Kentucky Kernel Lawsuit


LEXINGTON, Ky. (March 25, 2021) — “While we respectfully disagree with the Court’s decision today, we are confident that we will be able to make our case to the Circuit Court about what records must remain private to protect the privacy rights of our students.” – Jay Blanton, UK spokesman



LEXINGTON, Ky. (May 17, 2019) — “The Kentucky Court of Appeals today issued a ruling in the student privacy case between the University of Kentucky and the Kentucky Kernel, the independent student newspaper at UK.

"We are gratified that another court has strongly demonstrated its support for the important principle in this case — the legal and moral obligation we have to protect the privacy rights of our students. That continues to be the most important aspect of this case and now two courts have agreed with our position.

In this case, we have consistently argued — and, now, two courts have agreed — that the Constitution as well as federal and state privacy laws require the University to take every step possible to protect those privacy rights. Part of what it means to build a community of belonging is ensuring that victim-survivors know that we will do everything in our power to ensure that they are able to determine how, when or even if to tell their story.

A Court has reaffirmed our actions in that respect and the steps we took to protect our students. We continue to have grave concerns about the chilling effect any breach of a student’s privacy will have on the willingness of victim-survivors to come forward and seek support and justice. In the case at hand, The Kernel published the academic department, degree program (with a small number of students), and gender of the victim-survivors. In such cases, an individual’s identity could be easily revealed in a quick set of mouse clicks by a skillful Googler relying upon records already publicly available.

As Judge Clark agreed, no amount of redaction would protect the constitutional and statutory privacy rights of the students. Judge Clark recognized that, in the internet age, protection of privacy interests requires far more than deleting the names. While we respect the Court of Appeals’ perspective, we remain very concerned about how we navigate our ultimate responsibility to the privacy and safety of our students in an unregulated internet age.

Finally, the University declined to provide redacted documents to the Kernel because the University believed that no amount of redaction would protect the student's privacy.  The University refused to supply documents to the Attorney General for in Camera review because the U.S. Department of Education has said — and continues to say — that educational records cannot be disclosed to a State Attorney General in the context of an Open Records dispute. As for the secondary, but still important, issue of redaction, we will take time to review that part of the court’s findings closely before taking next steps.” – Jay Blanton, UK spokesman

“We appreciate the Court supporting our consistent position about the importance of ensuring that educational records remain private under federal law. However, the court did not go far enough to protect the federal privacy rights of Sexual Assault Survivors. In short, we continue to believe, as the Fayette Circuit Court found, that the redactions must go far beyond names and personally identifiable information. Redaction must include details of the sexual assault and information that, in the internet age, would allow others to determine identity. In particular, it is the Survivor's right – and their right alone -- to determine whether their personal and painful stories of sexual assault should be publicly told.” – Jay Blanton, UK spokesman



Blog, January 24, 2019: Ruling in the Kentucky Kernel Case

Op-Ed, August 9, 2016: The Tension of Competing Values