The Point: Academic Freedom and Public Release of Faculty Emails at UMass Boston
3/5/2026
The week’s edition was written by The Point committee. As always, The Point represents the views of the authors and is not the official position of the FSU.
Dear Colleagues,
As you are no doubt aware, faculty across the country are facing increased pressure to self-censor or simply avoid a growing range of subjects, including DEI, climate science, critical race theory, gender studies, the Middle East, vaccines, and even women’s healthcare. These pressures emanate from the Trump administration, reinforced by organizations aiming to undermine higher education, and interpreted and implemented by university administrators and clearly pose a direct threat to academic freedom and the vigorous sort of intellectual exchange required for advancing scholarly understanding.
We write today to alert you to an example of this at UMB, the targeting of one FSU member (so far) that has broader implications for UMB faculty, students and staff, academic freedom, privacy, and the basic ability to do our jobs as scholars and educators.
On October 9th of last year, the University received a public records request (our state-level version of a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, request at the federal level). The request came from “Defending Education,” a right-wing-funded organization identified back in 2021 by our international union, the National Education Association, as a radical group spreading disinformation (their website will give you a good sense of their conspiratorial, fearmongering agenda). Defending Education requested that UMB release to them several months of Professor Karen Suyemoto’s UMB emails containing specific words, such as “Gaza” and “genocide.” On their website, Defending Education makes clear that their “investigations” of this sort aim to collect emails to publicize in full on their site in order to encourage doxxing and other attacks from the networks of which they are a part.
To be clear, this is legal: MA public records law allows for certain types of information of this sort to be given to requestors. At the same time, some materials, even ones captured by the search parameters, are legally exempt from release, including those containing intellectual property. In some cases, it is even illegal to hand over these emails to third parties, given the University’s obligations under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
In mid-October, Professor Suyemoto inquired of UMB administration whether she would be informed if a public records request had been filed against her, and also whether such a request actually had been filed. She anticipated that there would be such a request because a colleague who participated in the same conference panel as Dr. Suyemoto had been informed by their university of a public records request (the same one). Dr. Suyemoto did not receive a response to her question.
In fact, the University had received such a request on October 9th. However, the University did not notify Professor Suyemoto until November 21 that they had received it and simultaneously notified her that they would be releasing months of her emails with the specified words. Once informed, Professor Suyemoto did a search of her own emails using the criteria provided and quickly informed the Administration that such a request would capture some emails including emails with students and emails about research. These emails should not, legally, be released. The University assured her it was on it, and that student emails in particular would be withheld. No problem.
At this point, Professor Suyemoto asked if she could review what the University intended to hand over before they released it, something other universities do in order to ensure that students and faculty are protected. The FSU also requested to see the emails before they were released.
Unfortunately, the University ignored those requests and released the emails to Defending Educating without allowing review by Professor Suyemoto or the FSU.
What was released? The University released full, unredacted emails including student information (names, email addresses, research foci), student work (proposals and papers), student evaluations, research data, and Professor Suyemoto’s personal information. In so doing, UMB violated FERPA and labor law, potentially exposing itself to lawsuits.
After releasing the emails to Defending Education, the University shared the released files with Professor Suyemoto. Her review of these emails again identified the issues she had previously alerted UMB about, as well as additional issues. When Professor Suyemoto raised these grave errors, UMB administrators initially insisted everything had been done correctly, that it had conducted a thorough review of all emails, that redactions had been appropriately made, and that student emails had been withheld. Professor Suyemoto then identified, item by item, the particular emails that contained specific information that clearly should never have been released to a third party.
Eventually recognizing it screwed up, the University sent a revised file to Defending Education, asking the organization not to open the first one. Yes, this was the remedy. In other words, the University asked an organization known for spreading disinformation to not open the original file that it now had in its possession -- the one with information that should never have been released in the first place.
In sum, the University did an incompetent job of reviewing the emails. It failed to allow review by Professor Suyemoto -- the person best positioned to understand their content --- or by FSU legal, the organization that works to protect faculty rights. In doing so it may have broken the law, and it certainly violated Professor Suyemoto’s academic freedom.
Unfortunately, these egregious, and easily avoided, errors do not seem to have led the university to rethink its processes, procedures, or policy, let alone apologize to Professor Suyemoto and the other impacted faculty and students. UMB has, in effect, adopted a policy and practice that opens the university community to maximum possible exposure from groups like Defending Education—groups whose explicit aim is to undermine higher education. UMB has simultaneously opened itself up to lawsuits from its own employees and students.
Had the University sought to understand what constitutes “best practices” in this area, it might have discovered that other universities have common-sense policies and processes in place, overseen by trained professionals. Other universities work with faculty to protect students, faculty, and the University’s reputation. They do so by routinely enabling impacted faculty to review files proposed for release. They also actively work to limit what is released as much as the law allows, to protect students, faculty, and academic freedom.
Our university chose not to do so, impeding academic freedom and placing multiple members of our community at risk. In response, Professor Suyemoto – along with about 40 others who recognized that this was an issue for all FSU members-- filed a grievance alleging violation of the Academic Freedom article of the contract (Article 8). In addition, the MTA filed an unfair labor practice charge on behalf of Professor Suyemoto alleging violations of the union’s rights under state law: among other things, the university must engage with the union in good faith efforts to negotiate a policy concerning public records requests.
The first-level hearing for the grievance was held on February 9th, during which Professor Suyemoto and four additional faculty/FSU members compellingly conveyed how the University’s mishandling of this public records request threatens Academic Freedom at UMass Boston. Professor Suyemoto outlined the timeline of events and explained how the University’s actions unnecessarily exposed herself and UMB students while jeopardizing her research and teaching. Professor Tahirah Abdullah recalled how the university’s sloppy review mistakenly led to the release of a student’s thesis proposal, raising the concern that this student could be targeted. Professor Liz Roemer detailed how a confidential letter about a student was released, as well as the broader implications this has for faculty communications with and about students. Professor Abbey Eisenhower – whose information was not caught up in the broader release -- then articulated how the University’s mishandling made the already complicated job of Graduate Program Director even more difficult – as part of her job involves helping (often vulnerable) students navigate internships, training programs, research opportunities, etc. Finally, Professor Jill McDonough stressed how—in spite of the fact that neither she nor her students were directly affected—the university’s unwillingness to allow review or limit the release of emails affects her thinking and approach to communications and makes it hard to protect both students and community members who are most at risk in the current political climate.
A common theme through all the testimonies at the grievance hearing was the disenfranchisement and betrayal felt by faculty members, not only because the Administration mishandled this particular public records request, but also because it has thus far refused to put in place the simple and straightforward policies to prevent it from happening in the future. What is the purpose of this, beyond disenfranchising faculty and undermining academic freedom, as well as shared governance?
The proposed remedy is quite simple: to negotiate a policy with the FSU regarding public records requests that would give members and the FSU/MTA an opportunity to see the records in advance of them being sent to requestors. This would ensure compliance with labor law, basic privacy, and protect the academic freedom of FSU members. Let us hope that the University (this time) does the right thing.
Please stay tuned for updates as the various charges against the university develop.
The committee for this year’s The Point currently includes Jessica Holden, Healey Library; Nick Juravich, History; Jeff Melnick, American Studies; and Steve Striffler, Labor Studies. If you want to write an edition of The Point, or if you just have an idea, please write us at fsu@umb.edu