[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Scholars' views of NARA



To date, H-Diplo (a moderated list) has not posted my request for information
on discussion lists that cover issues of interest to both historians
archivists, and may not do so.  However, Archives and Archivist List readers
may be interested in reading the following comments critical of the National
Archives by scholars which led me to engage in a defense of NARA on the
H-Diplo List last week.  Surprisingly, the scholars appeared to lack good
insights into how government operates.  I am not including my posted comments
defending NARA as they cover several postings and would be to long.  However,
my postings are available in the discussion logs at
http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/.  See below for what three scholars said about
NARA.
Maarja Krusten (maarja@aol.com)
*************
(1)  From: Jeffrey Kimball <kimbaljp@muohio.edu>
List Editor: "H-DIPLO [Johnstone]" <hdiplo@yorku.ca>
Author's Subject: State Department Lot Files
Date Written: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:41:00 -0400
Date Posted: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:41:00 -0400
    [Extract] "During the mid-1990s the State Department released what NSA
described as a "plethora" of lot files, but in the last few years, as NSA
[the National Security Archive] explains, "progress in releasing lot files
has slowed considerably."   The fundamental problem lies not with the State
Department but with NARA, which has responsibility for the final processing
of lot files but has reduced the
number of security-cleared staff assigned to this task.

(2) From: Warren F. Kimball <wkimball@andromeda.rutgers.edu>
List Editor: "H-DIPLO [Johnstone]" <hdiplo@yorku.ca>
Author's Subject: NARA and State Dept. Lot Files (Kimball)
Date Written: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:31:25 -0400
Date Posted: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:31:25 -0400

My over ten years on the State Dept. Historical Advisory Committee leave me
convinced that NARA -- as an organization and a bureaucracy, and despite
the best and courageous efforts of some individuals within NARA -- is too
weak, too timid, too unimaginative, too lacking in purpose and commitment,
too hidebound and procedural, to be an effective force for
declassification.  When the current Archivist of the U.S., John Carlin,
took the post, many of us hoped that he would find "godfathers/mothers" in
Congress, prove to be an effective fundraiser, and -- as an FOB -- give
NARA an infusion of courage and commitment.  That has not
happened, nor is it likely to happen during the Bush administration.
   
I could go on with chapter & verse for page after page, but I think that is
unnecessary.  NARA, by its nature, appears unreformable.  It is beyond
band-aids and adjustments.  NARA is in the business of preserving and
protecting records.  It does a reasonable job of making records available to
the public.  But it is
definitely not committed to declassification of those records.  Even when
other
agencies provide declassification guidelines for NARA personnel to use,
timidity and over-caution prevail.  NARA routinely refers "unclear" issues
back to the
agency with equity in the information, lest declassification upset another
agency, something NARA tries to avoid at all cost.  The money/resources issue
is a red herring that is conveniently trotted out whenever public pressure
builds.
There are always lists of excuses, but the fact is that NARA does not have the
institutional "will" to fight the good fight and get the job done.

So, echoing the chant of the Cleveland-Blaine election campaign, let's let
NARA do what it does best -- records preservation and dissemination, and find
some other agency to handle declassification.  Former Senator Pat Moynihan
made a common-sense suggestion a few years ago in his "Secrecy" report.
He recognized that agencies with equities were hardly disinterested
parties, so he suggested a new federal agency with the task of obtaining
comprehensive declassification guidelines from the classifiers, then
systematically reviewing classified material for possible declassification
in accordance with  those guidelines.  That simple, common-sense approach
was rejected out of hand by the classifying agencies, but that only
demonstrated their inabilty to be effective declassifiers.

I know that I do not have to recapitulate all the truths about the need our
democracy has for accurate information, but if we are to continue to advance
our knowledge of historical events (25/30 years old and older) then I think
it is
time to give up on NARA and find a better way.  That agency should be an ally
in this struggle, not a barrier.  But that has not and is unlikely to happen.
 Of
course there are countervailing forces.  But NARA has routinely chosen "not to
lose," rather than to take its lumps and "win" some important victories.
Warren (the other) Kimball
(3) From: Hayden B. Peake <BkCollector@home.com>
List Editor: "H-DIPLO [Johnstone]" <hdiplo@yorku.ca>
Author's Subject: NARA's critics (Peake)
Date Written: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 07:32:13 -0400
Date Posted: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 07:32:13 -0400

Maarja KRUSTEN asks whether Warren KIMBALL's comments about NARA in his
recent post are "a fair assessment?" and goes on to say: " Having worked
at the National Archives and still having many friends at NARA, I know
that it is not. To understand NARA's position, you have to look at where
it stands in relation to Congressional appropriators and to other federal
agencies...Before attacking NARA as an ineffective force for
declassification, scholars need to recognize...."

Prof. KIMBALL could not be more accurate in his assessment and the KRUSTEN
reply is a wonderful example of the bureaucratic thinking that makes him
correct.  To argue that scholars have to understand or recognize NARA's
position is the bureaucrat's response to avoid taking action.  It is NARA
that needs to understand that its bureaucratic foot dragging is the problem.
I suspect I am not alone in the ability to cite specific examples where an
agency has forwarded declassified documents to NARA and for reasons never
explained, they remain unavailable to scholars years after their receipt.

There is no need to gain insight into NARA's problems, it is the solution to
the scholars' problems that require attention.  The need is for NARA to
act and make its records available without bureaucratic quibbling.  I have
dealt with NARA for over 30 years, in and out of government, and with the
exception of specific archivists who do their best to help even when it
means bending a rule, the practices mentioned by Prof. KIMBALL are deeply
entrenched.

Hayden B. Peake