OU continues to fight against transparency in Boren allegations | Business & Energy

In 2021 NonDocan online news channel, filed a lawsuit in Cleveland County District Court Request to a judge to order the publication of two expert opinions prepared by the law firm Jones Day for the University of Oklahomaincluding a report on sexual allegations against the former OU president David Boren.

More than three years have passed and the OU continues to resist transparency regarding the reports.

In 2018, the OU hired the law firm Jones Day to investigate allegations that the university made false statements about alumni donations to US News and World Report to inflate OU's ranking in that publication's annual “best colleges” poll.

The hoaxes reportedly began in 1999 during Boren's term as president, which lasted from 1994 to June 30, 2018.

In February 2019, it was reported that the company's investigation had expanded to include allegations that Boren had sexually harassed employees.

The university reportedly paid the Jones Day Company more than $1 million, but OU officials refused to release the resulting reports.

William W. (Tres) Savage IIIEditor-in-chief of NonDoc, argues that the public has a right to know what happened at the OU, which is funded with taxpayer money, especially since the reports were also funded with taxpayer money.

In a March 6, 2024, article on the case, Savage noted that many of the relevant court filings “contain significant redactions of some documents, a visually humorous but in practice problematic situation that underscores how hard the OU is fighting to keep the public from knowing what it has learned about the serious allegations at hand.”

“Although OU officials and regents have largely refused to discuss the investigation's findings, it should be remembered that Jones Day discovered something worthy of disclosing false donor information to U.S. News & World Report and something worthy of David Boren resigning and 'relinquishing his affiliation with the University of Oklahoma,'” Savage noted (emphasis in original).

In particular, Boren’s successor as OU president, James Galloglyhas said he believes the OU should make the Jones Day reports public because they belong to the taxpayers, tuition payers and the public who made the OU's existence possible. Gallogly served as OU's president for just over a year before resigning in 2019.

In the latest development of the case Michael Tupper ordered OU to submit the two reports to the court for review. Tupper gave the university 90 days to submit the reports, including 60 days to inform 62 people interviewed by Jones Day that the reports would be placed on the court's permanent record.

Michael Burragean OU attorney argued “that the reports should not be released because they contain sensitive information that witnesses disclosed in confidence, which could lead to future lawsuits against the university,” the Norman Transcript reported.

( )

Lin Weeks, lead attorney for the Reporters Committee for Press Freedomwhich represents NonDoc in the case, applauded the judge's decision. Weeks noted that OU's legal team had not only tried to prevent the reports from being published, but in some cases had also barred reporters from entering the courtroom.

“Public trials build trust in the justice system and ensure that courts accept their accountability,” Weeks said.

“We are pleased that the court has ordered a briefing on this issue because, as we argued last month, the law does not allow the rare and drastic measure of closing the courtroom in this situation.”

NOTES: For more stories about higher education in Oklahoma, visit AimHigherOK.com. Ray Carter's news report first appeared online, here: . For more information on the case, visit the NonDoc Website, here: . The long and winding road of Tres Savage's transparency process mentioned above has been regularly reported in the news.