ISU students have a new set of rules to live by, and some are not happy about it. Formerly known as the Student Conduct Code, the revised Student Disciplinary Regulations took effect at the beginning of the semester. Some members of the American Civil Liberties Union at Iowa State said the new code doesn’t completely protect students’ rights. The new ISU Student Disciplinary Regulations were presented to Government of the Student Body leaders last March, said Ben Golding, GSB president. The GSB rules committee reviewed the document and met several times with members of ACLU@ISU and University Legal Services for discussion. The code was revised and approved by the 1999-2000 GSB senate during its last meeting on April 5, with the condition that three outstanding issues would be worked out, Golding said. Rules committee members met on April 10 and adopted changes to the three issues, which were then presented to the 2000-2001 GSB. The senate voted to postpone approval of the document until this semester. Although GSB had not approved the new regulations, ISU administrators presented the code to the Board of Regents, which adopted it during its June meeting. Herman Quirmbach, faculty adviser for ACLU@ISU, believes the final draft should not have been adopted without GSB approval. Nathan Ashmore, president of ACLU@ISU, said he felt the actions of the university defeated the purpose of student government. “Why bother voting on anything?” he said. “I’m very disappointed to find that they’ll go over GSB’s head on things like this.” Paul Tanaka, director of University Legal Services, said the proposal did not have to be looked at or approved by GSB. “The regents have the authority to make the rules and regulations,” Tanaka said. “We consulted with the various affected parties and tried to reach an agreement. It is impossible to make everyone happy.” While the new code could have been passed after GSB reviewed it again this fall, Tanaka said “the logical time to implement a new code is before a school year.” Although the Board of Regents approved the new regulations, Quirmbach said not everyone is pleased with the content of the 54-page document. “We felt that it didn’t really adequately protect student rights,” Quirmbach said. The ACLU@ISU voiced concerns with three of the regulations: The right to effective counsel at hearing, the standard of proof for conviction and the “double jeopardy” rule. In the new code, a student who appears before the All-University Judiciary, a five-member panel that acts as a jury, is not allowed to have any legal representation speak for him or her, but the university can choose a representative to speak for his or her interests. “How can you expect someone with no public-speaking experience to cross-examine witnesses?” Ashmore said. “It’s absurd to expect someone not versed in this to defend themselves while the university can bring in whoever they feel like.” Tanaka said judiciary members will be better able to judge the students’ sincerity if they represent themselves. “If someone else is speaking for the students, then we have no way of assessing if the student is learning anything, or of getting a sense of what the student’s feelings are and whether or not the student is going to change,” he said. The second concern in the new code is the standard of proof for conviction. Under the code, a “preponderance of evidence” is required in order to convict a student. This means a 51 percent probability of guilt is needed. ACLU asked that the wording be changed to “clear and convincing evidence,” which is between preponderance of evidence and “beyond a shadow of a doubt” and is used in judicial courts. Tanaka said the new code addressed this issue by requiring four out of the five panel members to agree on the verdict. “Very few people understand the `clear and convincing evidence’ concept. The important thing is to have a consensus that a violation occurred,” Tanaka said. The final issue in the new regulations is the “double jeopardy” condition. Under the new rule, the university can find a student guilty of a crime they have been acquitted of in district court. “With the preponderance of evidence, it is easier for the university than the district court to convict you as long as you look more responsible than not responsible,” Ashmore said. Tanaka compared the situation to one crime being tried in both criminal and civil courts. “This applies to a criminal conviction, but it doesn’t prevent a civil action to take place at the same time,” he said. “For example, O.J. [Simpson] was found not guilty in criminal court, but the relatives sued in civil court and got a reward of millions.” Even though the new regulations are in effect, they can be amended at any time. “My belief is that the Student Disciplinary Regulations continue to be a living document,” said Pete Englin, interim dean of students. “Proposals can come from students, faculty and staff, but I believe we have a very good document to work from.” Golding said the senate wants to review the document and make recommendations to be voted on by students and presented to the administration later this year. “The university waited a full year and jumped through a lot of hoops,” he said. “I believe the senate should have voted last year and approved or disapproved before it went to the regents.” Ashmore said ACLU@ISU plans to continue campaigning to amend the code. “Right now our main concern is to raise student awareness,” he said. “We need the support of the students before we can do anything because we’ll need the power of more than the ACLU.”