Here is the letter to the NYTimes Ethicist:
“I am a tenured professor. My provost asked me to evaluate an overseas colleague. I did so, responding in an e-mail message. The provost then contacted the colleague, quoting my report and attributing it to me. I was stunned: such evaluations are assumed to be confidential. When I complained, the provost replied, “If it’s in an e-mail, it’s public,” adding that our colleague deserves to know what is being said about him and by whom. Your opinion? J.H., NEW YORK”
What do you think? I am surprised that the provost thought that email being the mode of communication, somehow changes the fact that it is still an evaluation. Who is right?
Let me begin by citing two of Drogan’s Laws.
“Never put things in an e-mail you would not like to hear read in court.”
“Once it’s out there, it’s out there.”
One can and should be prudent about what one puts out there in cyberspace. A bit of thought before pushing the send button is always in order. I have, on occasion, walked across campus to deliver a message because of consideration for laws three and nine.
Having advised on prudence (which, like wisdom, usually arrives just after you need it), let me turn to Agnieszka’s question.
I often evaluate faculty and staff members, mostly for my department chair, but occasionally for the provost. I consider these evaluations confidential and to serve as a point of information for the principal. I certainly can’t prevent them from being passed on, but if they are, then I’ll likely stop providing the information.
In my view the provost’s action was unacceptable. The fact that it was e-mail has nothing to do with it. We have here, it seems to me, a difference in values.
Finally, let me end by referring to Docent Glax Othn (Herbert, Brian, and Kevin J. Anderson. Dune: The Butlerian Jihad. 1st Edition ed: Tor Books, 2002, 0-765-30157-1).
“If stated reasons don’t sit well with your conscience or stand the test of logic, look for deeper motivations.”