Re: [xmca] Fwd: The Three C's - Security Clearances, Research Contracts, and AERA Concerns

Wonder whether this is a worst time than McCarthy's times... Well, after
McCarthysm the 60s came, so we should be optimistic about the 10s...

David

Mike Cole escribió:
> I wholeheartedly agree Paul. We are witnessing/participating in the
> unravling of the US constitution.
> About two years ago Alan Schoenfeld led a fight against ideological meddling
> in the grant reviewing and judging of
> what constitutes scientific evidence that appeared in the Educational
> Researcher and was taken up by the National
> Academy of Education which in fact took a strong public stand.
>
> I have forwarded the message to the executive committee of the NAE, which is
> closely allied with other national
> academies asking that this even more egregious abridgment of the
> constitution be addressed as soon as possible.
>
> Everyone involved with AERA and NAE is probably in Chicago so I expect no
> quick response. But at least I have tried
> to put in motion some collective action that has more guts to it than the
> sprawling mass of AERA is likely to be able
> to mount.
>
> I fear there is insufficient will for impeaching this government and fear
> equally that given another two years to wreak havoc
> with our basic liberties, already under widespread threat, may make the
> siutation irretrievable.
>
> It not only CAN happen here, it IS happening here. Meanwhile,
> no-more-virtuous forces in other parts of the world gather
> energy from our arrogant blundering.
>
> mike
>
> On 4/7/07, Paul Dillon <phd_crit_think@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I wonder what justification is provided for including credit information
>> in the security clearances. Are poor people who continually find themselves
>> behind on paying bills, especially after being hit with major medical
>> expenses and similar unexpected costs to be excluded from such routine
>> activities as crunching numbers? What about all the people who got sucked
>> into variable rate mortgages and have now defaulted? This is really
>> sinister. The protestant ethic transformed into law.
>>
>> And what's more cynical than a government that has claimed the right to
>> spy on anyone it chooses, without any kind of oversight and in violation of
>> the Bill of Rights, claiming that it cares about protecting personal
>> information?
>>
>> This seems to be no more nor less than a movement to total(itarian)
>> government control over research. I'll bet lots of climate-related,
>> alternate fuels, and other progressive "hard science" research will feel the
>> brunt of these regulations, not to mention social research into poverty,
>> alternate education, power and any other topic that questions what is going
>> down.
>>
>> One would think that the AERA could take a much stronger political stand
>> about this than that of simply monitoring the situation and informing its
>> members.
>>
>> Paul Dillon
>>
>> Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just one tip of the iceberg.
>> mike
>>
>> On 4/6/07, Cathrene Connery wrote:
>> >
>> > I wonder if the same scrutiny is required for the government contractors
>> > currently "supplementing' the troops in Afganistan and Iraq. Doubtful!
>> >
>> >
>> > M. Cathrene Connery, Ph.D.
>> > Assistant Professor of Bilingual & TESL Education
>> > Co-coordinator, Bilingual / TESL Program
>> > Central Washington University
>> >
>> > >>> David Preiss 4/6/2007 4:33 PM >>>
>> >
>> > Oh my god!
>> >
>> > Begin forwarded message:
>> >
>> > > From: "AERA Executive Director, Felice J. Levine" > >
>> response@eloop.goldlasso.com>
>> > > Date: April 6, 2007 4:06:53 PM GMT-04:00
>> > > To: davidpreiss@uc.cl
>> > > Subject: The Three C's - Security Clearances, Research Contracts,
>> > > and AERA Concerns
>> > > Reply-To: "AERA Executive Director, Felice J. Levine" > >
>> response@eloop.goldlasso.com>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > April 6, 2007
>> > >
>> > > Dear AERA Members:
>> > >
>> > > As final bags and boxes are being closed for the 2007 AERA Annual
>> > > Meeting, I want to update you on an important matter for education
>> > > researchers working under federal contracts. Over the course of
>> > > this past year, the U.S. Department of Education has taken new
>> > > steps to implement security clearance procedures for contractor
>> > > employees. Several AERA members informed the Association and
>> > > expressed serious concern that the process is intrusive and
>> > > unwarranted for non-classified research. Articles on the topic have
>> >
>> > > appeared recently in The New York Times
>> > > ( http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/washington/
>> > >
>> > 11privacy.htmlex=1328850000&en=57277d56f1770fb6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt
>> > > &emc=rss) and Education Week (http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/
>> > > 2007/02/21/24checks.h26.html).
>> > >
>> > > Over many months, AERA has been investigating this situation and
>> > > pressing for greater understanding. Since September, we have been
>> > > engaged in discussions with numerous federal officials at the
>> > > Department of Education and other federal agencies as well as
>> > > working with other research organizations (in particular with the
>> > > American Association for the Advancement of Science) and
>> > > individuals in the scientific community to scrutinize this issue
>> > > and learn as much as we can. President Eva Baker described some of
>> > > these activities in the January/February 2007 issue of Educational
>> > > Researcher (http://er.aera.net/).
>> > >
>> > > The actual clearance procedures required of contractual personnel
>> > > vary by the risk level assigned to a position, but minimally
>> > > require employees on contracts who are designated low risk to
>> > > submit fingerprints. Low risk positions include those on a
>> > > contractor*s research team who conduct statistical analyses, but
>> > > have no access to personally-identifiable information. Contractor
>> > > employees in moderate-risk positions must provide a release for
>> > > credit information and may also be asked to sign a release allowing
>> >
>> > > investigators to ask specific questions of an individual*s health
>> >
>> > > care provider regarding prior mental health consultations.
>> > > Researchers who collect or have access to personally-identifiable
>> > > information or sensitive, but unclassified information are
>> > > considered moderate risk under current Department of Education
>> > > Directive OM:5-101, Contractor Employee Personnel Security
>> > Screenings.
>> > >
>> > > Our goal has been to understand the authority underlying the
>> > > changes, determine whether the situation is unique to the
>> > > Department of Education, and to effectuate change where needed. Our
>> >
>> > > efforts in the fall, for example, led the Department of Education
>> > > to indicate that the directive would be revised and its
>> > > implementation examined. Most recently, the Department of Education
>> >
>> > > also confirmed that the medical/mental health release was not
>> > > required for moderate-risk positions (at least as an initial step).
>> >
>> > > At our urging, agency officials agreed to add an instruction to
>> > > this effect so that contracting officers and contractors would be
>> > > aware of this at the onset.
>> > >
>> > > An overarching concern is about the appropriate scope of security
>> > > clearance procedures. The security measures being implemented by
>> > > the Department of Education may reach beyond what was originally
>> > > intended under Presidential Directive HSPD-12, the key authority
>> > > often cited by federal officials as extending security clearance
>> > > procedures to contractors. Both the Directive and the Office of
>> > > Management and Budget guidance for implementing the Directive focus
>> >
>> > > on contractors who access federal facilities and critical
>> > > information systems, not researchers who are engaged in primary
>> > > data collection or use of these data in the field. We are seeking
>> > > an interpretation from senior federal officials regarding the
>> > > intended reach of the Presidential Directive and anticipate
>> > > receiving clarification quite soon.
>> > >
>> > > Our fact gathering thus far indicates that security clearance
>> > > procedures vary by agency. The National Science Foundation, for
>> > > example, does not typically require security clearance screenings
>> > > for contractors who collect data or prepare analytical products for
>> >
>> > > the agency. At the National Institute of Justice, only those
>> > > contractors who need access to federal buildings or information
>> > > systems must generally undergo security clearances. Currently, the
>> > > U.S. Department of Education*relying on Directive
>> > OM:5-101*requires
>> > > a security screening process for all contractors employed for 30
>> > > days or more. Although, as noted above, this Directive is currently
>> >
>> > > in the final stages of revision, Department officials have
>> > > indicated that the changes are directed to clarifying the intent of
>> >
>> > > the policy as it is currently being practiced*that is, that it
>> > > covers all contracts.
>> > >
>> > > We remain concerned about the collection of credit information and
>> > > fingerprints for researchers who work in the field and have no
>> > > access to federal facilities or information systems. While we
>> > > recognize and appreciate the renewed efforts of federal officials
>> > > to provide the best protections possible for personally
>> > > identifiable information collected by researchers*and indeed, we as
>> >
>> > > an Association are continuously engaged in exercises and
>> > > initiatives to improve privacy and confidentiality protections*the
>> >
>> > > measures must be balanced and appropriate to the circumstances.
>> > >
>> > > In a post 9-11 world, there could be a reasoned need for those
>> > > performing work for the federal government in federal facilities or
>> >
>> > > on federal data bases to undergo security clearances at a level
>> > > appropriate to the types of access. The issue of the
>> > > appropriateness of security clearance procedures that are broader
>> > > in scope ultimately hinges on whether there is a compelling basis
>> > > to do so. The federal government has an interest in supporting
>> > > research and attracting researchers*whether working under grants or
>> >
>> > > contracts*of the highest quality and creativity. We take the view
>> >
>> > > that any constraints need to be the minimum necessary to achieve
>> > > legitimate goals. Thus, we await clarification of the scope of the
>> > > security clearance requirements and the rationale underlying them.
>> > > Our next steps depend on what we learn.
>> > >
>> > > For now, I want to keep you, our members, informed and to let you
>> > > know that this topic*as a matter of sound research policy*is very
>> >
>> > > much on the active agenda of staff and of strong interest to AERA
>> > > Council and the AERA Government Relations (GR) Committee. Both
>> > > Council and the GR Committee have this topic on their business
>> > > agendas at the Annual Meeting. Meanwhile, please e-mail me if you
>> > > have knowledge or experiences that we should be aware of as we
>> > > continue to address the issue of security clearances for
>> > > contractual research employees.
>> > >
>> > > I look forward to seeing many of you in Chicago.
>> > >
>> > > Warm regards,
>> > >
>> > > Felice
>> > >
>> > > Felice J. Levine, PhD
>> > > Executive Director
>> > > flevine@aera.net
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > We take your privacy very seriously.
>> > > This e-mail was sent to: davidpreiss@uc.cl from:
>> > >
>> > > American Educational Research Association
>> > > 1230 17th Street, NW
>> > > Washington, DC 20036-3078
>> > > If you do not wish to receive e-mail from American Educational
>> > > Research Association, or would like to modify your preferences,
>> > > please click:
>> > > http://eloop.goldlasso.com/optout/index.php?u=2625037&s=6394
>> > > Powered by:
>> >
>> > David Preiss, Ph.D.
>> > Subdirector de Extensión y Comunicaciones
>> > Escuela de Psicología
>> > Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
>> > Av Vicuña Mackenna 4860
>> > Macul, Santiago
>> > Chile
>> >
>> > Fono: 3544605
>> > Fax: 3544844
>> > e-mail: davidpreiss@uc.cl
>> > web personal: http://web.mac.com/ddpreiss/
>> > web institucional: http://www.uc.cl/psicologia
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > xmca mailing list
>> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > xmca mailing list
>> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>> No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
>> with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>

-- 
David D. Preiss Ph.D.
Profesor Auxiliar / Assistant Professor
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
Escuela de Psicología.
Av. Vicuña Mackenna 4860.
Macul, Santiago de Chile.
Chile
Teléfono: (56-2) 354-4605
Fax: (56-2) 354-4844.
Web: http://web.mac.com/ddpreiss/
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca