WKU Directed to Produce Documents Relating to Sexual Misconduct Investigations

In a hear-say development, Western Kentucky University (WKU) has been told by the Warren Circuit Court to surrender office documents involving sexual wrongdoing investigations under Title IX. These papers originally requested by the College Heights Herald in 2016 need to be “minimally redacted copies,” as per the court’s instructions.

These orders come as a hot follow-up to the long-standing conflict between the varsity and the daily, dating back as early as approximately seven and a half years back, when the school, against the paper, took recourse to legal means seeking to keep the files involving probes far from public.

In the fateful year of 2016, the daily sought information regarding documents related to “sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual exploitation, and/or stalking allegations against Western Kentucky University employees in the last five years”. However, resisting this action, the varsity turned down the request.

Making its next move, the Herald appealed to the Kentucky Attorney General’s Office, resulting in a mandate that instructed papers to be handed over “except the names and personal identifiers of the complainant and witnesses.”

Despite the clear instructions from the Attorney General, the varsity challenged the ruling by directing a lawsuit against the publication, in the Warren Circuit Court.

In another related incident, the University of Kentucky lodged a similar issue against its student paper, the Kentucky Kernel, in the past. A verdict favouring the Kernel was passed by the Kentucky Supreme Court in 2021.

Over the year, a certain quantity of records were submitted by the WKU to the Herald, but the paper held an objection claiming that an excess of redactions was found in those files, which, according to them, posed a violation to the Kentucky Open Records Act.

Despite these circumstances, the court’s decision insisted that the varsity must provide the daily with investigative documents. One strong reason cited for this insistence was the need to ensure that the public receives detailed, verified information. Keeping records in the dark would only lead to doubt and scam, the university was reminded.

To quote from the court’s words, “an unwarranted invasion of privacy does not fall under the case of disclosure of the identities of those wrongly accused in unsubstantiated claims because Kentucky citizens have a strong interest in ensuring that public institutions respond appropriately to allegations of sexual harassment by a public employee”.

The varsity acquiesced to the court’s ruling. An official university spokesman said that the clarity provided over the issue by the court was both helpful and appreciated.

Michael Abate a First Amendment lawyer at Kaplan, Johnson, Abate and Bird – the Louisville firm, was satisfied with the court’s decision. He expressed strong feelings that the university, from the beginning, made a misguided effort to hold back critical information, by misusing the open records law.

As visible commitment towards transparency in matters of government affairs, the Kentucky Open Records Act plays a crucial role. He concluded by highlighting the very purpose of the records act – not just to keep citizens informed about what public servants are up to, but also to ensure them that grave allegations are seriously considered and probed into, in deep detail.