RALEIGH, N.C. _ UNC Chapel Hill must provide the public with the names of students and employees found responsible for rape, sexual assault or related offenses through the school's honor court and other internal procedures.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals issued a ruling on Tuesday disputing the university's claims that federal law prohibits UNC Chapel Hill officials from turning over such records.
The unanimous ruling came almost a month after attorneys for the Daily Tar Heel, the UNC student newspaper, and other media organizations made arguments in a special court session held at NC Central University in Durham.
The court case stems from a Sept. 30 public information request by The Daily Tar Heel. Reporters asked for records "in connection with a person having been found responsible for rape, sexual assault or any related or lesser" offense by the school's honor court, the Committee on Student Conduct or the Equal Opportunity and Compliance Office.
The university declined to provide the information, calling the data "educational records" protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
The Daily Tar Heel, the Charlotte Observer, the (Durham) Herald-Sun and WRAL filed a lawsuit.
In May 2017, Judge Allen Baddour ruled in Orange County that federal law protecting student records supersedes state law that allows for the release of such information in some cases.
Baddour also found that the state Human Resources Act limits what information can be released about state workers disciplined, demoted or dismissed for disciplinary reasons to the dates and types of actions taken and a copy of the termination letter setting out the reason the employee was dismissed.
The appellate ruling issued Tuesday states that federal law does not prohibit the limited information requested by the Daily Tar Heel "except for the dates of offenses."
Attorneys for the university argued that release of the records "would interfere with UNC-CH's Title IX process for dealing with sexual assault" by deterring victims and witnesses from coming forward, as well as jeopardize the safety of those alleged to have committed sexual assaults.
"'It is critical to our system of government and the expectation of our citizens that the courts not assume the role of legislatures.' Normally, questions regarding public policy are for legislative determination," attorneys for the university argued.
The judges did not address the merits of the arguments about public policy, but noted that federal law "specifically mandates that any disclosures "may include the name of any other student, such as victim or witness, only with the written consent of that other student."
