I am not a legal expert so I don't know how much my analysis of the issue at hand will line up with case law and a myriad of other precedents...
From educational law perspective FERPA is about as powerful piece of federal policy as there is. In fact over the past five years schools of all types have had to restructure their release of information policies that cover a significant number of communication types in order to comply with newer understandings of FERPA. Much of it is to protect educational bodies from lawsuits, but from an educators perspective you'd be better denying people access to student information than not even if they had legitimate claims to access the material.
To that end, I don't think the UofM wants to release the information because it reflects at least at a minimum two conclusions and if not more about the case...
1. Reflects their mismanagement of the Johnson situation either from a victim/defendant perspective. Krakauer's whole assertion that Johnson was treated differently because of his standing might have some legitimacy. A lot of assumptions can be made, but to what we actually know about what transpired is left to our imaginations. THey don't want the world to see that either Krakauer was right, or conversely Johnson was the victim of suspicious decision making
2. They knowing or willingly engaged in behavior that would engender lawsuits. Much of the detail of those hearings and the whole administrative process is probably buried under several layers of protections, including the victim or accuser in this case and I honestly doubt much of that would ever be released with out expressed consent from either. That being said, I don't think the University wants to put itself in a position for lawsuits of one type or another.
In the end, I believe Krakauer only uses the information if he think it fits his goals. I don't think it furthers the writing of his own text and I don't think there is a larger public benefit. I believe in the concept of the greatest good for the greatest number. In this case though, I don't know what could be learned either from Krakauer's level or a public's access to the same material that outweighs Johnson's or anyone elses right to due process and privacy.
We now know through a veritable cornucopia of evidence over the past five or ten years that colleges and police departments have at some significant cost violated the rights of the victims in the protection of ulterior motives. I don't know that you need Johnson's file to further that on down the road. We know the UofM administration, the police department and legal system like a lot of other universities have struggled for one reason or another in handling sexual assaults. Johnson's case isn't more unique than Winston's or Vanderbilt or Baylor. In fact those cases probably have more punch from a media perspective than a case from a second level college in teh hinterlands.
I believe the lawsuit is more about precedent, Krakauer wanting full detail and being told no. Krakauer probably believes they were doing it save their own arses. If there was plausible evidence that Engstrom, Christian and others engaged in several acts of stupidity and malfeasance then maybe Krakauer has a point. That is if Krakauer knew more than we did about how they handled the administrative element of Johnson's case. From motivation and facts of the case at hand I don't see much benefit from that at all. Just my opinion.
