How have FERPA rules been used historically to shield or release college records of public figures?
Executive summary
FERPA is a federal privacy statute that bars schools receiving federal funds from disclosing “education records” without consent, a rule colleges have both invoked to protect—and been accused of weaponizing to conceal—the records of public figures in higher education [1] [2]. Over five decades of amendments, Department of Education guidance, investigative reporting and litigation have defined a shifting line between legitimately private student records and documents public-interest reporters argue should be public, producing repeated clashes when a public figure’s campus past becomes newsworthy [3] [4].
1. What FERPA actually covers and why colleges invoke it
FERPA protects “personally identifiable information” in education records and grants parents or eligible students control over disclosure once a student turns 18 or attends post‑secondary school, which is why universities routinely cite it when refusing records requests tied to students, including public figures who were once students [2] [1]. The statute applies only to records that both “directly relate” to a student and are “maintained by” the institution, but those terms have been the site of intense bureaucratic and legal interpretation that leaves room for institutional discretion [5].
2. Department of Education guidance changed the terrain in 2009
In 2009 the Department revised its FERPA rules to expand what institutions could treat as protected: schools were instructed to deny records even when identifiers were redacted if someone inside the school community could re-identify a student, and to withhold records when the requester was believed to know the student’s identity—guidance that critics say insulated universities from transparency demands about athletics and misconduct involving public figures [4].
3. Investigative reporting: examples of alleged misuse to shield public-interest records
Award-winning reporting by the Columbus Dispatch and follow‑up coverage documented numerous cases where public universities withheld documents—passenger lists for team flights, recipients of complimentary tickets, and correspondence with the NCAA—under FERPA or heavily redacted them, even when reporters argued the documents had little to do with a student’s educational life and much to do with institutional conduct and public accountability [4].
4. The courts and other checks: FERPA is not an absolute wall
Courts and state open‑records rulings have pushed back when institutions overreach: a Florida court ordered release of Student Senate tapes that the college had withheld under FERPA, and courts have rejected claims that routine administrative records (for example, parking tickets) automatically fall under FERPA protection, underscoring that not every item naming a student is an education record [4].
5. Statutory exemptions and narrow exceptions that complicate public-figure cases
FERPA itself—and subsequent amendments—creates carve-outs and exceptions that matter in disputes over public figures: some records (sole‑possession notes, law‑enforcement unit files, non‑student employee records, certain health professional records) are exempt from FERPA, and the statute allows specific disclosures (e.g., to parents of dependent students or under legitimate educational‑interest rules), so whether a high‑profile person’s file is shielded often turns on technical classifications and on the institution’s willingness to apply narrow exceptions [3] [6].
6. Motives, misuses and the transparency trade-off
Universities defend FERPA citations as compliance with federal law and student privacy obligations, while journalists and watchdogs argue the law is sometimes exploited to avoid scrutiny of athletic departments, governance failures, or misconduct tied to public figures; both perspectives are grounded in the record—FERPA’s privacy purpose is real, but its evolving regulatory interpretations and institutional incentives have created recurring incentives to over‑claim confidentiality [5] [4].
7. Where this history leaves public-interest reporting
Because FERPA’s protections hinge on definitions and on administrative judgment, revealing a public figure’s college records has historically required a mix of careful legal argument, successful public‑records litigation, or Departmental clarification—not simply a press request—so disclosure outcomes turn on litigation strategy, state open‑records laws, and whether records fall into statutory exceptions or judicially limited categories [4] [7].