Should There Be a Researchers' Privilege?

Abstract

to the Ervin Committee's Watergate hearings, the capacity of journalists to expose seamier aspects of our society was severely limited by the hostility of the Administration, the indifference or impotence of Congress and the states, and the conservatism of the Nixon Supreme Court. Now, after the White House's frontal attack on those newspapers and newspersons who probed the massive deceptions (which almost succeeded in obscuring the true nature of the Executive Branch's illegal operations and conspiracies), and in the aftermath of the Watergate hearings, most citizens seem likely to recognize the value of unfettered journalism to our society and the need for strong shield laws to protect newspersons from government coercion. It would be unfortunate, however, if the focus on the journalists' role obscured the equally crucial if less spectacular function served by scholars, researchers, and others dedicated to inquiry into matters of public concern. To our great detriment we ignored for too long the penetrating critiques of scholars of our China policies, our Vietnam policies, and our Cambodian policies. Issues of domestic concern also have been illuminated by the work of researchers and muckrakers such as Ralph Nader. In order to perform their task, scholars and researchers, like journalists, often rely upon confidential sources to provide them with essential insights into the background of the political and social problems they study. And as with journalists, it is essential for the proper functioning of our society that they too be afforded the maximum possible protection against coerced disclosure of confidential sources, consistent with the society's primary function of protecting the lives and limbs of its citizens. In one sense, failure to extend the scope of protection from newspersons to researchers against exposure of confidential sources to governmental investigatorial agencies i understandable. Typically, scholars and researchers should and do recognize their obligation to expose fully their thought processes and to support their statements with appropriate documentation of sources so that their accuracy and the validity of judgments based upon them may be appraised by independent researchers in much the fashion that natural scientists may repeat experiments and confirm findings. In this way we add to the storehouse of eliable information upon which we may draw with confidence.