In a ruling that may have implications for universities statewide, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled 5-2 Wednesday that parts of student disciplinary records at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, are not education records protected from release by federal law.The opinion, written by Justice Francis E. Sweeney, requires Miami to provide the general location of incidents, age and sex of the student, nature of the offense and penalty imposed.The court upheld the right of Miami to delete a student’s name, social security number and student identification number. It also allowed Miami to delete the exact time and date of the alleged incident if it could lead to identifying the student.Two editors of the Miami Student newspaper, Jennifer Markiewicz and Emily Hebert, requested disciplinary information in spring 1995 to create a campus crime information database.Miami provided them with a heavily edited version and said that it could not give them the information they requested because it was educational information protected under the Federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.Known as the Buckley Amendment, this law allows the U.S. Department of Education to withhold federal funds from universities that release education records protected by the statute.Markiewicz and Hebert sued in the Ohio courts for release of the information, claiming that the disciplinary information was not under federal protection, but subject to release under the Ohio Open Records Law. The case reached the Ohio Supreme Court in January.Justice Sweeney ruled that disciplinary proceedings are not educationally related or valid exceptions to the Ohio Open Records Law. His opinion said that in deciding this issue, the court was mindful that the fundamental policy of the Ohio Open Records Law promotes open government.”‘By deleting relevant data, such as general location of alleged misconduct and punishments imposed, Miami University has denied students and the general public the right to obtain invaluable information,'” Sweeney wrote.Sweeney also cited the imperative of parents and students to know crime statistics on campus. “‘Likewise, for students already enrolled in a university, their safety is of utmost importance. Without full public access to disciplinary proceedings records, that safety may be compromised,'” Sweeney wrote.Marc Mezibov, lead attorney for Markiewicz and Hebert, said that this is a fair and responsible ruling that balances the right to know with legitimate privacy.Richard Little, a spokesman for Miami University, said that he was pleased because the ruling warrants the withholding of some information.”It appears to allow us to comply without endangering the Buckley Amendment,” he said.Ginny Trethewey, vice president and general counsel for Ohio State, said that she was gratified that the court has preserved the ability to protect personally identifiable information.”The concern I would have would be the reaction of the U.S. Education Department on its regulations being ignored. Clearly, OSU doesn’t want anything to jeopardize federal funds,” she said.Trethewey said that time is now needed to study the implications of the decision.