A dark cloud has descended over the University of Wisconsin, where, for the past few months, the only sifting and winnowing taking place has been through the lens of an independent investigator. While the local administration has remained largely silent on the matter, the UW System has launched a full investigation into both the Paul Barrows matter and the use of administrative back-up appointments.

That investigation completed Tuesday, Aug. 30, but will not be released for another three weeks while UW officials consider appropriate action.

We feel compelled to reserve judgment until the report is made public.

The story has been cloudy since it broke in June, but that murkiness was largely the fault of UW itself, as Bascom has taken to hiding behind a bizarre variation of legalese in order to withhold information from the public throughout a long and arduous summer.

Then, Dean of Students Luoluo Hong reportedly sent a memorandum to an assistant of Chancellor John Wiley Nov. 1, 2004, criticizing Dr. Barrows on multiple fronts.

Upon learning of this document’s existence, The Badger Herald — as well as several other news organizations — filed Freedom of Information Act requests with UW. And though the legislative jargon of Wisconsin’s open-records law is certainly complex, the statute is widely recognized as being one of the most access-friendly in the nation. It even goes so far as to, at one point, note the law “shall be construed in every instance with a presumption of complete public access, consistent with the conduct of governmental business. The denial of public access generally is contrary to the public interest, and only in an exceptional case may access be denied.”

UW insists that this letter — crucial to the public’s understanding of exactly how the scandal surrounding Dr. Barrows reached a boiling point — is one such exceptional case. What is so exceptional? The school’s letter of denial to The Badger Herald notes, “The records … contain information and personal histories of specific individuals which, if made public, would likely have a substantial adverse impact upon individual reputations.”

In other words, the public can’t see this document because it might make someone look bad.

Now, to be fair, the school also notes that the document in question contains the name of a student, which cannot, under law, be released. And while this is a valid point, it would seem that the standard protocol is to merely redact the student’s name and disclose the remainder of the document.

Moreover, it should be noted that UW has been apprehensive and tight-lipped through this entire process. This denial is nothing new — merely the proverbial adding of insult to injury.

The university’s final argument is that a balancing test of public interest sides against disclosure: “Certain records you seek contain sensitive information and allegations about individuals which, if released, would undermine the thoroughness, integrity and effectiveness of the investigation that is underway, and would also likely affect adversely the reputations of the individuals involved.”

Translation: UW is investigating. Take the summer off.

The investigation is over now, and The Badger Herald will resubmit every FOIA request that was denied over the summer. No longer is there an ongoing investigation to hide behind. So the question beckons: will the university continue to withhold information simply because it might make someone look bad?