Imagine it is you who is placed in the classic case of she claims she said “no” and he claims she said “yes” (or vice versa) after a fateful spring break night. Furthermore, it turns out the person who has vowed to press sexual assault charges against you has motive to see your life torn to pieces. Clearly you would want the protection of due process to protect your future.

However, before your criminal trial in which you are found innocent, you are summoned to an “educational experience” back on campus. At that “educational” meeting — where you are not allowed the full representation of an attorney — University of Wisconsin administrators and lawyers grill you on these accusations of sexual assault. At that same meeting, they rule the charges sufficient for your expulsion. You have lost your future for an act of which you are not guilty.

Here I should note I do not mean to trivialize such a crime nor insinuate that false accusations of sexual assault are common in the hypothetical above, I am sure they certainly are not. My only purpose was to demonstrate that with issues of such gravity, the proposed revisions allow one to be punished without being guilty. Yet, this is but one of many egregious scenarios made possible by the proposed changes to University of Wisconsin System non-academic misconduct policies. Much has been written in this section previously as to the specifics of how bogus these proposed changes are. My aim is not to rehash these specific arguments. Instead, I find it sufficient to mention I have yet to find one local opinion article that has come out supporting any single change, much less the entire overhaul.

What I would like to focus on — and what the letter by Assistant Dean Kevin Helmkamp published in last week’s paper highlights — is just how much of an administrative hack-job this revision process has been.

If put to a vote by the student body, I am quite certain the proposed changes to the misconduct code would be resoundingly defeated. Based on this reality, as well as the above-mentioned lack of any student editorial support for the measures, I find it an uncontroversial conclusion that these changes, if enacted, would work against the best interests of our student body. Our administration knew that — which is why the hearings on the proposed changes took place in Milwaukee and faculty members were largely kept in the dark and out of the process.

The fact is these changes are not coming up right now because the code has reached its 30th anniversary as Helmkamp seemed to argue last week. Rather, one member of the UW System, UW-Milwaukee, pushed for a revision to address specific problems they were having with off-campus issues. As it turns out, these changes adversely affect each university within the UW System equally.

But rather than protecting the interests of their students by objecting to these UW System changes, our administration has aligned with and defended them unconditionally. The most accommodation we have received is a pseudo-promise from Helmkamp “to work with student representatives to craft Madison-specific language concerning the situations in which the university would pursue off-campus misconduct charges.” This, of course, represents only one aspect of the issue.

Given what I see as a solid record of protecting student interests in the last few years by our administration, one would expect just the opposite. That is why I am so bewildered by how interested they are in supporting these changes. And furthermore, why they are so set on continuing to espouse justifications for doing so, which are at the very least intellectually offensive. The latest installment of this has been Helmkamp’s argument that it is the Department of Education demanding they adopt a less stringent standard of proof in cases of sexual assault. Similar threats were made regarding the installment of speech codes across U.S. campuses decades ago. They proved to be hollow threats, and given the massive amount of resources at stake here, it only makes logical sense that these are as well.

So, what are we left to do? The process of approving these changes still has a way to go, and what we have begun to see is that, with enough spirited dissent, we can create some room for negotiation. This adds up to a perfect opportunity for student representatives to significantly enhance the interests of the students they serve.

Associated Students of Madison leaders, do you want your organization to become relevant? A few victories on this front would be a good start. Even more specifically, to those newly elected members of the For Accessibility Community and Empowerment of Students slate: Let’s see that aggressive and fighting attitude for students’ interests in action. Maybe this will give you an opening to silence some of your critics who have been drubbing you for the past few weeks.

This is not a problem of only minor importance, nor is it a hopeless fight. When our administration fails us on issues of this sort, our student leaders should do what they can to make sure they don’t come up short as well.

Alec Slocum ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in philosophy and legal studies.