EDIT: They are the boss

Harvard University faculty has expressed its disappointment in the administration once new information surfaced in an ongoing email scandal, the Harvard Crimson reports. Deans Michael Smith and Evelynn Hammonds issued a statement in September that two email subject headlines in two faculty members’ private Harvard email accounts were read, but no emails were opened, read or forwarded.  Information surfaced in March that there is evidence that administrators did not reveal they accessed up to 16 email addresses. Harvard administrators have now hired a non-affiliated lawyer and formed a task force to investigate the scandal.

It is a federal offense to rifle through, open or read through someone else’s mail without permission. While emails are slowly replacing physical mail services, should these laws include emails? Both physical and electronic correspondence can hold extremely private information or details the receiver wishes to keep private. Should emails be treated the same way?

When you are using an organizations email, like @bu.edu or even @dailyfreepress.com, administrators can reserve the right to look through and scrutinize emails sent and received through that email. The organization’s name is attached to the email address and employees have been granted permission to use the domain. In Harvard’s case, their reputation can be affected by any correspondence, so to maintain a positive image, administrators can reserve the right to check @harvard.edu faculty emails.

There was no official confidentiality agreement, but it is assumed that anyone would be agitated if they found out someone accessed their emails without permission. Harvard administrators should have held an open discussion beforehand to inform faculty that the University reserves the right to access email accounts affiliated with the school. The Residence Housing Association informs residents within the first week of fall that, because dormitories and the furniture inside are Boston University property, resident assistants have the power to search rooms.

The faculty members’ names are also attached to the email, so there is an understandable reason the Crimson reported professors referring to the scandal is a corrosion of a “culture of trust.” The task force will report that administrators did not open emails and the lawyer will find that the access was legal. Instead of employing other people to explain why the administration did nothing illegal, there should be an open conversation about the scandal, and faculty should know how much seemingly private information the administration reserves the right to see.