Open Records Decision No. 294
December 17, 1981

	Re:  Availability under the Open Records Act of correspondence relating to 
foreign students at state university

Mr. W. O. Shultz II
Associate General Counsel
University of Texas System
201 West 7th Street
Austin, Texas  78701

Dear Mr. Shultz:

	You have requested our decision regarding the availability under the Open 
Records Act, article 6252-17a, V.T.C.S., of correspondence relating to foreign students 
at a state university.  Specifically, the request seeks copies of “all wire, cable and teletype 
traffic between the international office [of the University of Texas] and [the government 
of] Bahrain during the months of June, July and August, 1980.”  You suggest that the 
information is excepted from disclosure under section 3(a)(1) of the act because it is “of 
a nature that would prove embarrassing to the individuals involved and to the 
government of Bahrain,” and as “information deemed confidential under federal law, 
regulation, or foreign treaty with the government of Bahrain”; additionally, under section 
3(a)(14), as “student records at educational institutions funded wholly or in part by state 
revenue.”

	Initially, we note the suggestion that the Texas Attorney General is without 
authority even to determine the availability of the correspondence of a foreign 
government.  In our opinion, this contention is misplaced.  The Open Records Act is 
applicable to every “governmental body” as defined in the act.  Id. §§  2(1), 3(a).  The 
University of Texas is clearly a “governmental body.”  It is in possession of documents 
voluntarily submitted to it by the government of Bahrain.  As we observe, infra, the 
United States Department of State has failed to cite the existence of any overriding 
federal law or treaty which would prohibit release of these documents.  It must be 
presumed that the government of Bahrain is aware of the Texas Open Records Act and is 
also aware that correspondence directed to the University of Texas is subject to 
disclosure unless excepted by some specific provision of that statute.  Accordingly, we 
do not believe that any question of sovereign immunity is presented by this request.

	As to your 3(a)(1) contentions, information is not excepted from disclosure 
merely because it might embarrass individuals or governments.  The test under the 
standard of common law privacy is whether the information reveals highly intimate or 
embarrassing facts, the disclosure of which would be highly objectionable to a person of 
ordinary sensibilities.  Industrial Foundation of the South v. Texas Industrial Accident 
Board, 540 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1976).  In this instance, none of the documents submitted 
appear to reveal information excepted by common law privacy.  You have not suggested, 
nor have we discovered, any federal law, regulation or treaty that would prohibit 
disclosure of this information.  Indeed, we have been advised by the Department of State 
that “there is no international agreement in effect between the United States and Bahrain 
which would be relevant to the matter at issue.”  We conclude that the information 
requested here is not excepted from disclosure by section 3(a)(1) of the Open Records 
Act.

	Section 3(a)(14) excepts “student records at educational institutions funded 
wholly, or in part, by state revenue.”  A large portion of the information contained in the 
documents you have submitted either does not identify individual students or reveals 
only information properly characterized as “directory information” under federal 
regulations.  Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C.A. §1232g(a)(s)(b).  
Accordingly, this information is not excepted from disclosure and should be released.  
Certain documents and portions of other documents identify individual students and 
furnish information regarding grades, disciplinary action, scholorships, and 
recommendations by the International Office of the University of Texas.  Such 
information may properly be withheld under section 3(a)(14).  In addition, some 
information relating to student records, while not identifying individual students by 
name, may be withheld in this instance because of the relatively small number of students 
to which the information could be applicable.  In a small sampling, identification of 
individuals may be a relatively simple task.  See Open Records Decision No. 181 (1977); 
Cf. Open Records Decision No. 165 (1977) (certain information, standing alone, does not 
identify individual students); see also Attorney General Opinion H-529 (1975).  We have 
marked those documents and portions thereof which may be withheld under section 
3(a)(14).  The remainder should be disclosed.

Very truly yours,

Mark White
Attorney General of Texas

John W. Fainter, Jr.
First Assistant Attorney General

Richard E. Gray III
Executive Assistant Attorney General

Prepared by Rick Gilpin
Assistant Attorney General

APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE

Susan L. Garrison, Chairman
Jon Bible
Walter Davis
Rick Gilpin
Jim Moellinger