classified materials my stuff was reviewed both to make sure nothing was classified and that policy was stated correctly. As an aside, it could not be legally censored for disagreeing with policy as long as the policy was stated correctly. (BTW I am not saying that improper censorship does not take place only that it is not lawful.) Technically, my research in those circumstances could have been classified (as Tom says) if it fell under the appropriate categories even if it was based on wholly unclassified material. That never happened to me.
As a faculty member at a university, unless I am working on a grant that requires a security review, my research is not subject to government review of any kind and I am free to publish it anywhere I can get it accepted. If, by some chance, I have illegally used classified material I would be subject to prosecution but that is very unlikely. The real bottom line for a civilian social scientist not working for the USG is that it would be practically impossible for the USG to classify his research before it was well esconsed in the public domain and available literature. This was true even before the internet and is even more true today.
Cheers
JohnT
Schmedlap, you are supporting
Tom's first point. His second point, however, (if I read him right) ;) is that some efforts to classify documents are highly arbitrary - as, indeed, they are. A million years ago, in my current intel shop, we classified a story that was plagiarized from the CBS Morning News on the grounds that if it was not classified the Generals wouldn't believe it! I kid you not.
My point was, and is, that a not affiliated social scientist or historian, working with unclassified material need have no fear that his work will be classified without his agreement. And generally, the system does not even attempt to classify scholarly, unclassified work done under government auspices. Tom's story was more the exception than the rule, in my experience. I would also note that it was finally released, as well it should have been.
Cheers
JohnT
I'm with John on this one
Based on my experience as a Canuck academic working on US security issues, John’s explanation is spot on. My work on the US military (and other militaries) is by necessity based in part on interviews with current and past participants, so arguably in some senses my research is at the very edge of ‘open source’ (or possibly a bit over that edge). Indeed I have on occasion been asked up front whether I have clearance at the start of an interview.
The crux in John’s explanation is whether the researcher has clearance to work on classified material; if s/he does have clearance, then even their open-sourced work will be reviewed for the reason John notes, (this seems to fit Marc’s Canadian example as well), but if the researcher does not have any clearances then their work is not subject to review or classification. This has always been my understanding stemming from conversations I have had about the possibility of my shifting from ‘public’ academia to ‘military’ academia, or even to consultant work, for should I have agreed I would have had to obtain a certain level of clearance and hence my work, as it was consistently explained to me in all cases, would then be subject to review (if not, as John says, classified derivatively if my work was on classified issues/materials).
I have never gone that particular route for a variety of different reasons, but one reason is that if I ever was given clearance then my work would in the least be subject to review (but this has never been the main reason – cutting off my pony tail and wearing a suit daily always are much higher on my list of reasons :eek: ). Possibly the one gray area exception that I have run across is some work I did, based completely on my open source research, for the US gov't via a consultant; in this case I could/can disseminate what I had written but was asked not to distribute the final document in which that work appeared (in whole) without prior permission as the document was for 'internal use only' (this exception seems to sort of fit Marc's example re red teaming and self censorship).
So, all in all, concern by an academic (who works and researches solely in the public realm) about having their open source research censored, unless they have clearance and/or are working on classified issues, seems to me to be more than bit misguided.
academics and classification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TT
So, all in all, concern by an academic (who works and researches solely in the public realm) about having their open source research censored, unless they have clearance and/or are working on classified issues, seems to me to be more than bit misguided.
I agree with John and Terry--however, the original question is whether academics working for government might have their output classified, even when working with open sources.
Well, yes--the work that they produce under contract might be classified for a variety of reasons. In my experience, not only is this usually clear from the start, but the USG in particular (and contractors working for the USG) usually have reams of paperwork to be signed agreeing to this.
Might their subsequent work be classified? It ought not to be, if they aren't currently working for government, it is not a reproduction of their for-government work, and doesn't use classified materials. Certainly I haven't heard of it happening.
All in all, I think concerns about this are overstated.