## Facts

- William Calvin James, an assistant professor at a public university, requested access under R.C. 149.43 to (1) his own promotion and tenure file and (2) other faculty members’ promotion and tenure files.
- The university produced James’s file but redacted the names of evaluators and refused to produce other faculty files.
- The university claimed the redactions and nondisclosure were justified by: (1) R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(a)–(b) provisions concerning confidential law-enforcement investigatory records and protected sources/witnesses, and (2) a constitutional right to academic freedom that would be infringed by disclosure.
- James filed an original action in mandamus seeking unredacted disclosure of his file and disclosure of other promotion and tenure files.

## Issues

1. Whether faculty promotion and tenure files maintained by a public university are “public records” subject to disclosure under R.C. 149.43(B).
2. Whether R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(a)–(b), addressing confidential law-enforcement investigatory records and protected sources/witnesses, permits redaction of tenure evaluators’ names or withholding related materials.
3. Whether constitutional academic freedom creates a categorical exemption from disclosure for promotion and tenure peer-evaluation materials.

## Decision

- The court granted a writ of mandamus in substantial part.
- It held promotion and tenure files kept by a public university are public records presumptively subject to disclosure under R.C. 149.43(B).
- It rejected reliance on R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(a)–(b) because those provisions apply only to “confidential law enforcement investigatory records,” and tenure-review personnel files do not qualify.
- It rejected the university’s asserted academic-freedom-based privilege as a basis to withhold or redact otherwise disclosable records.
- The university was ordered to produce records consistent with the statute, including disclosure of evaluator identities absent a valid, narrowly applicable statutory exception.

## Legal Principles

- Ohio’s Public Records Act is construed in favor of access; exceptions are construed strictly against the public-records custodian, and doubts are resolved in favor of disclosure.
- The public-records custodian bears the burden to prove a statutory exception to disclosure applies.
- R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(a)–(b) protections for sources/witnesses are limited to the law-enforcement investigatory context and cannot be extended to noninvestigatory personnel review records.
- Internal confidentiality policies or assurances cannot create a public-records exemption not provided by statute.
- Academic freedom does not operate as a generalized constitutional privilege allowing a public university to refuse compliance with generally applicable public-records requirements.

## Conclusion

The court required a public university to disclose promotion and tenure records under Ohio’s Public Records Act, holding that law-enforcement investigatory exceptions and generalized academic-freedom claims do not justify withholding or redacting evaluator information absent a specific statutory exemption.


State ex rel. James v. Ohio State Univ., 70 Ohio St. 3d 168, 637 N.E.2d 911 (Ohio 1994)