University of Wisconsin community members are voicing concerns and hopes following the Board of Regents transmittance of revised student misconduct policies to the Legislative Council earlier this month.

The amended policies would create various changes for how the university deals with student policy offenses, including increasing the scope to discipline students for serious criminal offenses off-campus, transforming the hearing process to a more educational experience and reducing the standard of proof for sexual harassment and sexual assault cases.

Donald Downs, UW political science professor and Committee for Academic Freedom and Rights president, said he has major questions concerning the revisions.

“I would like clarifications and assurance that they’re not trying to water down attorney participation, and I’d like to know why they need to lower the standard of proof when it comes to sexual crimes,” Downs said.

Ervin Cox, dean of students for Student Advocacy and Judicial Affairs, said the standard of proof for sexual offenses was lowered from clear and convincing to preponderance of evidence because of the federal government standards. He said the revisions help clean up the codes by making language more clear and concise, specifically referring to the off-campus expansion of power, he said.

“I had a case a few years ago that was really disturbing to me. This guy badly beat his girlfriend. He really did a number on her. She wasn’t a student, and it happened off-campus,” Cox said. “His behavior was incompatible with membership in the university community. We should have higher standards.”

But according to Downs, UW has always been a national leader in protecting student rights and academic freedom, and amending these policies could lead to a reduction of freedoms, making UW similar to other universities or even corporations.

UW political science graduate student and Teaching Assistant Association member David Olson said his biggest concern is the shift of the hearing procedure to become more “educational” because there is not much education taking place when a school is trying to expel a student.

Olson also said he refutes Cox’s stance that students should not be afforded a lawyer to speak on behalf of them at a hearing.

“He’s not a student. He wouldn’t face expulsion,” Olson said. “If a faculty member was fired for something that occurred off-campus that didn’t affect the university, certainly they would hire an attorney and sue. With students unable to do the same, it is entirely unfair.”

But Cox said there are some positive things happening in the policy revisions that students need to recognize, specifically when looking at minor off-campus offenses.

“We are not going to be dealing with underage drinking tickets. We are not to be calling people in for that. That’s just ridiculous,” Cox added. “There are tons of other things in this code that help students protect them, make it a safer place. Really, it’s not going to change how we operate anyways.”

Currently, Cox said his office and a graduate intern are working to create a language proposal to present to students to better inform them of the revisions.

“We’re actually thinking more about using the words ‘Wisconsin experience,'” Olson said. “Academic, personal growth and standards of behavior would be included, so we can have students think in advance about what the expectations are.”

Olson said while one of the “biggest problems” with the policies is that students are unaware of them, and something similar to a pledge could be detrimental.