Johns Hopkins Bows To USAID Censorship Push

An anonymous reader sends us to Wired's Threat Level blog for news that the federally funded Popline database at Johns Hopkins University, said to be the largest source of information on reproductive health, has begun censoring searches that contain the word "abortion." Apparently they took this stop due to pressure from USAID, the federal agency that provides foreign aid to developing nations. From Wired: "Under a Reagan-era policy revived by President Bush in 2001, USAID denies funding to non-governmental organizations that perform abortions, or that 'actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.' A librarian at the University of California at San Francisco noticed the new censorship on Monday, while carrying out a routine research request on behalf of academics and researchers at the university. The search term had functioned properly as of January. Puzzled, she contacted the manager of the database,... who replied in an April 1st e-mail that the university had recently begun blocking the search term because the database received federal funding."

Comments

Pathetic

[scubamage]

I don't understand this at all - like it or not, abortion exists. You can not deny that it exists. Why try to block information about it? That's idiotic. Simply acting as a repository of information is not advocacy in my eyes.

Re:Pathetic

[gstoddart]

I don't understand this at all - like it or not, abortion exists. You can not deny that it exists. Why try to block information about it? That's idiotic. Simply acting as a repository of information is not advocacy in my eyes.

Because, the current administration doesn't like it, and doesn't want it to exist. They don't want you to know it exists, and they don't want you to "actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations" -- which in this case, could be interpreted to include making the information available in an on-line database, even if that is for research purposes.

Sadly, Hopkins is just complying with the law because they probably can't afford to have their federal funding pulled.

Might it be in their interest to assist in fighting this? Probably. Should they do it on their own and risk the funding to pay for the medical procedures and research they do? That's an awful lot to ask of them.

Sadly, this is yet another example of the stunning closed-mindedness of the Bush administration. Censorship in the guise of politically mandated morality. Didn't we accuse the Taliban of doing that?

Cheers

Re:Pathetic

[gstoddart]

The right and moral thing for JH to do would be, at the least to say, frankly, "we value the access to knowledge more than we do government crumbs. As of this momemt, we reject all government funding and will seek private funding through only through groups or individuals that share our values. Clearly, the government does not."

Well, in an ideal world where funding was easy to replace, and you could afford to cut of your nose to spite your face, fine. The actual reality of it is, that's just not feasible to do. And, without knowing the amount of funding Hopkins receives, it's tough to say if it's crumbs, or big cash.

Granted it would be more right and moral for JH to publish it for a fee, and let those who actually value JH's work *pay* for it like they should, instead of simply claiming that they "neeeeeeeeed" it and/or taking it for granted. But as a nation we're far too embedded in the "neeeeeeeeed game" to expect someone to quit cold turkey.

Dude, who said anything about "neeeed" in the whining sense of entitlement you're implying? Making available academic information fairly freely among universities has been established for decades. This may not all be work created by Hopkins, they might just be the ones maintaining a database -- you know, the kind intended to improve access for everyone to promote open access for academic institutions. Almost every single university has library systems which will help you find information, that's how it works.

This was a research librarian at a reputable university who was looking for academic information in a database she has likely used numerous times. If there are fees associated, you can bet your ass they've paid them.

On the one hand, you're whining about valuing the free access to knowledge, and on the other, you're whining about people who also value it and wanted to access a database that Hopkins had previously allowed people to access. You can't have both. You're throwing in a completely specious inference that the users of this database are a bunch of whining morons with a sense of entitlement.

Ayn Rand, call your office.

Ah, yes. I should have known. OK, let me say this politely -- as someone who once drank that Kool Aid, and eventually got over it:

Ayn Rand is not the be all and end all of thought which can be defined as correct. The world is not nearly as black and white as she likes to think. Her positions are often completely so rabidly one-sided and based entirely in her epistemology as to border on the dogmatic, as are her adherents. People who are laboring under the belief they know the One Truly Correct Way of Thinking because they've read her works are sadly mistaken. She is not, and, never was, the last word on what is Right and Moral. She presents some interesting ideas, but she's not some sort of prophet who has given us a guidebook for life. Believing that she is infallible and everyone else is a wanker really only serves to make people stop listening to you.

Give yourself a few years, let life demonstrate to you that absolutist world view doesn't help you much, and maybe discover that human compassion and empathy (or, in fact, cooperation) isn't the evil you've been led to believe. People are social animals; eventually you may have to accept that fact.

In the mean time, Cheers

Re:Pathetic

[yali]

I would not dispute in many cases that in order to get things done, a large organization needs to be diplomatic and cannot take a stand on every issue of principle. But in this case, the large organization is a university, and the principle at stake is free and open access to information. Academic freedon is absolutely core to their mission. It is the one place, above all others, where a university should make a principled stand.

And what I proposed is not "a direct attack on Bush." I do not think they should have complied at all; but if they did, my suggestion was that they simply inform people, directly and openly, that the database is being censored and by whom.

Re:Pathetic

[hedwards]

Sadly, this is yet another example of the stunning closed-mindedness of the Bush administration. Censorship in the guise of politically mandated morality. Didn't we accuse the Taliban of doing that? Basically that's what's going on. And it's worse when you realize that it also stifles the ability to search for information which opposes abortion as well.

Not only does this sort of thing make it tough to get pro-choice information, but it also makes it tough to get information on how to reduce the number of abortions performed as well.

You'd be stuck with the less than apt term "Pro-Life" because searching for "anti abortion" or "abortion is immoral" and similar wouldn't get past the filter.

Re:Pathetic

[teflaime]

There's very little to be gained for a university to start making direct attacks on Bush.

Universities should be in the forefront of attacks on Bush. Universities are supposed to stand for freedom of information and the expansive distribution and aquisition of knowledge. In the last eight years, the Bush administration has forcefully attacked both of those things. Universities (at least the ones teaching real stuff as opposed to Creationism) should be vocally oppposing the Bush administrations totalitarian dictates.

Re:Pathetic

[gstoddart]

Universities should be in the forefront of attacks on Bush. Universities are supposed to stand for freedom of information and the expansive distribution and aquisition of knowledge. In the last eight years, the Bush administration has forcefully attacked both of those things.

Generally, I agree with you.

In practice, this is a single database, maintained by a single department, of a single faculty (at least, I assume it is). If the regents of the university want to make it official policy that they will NOT bow to such things, and decide to push back, fine. But I bet the poor schmuck who turned off the search term isn't in a position to make that decision.

Not every single thing which happens inside of a university takes the form of a fight for truth and ideals with trumpets and flourish on white horses. Yup, if Academia isn't fighting bad policy, who will. But, not every act by ever person at a university has to be conducted with the gravity of a march on the gates of hell. It is up to bigger fish to decide when it's time for that.

Yes, censorship sucks. Yes, bowing to it sucks. But, there's likely a few more levels of detail and gray that always seem to accompany the specifics of a story like this. :-P

Cheers

Re:Pathetic

[mapsjanhere]

Top 25 NIH-Funded Institutes
Johns Hopkins University - $566,516,255

I see 566 million reasons not to piss of the administration right there.
While funding is supposed to be based only on scientific merit, politics are 90% of the game.

Smaller government?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

What really irks me the most is that the political party waving the flag of "small government" is the one most willing to get involved in the private lives of ordinary citizens. This is not just some abstract "government is intruding too much in our lives" type of complaint. Here, in this situation, we have government changing the behavior of a university. Tangible, real change.

I don't mind raised "sin taxes" or even school vouchers. In either case, the citizen can still partake in their favorite activity or service. But in this case the government has essentially squelched something it doesn't like without passing a law and without due process. Needless to say, due process would be an expensive tack to take. So are we going to give up all of our freedoms for this type of idiocy just because we can't afford to defend ourselves?

Re:Smaller government?

[bryanp]

What really irks me the most is that the political party waving the flag of "small government"

Neither party is actually in favor of small government. My favorite description of the difference is that Democrats want the .gov out of your bedroom and in your office while Republicans want them out of your office and in your bedroom.

Is abortion murder, or just killing?

[spun]

All religions recognize the difference between socially sanctioned killing, and murder. Killing other humans can be socially sanctioned for many reasons including self defense, punishment, and warfare. The distinguishing factor is, does the killing do more harm than good, from that society's point of view?

So the question is not, "Is a fetus a person?" but rather, "Is it in society's best interest to sanction this type of killing?" I think it is both a benefit to society and a blessing to the unborn. Being raised in a family that doesn't want you is worse than death, and creates the type of person who is neither happy and fulfilled, nor a net benefit to society.

Re:Is abortion murder, or just killing?

[Notquitecajun]

The problem lies in several things: the miseducation of our youth about birth control, consequences of actions, and morality in general. Each of these problems lies in poor opinions from both sides of the aisle - right and left. Society is getting these things wrong - from parenting to the schools - and it's leading to more abortions.

Your argument also bears a VERY precarious slippery slope when it comes to unborn disabled children. There is also a dearth of newborns for good parents who want to raise children well and cannot.

Re:Well, if it's federally funded

[tsm_sf]

And of course the irony is that if proper family planning was part of every person's education the instances of abortion would plummet.

It's not about abortions, it's about controlling women.