When it comes to transparency, the lips of University of Illinois administrators say yes-yes, but their actions say no-no.

The University of Illinois recently lost another battle in its effort to resist disclosure of records under the state's Freedom of Information Act.

But, as has become its custom, the UI is undecided about whether it will comply with a federal judge's order to turn over the disputed information.

Of course, it will not cost UI officials anything to continue the legal fight to protect the confidentiality of applicants linked to the Category I politicized admissions scandal of 2009. But it's a sure bet that it will cost taxpayers plenty if they choose to drag this legal case out as long as possible.

Everyone around here, of course, remembers the Category I scandal in which UI applicants with political clout were given special consideration over better qualified applicants without clout.

It was a major embarrassment. Although the UI was more sinned against than sinner, the scandal demonstrated that much-sought-after seats in incoming classes at the UI, like so much else in the state of Illinois, were up for sale. The sorry affair forced the resignations of former UI President B. Joseph White and former Chancellor Richard Herman and led to the creation of safeguards designed to insulate admissions officials from political pressure.

While much information was disclosed by the UI as well as a special commission appointed by Gov. Pat Quinn to investigate what happened, some crucial information has been withheld from public examination.

Who benefitted from the efforts of clout-wielding politicians? The Chicago Tribune filed an FOIA request seeking the information, and the UI, citing privacy rules, declined to provide the information. So the Tribune sued the UI and won a favorable ruling from U.S. Judge Joan Gottschall.

The judge ruled that, contrary to UI arguments, federal law "does not specifically prohibit" the UI from releasing the information.

Speaking on behalf of the UI, spokesman Tom Hardy said the ruling is a "setback for the privacy rights of young adults" and that the UI "will review the ruling thoroughly before deciding" how to proceed.

The UI, of course, can ask for appellate review and keep the clock running. It's lost similar FOIA arguments about presidential search issues to Attorney General Lisa Madigan and vowed to fight on.

But it would be far better served to comply and get the matter behind the institution. Bureaucracies, however, are notoriously impervious to the benefits of common sense, even if it's in their long-term best interests.