Two universities are attempting to dodge public-records requests by asserting that course syllabi are “copyrighted and protected intellectual property” or “trade secrets.” Such responses proceed from a misapplication of state law and risk undermining the principles of transparency and public oversight of public institutions.
Last month, the American Accountability Foundation (AAF) filed public-records requests for copies of syllabi and other course materials at the Universities of Minnesota (U of M) and Idaho (U of I).
Among the courses in question at U of M were “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Health” and “Sexual and Gender Health in Clinical Practice.”
Similarly, AAF’s requests to U of I sought coursework materials for “Introduction to Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies” and “Ecology of Health & Medicine-Foundations 1-4.”
AAF has valid investigative reasons to pursue these materials. Recent reporting has suggested that courses in the U of M system are “steeped in radical left-wing ideology, including content promoting Marxism, ‘decolonizing Palestine,’ Queer theory, and the Black Lives Matter movement.”
Reporting about U of I, meanwhile, has alleged that courses at that institution may have received improper exemptions to a state law banning curricula that “require[] or otherwise compel[] a student to enroll in a DEI-related course.”
Both states have a legal obligation to fulfill public-records requests under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and the Idaho Public Records Act. Unfortunately, the schools in question have thus far refused to comply with AAF’s requests.
On April 9, U of M replied that the university is “unable to produce copies for release” because the syllabi “are copyrighted and protected intellectual property.” The institution offered instead to “provide [AAF] with an opportunity to inspect the data in-person.”
For its part, U of I responded on April 3 that the syllabi in question are “trade secrets” and are thus exempt from disclosure.
Both universities are wrong. As AAF’s demand letter to U of M makes clear, the Minnesota Court of Appeals “breezily rejected” an identical argument by the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system in Nat’l Council on Teacher Quality v. Minnesota State Colleges & Universities (2013), finding that government agencies “may not assert copyright ownership to deny members of the public their right to inspect and copy government data” when a third party’s reason for requesting documents “will constitute fair use.”
AAF’s demand letter to U of I, meanwhile, points out that, under Idaho Code §74-107(1), “trade secrets” are limited to information that is the subject of reasonable efforts to “maintain its secrecy.” Course syllabi widely distributed to thousands of students do not meet that definition.
AAF has given both institutions until June 12 to comply with the law and produce copies of the course materials in question before pursuing “its rights to seek all appropriate relief [in] court.” If either school continues to evade basic transparency laws in favor of baseless arguments, they may find themselves on the losing side of a lawsuit.
