Reasonable minds may differ on points of law, but Western's position in this case, like UK's post-opinion spin, ignores the harsh admonition issued by the Court of Appeals in the The Kernel Press, Inc. v University of Kentucky.

Dissatisfied with UK's "indefensible position that the records are exempt because it says they are and it must be believed," the court "order[ed] the university's to fulfill its statutory responsibilities under he Open Records Act."

The court remanded (returned) the case to the circuit court to require the University to meet its burden of proving which, if any, of the disputed documents are exempt under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the federal law that shields student education records from public disclosure.

So, yes, the court agreed that some of the disputed records might be protected by FERPA, but held the university to its burden of proving which records, in fact, constitute "education records."

In essence, both universities continue to assert that FERPA erects an impenetrable barrier to access to records relating to Title IX investigations of sexual harassment or assault.

And this position the court flatly rejected, recognizing that "the public has an interest in the investigatory methods used by public agencies and to know that a publicly funded university has complied with all federal and state laws" and dealt with allegations appropriately.

There is a grain of truth in the universities' position. Some of the disputed records or parts of records may be protected by FERPA. Upon presentation of sufficient proof, the circuit court may permit partial non-disclosure. But Western's argument to the court represents a strained and overbroad interpretation of the Court of Appeals' holding in The Kernel Press, Inc. v University of Kentucky that the Warren Circuit Court is unlikely to find persuasive.