The fight for transparency often comes with immense hurdles, and few challenges are as daunting as taking on a major public institution that holds sway over an entire state. When Joey Stipek, a student journalist at the University of Oklahoma, sought access to student athletes’ parking tickets under the Oklahoma Open Records Act, he was met with firm resistance. These records, simple on their face, had already been denied to The Oklahoman and Tulsa World, two of the state’s most influential news outlets. Stipek’s case wasn’t just about parking tickets — it was a test of the public’s right to know, pitting a young journalist against a massive institution determined to guard its secrets.
The University of Oklahoma, with its vast network of over 18,000 employees and an annual budget exceeding $2 billion, stood as a giant in the state’s educational, political, and economic landscape. The university was not merely an educational institution; it was a symbol of power and influence, the largest employer in Oklahoma, deeply intertwined with the public trust. At its helm was David Boren, a former Oklahoma Governor and U.S. Senator, whose political connections and long-standing leadership only heightened the challenge. This was no ordinary lawsuit — it was a legal battle that would require challenging an institution whose reach extended far beyond its campus borders.
The university’s refusal to release the records underscored the weight of this challenge. As a public institution, it was subject to the Oklahoma Open Records Act, a law designed to ensure transparency and accountability. Yet, despite its legal obligations, the university had stonewalled repeated efforts by major media organizations, raising the stakes of this case. The challenge was not just obtaining parking tickets — it was about securing the public’s right to access information, holding a powerful institution accountable, and affirming the principles of open government. The barriers weren’t merely legal — they were institutional, political, and deeply rooted in the dynamics of power.
Against this backdrop, Nick Harrison, fresh from passing the bar, took on the case as his first major legal endeavor. Litigating the case from Washington, D.C., after starting a new job, Harrison faced the immense challenge of going up against his alma mater, the largest and most politically connected institution in the state. The odds were formidable, but the principle was clear: the public had a right to know, and Harrison was determined to fight for that right, even as a newly minted solo practitioner standing against a titan.
At the University of Oklahoma, football is not just a sport; it is a defining force that reverberates throughout the state. From the roar of more than 80,000 fans at Gaylord Family-Oklahoma Memorial Stadium to the pride that comes with national championships, the Oklahoma Sooners represent a deep cultural identity. The team’s victories are celebrated as collective triumphs, and its players are elevated to near-legendary status, heroes to communities who rally around them each season. Financially, the program is a juggernaut, bringing in over $100 million in revenue, placing it among the most valuable football programs in the nation. In Oklahoma, football is the beating heart of the university, its power, popularity, and prestige unmatched in the landscape of college athletics.
However, beneath the allure of success, college athletics across the country have increasingly been scrutinized for granting special privileges to student athletes. At the University of Maryland, student journalists uncovered a scandal involving over $8,000 in unpaid parking tickets accumulated by a basketball player, which were secretly paid off with money provided by a coach. This prompted an investigation into how athletes were shielded from accountability. Similarly, in North Carolina, a group of football players amassed over $13,000 in parking fines, and it took a legal battle for the public to learn of it. These revelations highlighted a troubling trend in which student athletes, celebrated for their on-field prowess, often received preferential treatment off the field, with institutions bending or ignoring rules to protect their image.
Amidst this backdrop of mounting revelations, Joey Stipek, a student journalist at the University of Oklahoma, began to wonder if the same privileges were afforded to athletes at his own university. His curiosity was not without reason; in a state where football holds immense sway, it was plausible that similar practices might exist. Stipek’s request to access the parking ticket records of student athletes was part of a broader effort to uncover whether Oklahoma’s athletes were being held to the same standards as other students. His inquiry wasn’t simply about parking fines — it was an attempt to challenge the notion that the university’s most celebrated individuals were above the law.
Stipek’s pursuit of these records was framed within the broader context of public records laws, particularly the Oklahoma Open Records Act. Modeled after similar statutes across the country, the law guarantees the public’s right to access information held by public institutions, including universities. Yet, in Stipek’s case, as in many others, the university invoked the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) to deny his request, claiming that the records were protected because they related to students. This tactic had been used before in other states, as institutions sought to shield information by exploiting the ambiguity in FERPA’s provisions. However, courts in Maryland and North Carolina had already ruled against such broad interpretations of FERPA, affirming that documents like parking tickets were not considered educational records and should not be shielded from public view.
With legal precedents in other states supporting the public’s right to know, Stipek’s request became emblematic of student journalism’s role in holding institutions accountable. Across the country, student reporters had mounted similar challenges and prevailed, shedding light on abuses of power within college athletic programs. Stipek’s inquiry was part of this larger movement — a demand for transparency in a place where football ruled, where public records laws were meant to apply to everyone, regardless of their status. By seeking the truth in the shadow of Oklahoma’s celebrated football program, Stipek was carrying forward the torch lit by student journalists before him, refusing to let even the most powerful institution in the state operate without scrutiny.
Nick Harrison’s first step was to establish a strong legal foundation for the case by securing local counsel to navigate Oklahoma’s legal system. He reached out to Kevin Taylor, a former fraternity brother and classmate from the University of Central Oklahoma and Oklahoma City University, who worked at his family’s law practice in Oklahoma City. Taylor agreed to serve as local counsel, providing the necessary legal grounding and local expertise to move the case forward. With local support in place, Harrison turned his attention to securing financial backing for the litigation, which was initially handled on a contingency fee basis.
Harrison then connected with the Freedom of Information (FOI) Oklahoma community to obtain a grant to fund the case. This funding was essential, ensuring that financial concerns wouldn’t stand in the way of pursuing justice. With Taylor on board and the financial resources secured, the legal structure for the case was solidified, and Harrison was ready to proceed with the litigation.
Harrison knew that the legal battle ahead would require strategic planning and deep knowledge of freedom of information law. To strengthen his approach, he sought advice from legal teams that had successfully handled similar cases in Maryland and North Carolina, where student journalists had battled universities over the release of public records. Through the Student Press Law Center, Harrison obtained copies of legal briefs and pleadings from these high-profile cases, gaining valuable insights and strategies that could be adapted to his own case.
Using these resources, Harrison built a robust legal argument, aligning his case with the precedents set in other states. This step proved crucial in framing the argument that parking tickets were not protected under FERPA and should be disclosed as public records. By grounding his legal approach in these earlier victories, Harrison reinforced his case with national precedent, ensuring his arguments were backed by successful legal strategies from similar contexts.
As the case attracted increasing attention from the media, Harrison took on the challenge of managing public relations to keep the narrative focused on transparency and the public’s right to know. Journalists, many of whom saw themselves in Joey Stipek’s role as a student journalist taking on a powerful institution, closely followed the case. Harrison was careful in handling press inquiries, ensuring that the story remained clear: this was not just about parking tickets, but about holding a public institution accountable to the law.
Harrison worked closely with Stipek to prepare for media interviews, emphasizing the broader implications of the lawsuit and reinforcing the importance of transparency in public institutions. The media attention helped amplify the case, positioning it as a significant battle for freedom of information and gaining public support for Stipek’s cause.
The legal battle took a significant turn early on when the University of Oklahoma succeeded in having the case dismissed on procedural grounds, arguing that it had been incorrectly filed against President David Boren in his official capacity. Instead of allowing this setback to derail the case, Harrison quickly refiled, this time naming the University of Oklahoma as the defendant. This swift action kept the case alive and demonstrated Harrison’s ability to adapt to the challenges posed by the university’s legal tactics.
The university escalated the situation by removing the case to federal court and seeking another dismissal. Drawing on the legal precedents from the Maryland and North Carolina cases, Harrison countered their motion, arguing that FERPA did not protect parking tickets from disclosure. The federal judge sided with Harrison, denying the university’s motion to dismiss and allowing the case to proceed. This was a pivotal moment in the case, as it ensured that the legal battle would continue, despite the university’s attempts to have it dismissed.
As the case moved forward, the University of Oklahoma attempted to undermine Joey Stipek’s standing by framing his open records request as something he was doing on behalf of the Oklahoma Daily, the student newspaper. Sensing that this could pose a risk to the case, Harrison reached out to the Student Editorial Board of the Oklahoma Daily, proposing that they formally join the lawsuit as co-plaintiffs.
After meeting with Harrison and discussing the implications of joining the lawsuit, the Student Editorial Board voted to join the case, lending additional credibility and support to the legal battle. They further bolstered their position by publishing a front-page editorial explaining their decision to join the lawsuit, which garnered additional public support and attention. By bringing the Oklahoma Daily into the case, Harrison not only solidified Stipek’s standing but also added institutional backing to the lawsuit, strengthening the overall argument for transparency and public accountability.
The morning after the Oklahoma Daily joined the lawsuit, the University of Oklahoma made a dramatic shift. For years, the university had firmly refused to release parking ticket records, claiming they were protected under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). However, with public pressure mounting and the legal case gaining traction, President David Boren reversed course. In a statement issued later that afternoon, Boren declared that the parking ticket records would be made public. Citing his belief that traffic violations were not the kind of sensitive student information FERPA was meant to protect, Boren ordered the immediate release of the records.
The significance of this decision echoed beyond the campus of the University of Oklahoma. After years of withholding this information, Boren’s reversal demonstrated the power of persistence and the importance of transparency in public institutions. The timing of the decision, just hours after the Oklahoma Daily published an editorial announcing its involvement in the lawsuit, reinforced the impact of public pressure and collective action. By the following day, Oklahoma State University followed suit, releasing its own parking ticket records, setting in motion a ripple effect across state universities.
Harrison’s legal strategy, combined with the public outcry from student journalists and the media, proved to be a powerful force. The university had spent years fighting the release of these records, but in the end, it was clear that withholding this information could no longer be justified. As legal analysts noted, Boren’s decision likely stemmed from the growing realization that the courts, following precedents set in Maryland and North Carolina, would not rule in the university’s favor. Instead of continuing a costly legal battle, the university chose to release the records, allowing the case to conclude.
For Joey Stipek, the victory was not just a personal triumph but a statement about the importance of transparency and the role of student journalists in holding public institutions accountable. The Oklahoma Daily’s editorial, which ran on the front page, declared that the lawsuit was not just about parking tickets but about ensuring that colleges and universities could not misuse federal privacy laws to hide public information. This victory demonstrated that even the most powerful institutions could be held accountable when transparency laws are enforced.
While the case did not formally set a legal precedent, it served as an informal one — a warning to other universities that public records, especially those concerning student athletes, should not be hidden behind misinterpretations of privacy laws. Harrison’s efforts, along with the support of the FOI Oklahoma community and the national FOI legal network, helped to establish a broader understanding that FERPA cannot be used as a blanket shield. The public’s right to know was reaffirmed, and the university’s retreat from its previous stance marked a significant win for transparency in higher education.