I never thought I’d hear myself say this, but given a recent discussion with Associate Dean of Students Kevin Helmkamp — one of the key figures in the revisions to the Student Academic Misconduct Policy — I’ve had something of a change of heart on the controversy. That’s not to say I don’t object to a vast number of the proposed changes; I most certainly do. But given Helmkamp’s statements on the policy, there are a number of points that deserve clarification.

First and perhaps most shocking, the burden of proof for sexual harassment and assault cases has been lowered from a standard of “clear and convincing” to “preponderance of the evidence.” Make no mistake: This is the most egregious of the changes to the code that could be enacted. Especially with regards to sexual harassment — it is not difficult to imagine a case in which a male student sees his future ruined due to misinterpreted signals or overzealous administrators. However, this is the one change that, as Helmkamp unequivocally stated, was enacted under mandate from the Department of Education. While this deliberate exercise in absurdity is likely to get overturned once calmer heads prevail, such a change at its current stage is the brainchild of troglodytes floating far above even the ivory towers of university leadership. Thus any rational discussion of the policy must be limited to the proposed changes which the university has the discretion to affect.

Of these, the most seemingly troublesome is that students don’t have the right to have their interests represented in disciplinary hearings by a lawyer. While students are permitted counsel from any individual of their choice, the administration’s argument is that the disciplinary process is, at least theoretically, educational, and therefore students should be expected to represent themselves as grown adults. However, the same could be said for, well, anything.

Any process in which an individual gains knowledge of the world and its internal workings is an educational process; thus the premise, reasonable in this writer’s opinion, that all experiences imply some degree of learning. Helmkamp did venture the fair-minded concession that many suspension cases, while intended to be educational in nature, quickly begin to resemble in practice the fiercely adversarial environment that has become the norm in American courtrooms.

And that is where the fundamental disagreement lies: Students, for the most part, are not looking to arrive at some profound revelation about their lives during disciplinary hearings. They are looking to preserve their statuses as students. Conversely, in practice, the administration is most likely not looking to teach the student anything enlightening, but rather pursuing the far more pragmatic end of ensuring the interests of other students are not threatened. Beyond that, administrators are looking to preserve the reputation of the university. Any educational insight to be gained by a student falls far — incomprehensibly far — down on the list of priorities for the dean reviewing his or her case.

Beyond that, there’s the question of off-campus misconduct. Helmkamp argued cases addressed a long way off campus (read: other cities) are only pertinent to the university if someone is being harmed via crimes such as assault, rape, arson and intent to distribute drugs, or where “substantial university interest” is at stake. The substantial interest bit should, and will, be clarified. While Helmkamp’s reasonability is not in question, it is not unforeseeable that a future, more draconian administrator will not have any reluctance to slam student interests, and with such a vague clause as “substantial interest” being the litmus test for what the university is capable of taking on, the campus as a whole has an urgent interest in seeing some clarification as to what this means in specific cases.

But don’t ask me; ask Dean Helmkamp. As he stated during our interview, his door is always open for students who are concerned about Chapters 17 and 18 (the areas of the code being reviewed), and he has taken the additional step of promising to write an editorial on the subject before the end of the year. I suggest taking him up on his word.

Sam Clegg ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in economics.