The 2015 to 2016 Rights and Responsibilities handbook was released to the community on Aug. 22 in an email from Director of Student Rights and Community Standards Kerry Guerard.

The new edition contains several notable changes from last year’s handbook, including changes in medical amnesty procedure, the Special Examiner’s Process and the Peer Review Process, which is now referred to as the Student Conduct Process.

The medical amnesty policy is intended to protect students who seek emergency medical attention for themselves or others from being penalized for violations of the Rights and Responsibilities handbook. For instance, if a student calls BEMCo to help a friend who is drunk when they are themselves intoxicated, neither will be penalized.

Under the 2014-2015 edition, the policy stated that students “may be expected to meet with staff from the [Dean of Students] Office,” but that the policy was “intended to empower students to seek help if they or others are experiencing signs of physiological or psychological distress.”

The new handbook states that students will be protected from Rights and Responsibilities violations, but on the condition that students subsequently comply with “any recommended educational intervention and/or behavioral assessment.”

Students who do not comply with these recommendations will be held accountable for any violations of the handbook related to the incident and may have additional charges filed against them by the Department of Student Rights and Community Standards.

In an email to the Justice, Guerard wrote that “fear of repercussions from the conduct process should not deter a student from calling for medical assistance for themselves or a friend when it is needed.” According to Guerard, these “follow-up conversations” will most likely be held either in the Dean of Students Office or with the Alcohol and Other Drugs Counselor.

Another addition states that the medical amnesty policy does not protect students who repeatedly violate Rights and Responsibilities and that the University “reserves the right to initiate conduct action on a case-by-case basis, regardless of the manner in which the incident was reported. Additionally, the University reserves the right to adjudicate any case in which the violations are considered especially egregious.”

The Special Examiner’s Process, which is the University’s means of adjudicating sexual assault, has also seen several significant changes.

The Director of Student Rights and Community Standards no longer determines whether a case should enter the Special Examiner’s process and does not conduct preliminary interviews with the accuser and accused, who are now referred to as the complainant and the respondent.

Instead, a Case Manager is assigned by the Chief Student Affairs Officer. The Case Manager gathers preliminary information about the case and explains the process to the complainant and respondent. The Dean of Students also does not render the final ruling in a case. While the Dean of Students’ Office still determines any preliminary sanctions to be put in place while the investigation is ongoing, an Outcomes Administrator, selected by the CSAO, gives the final decision on the case.

Guerard wrote in an email to the Justice that “in many cases, [administrators involved in the process] will be ... from the Dean of Students Office, but the updated language allows for the assignment of the appropriate administrative unit or person to the appropriate task regardless of their department within Students and Enrollment.”

Finally, new language states that the Special Examiner is required to be “an attorney, law enforcement professional, or other professional with extensive legal training in sexual misconduct.” This person must also have prior experience investigating sexual misconduct cases on college campuses and is selected by the CSAO after being screened by the Title IX Investigator/Compliance Officer. The Special Examiner investigates the case and files a report on the facts of the case, the credibility of the witnesses and the Special Examiner’s opinion on whether the handbook was violated.

Section three of the new handbook includes language stating that the University will investigate all cases of sexual misconduct either formally through the SEP, or informally.

The decision to pursue the Special Examiner’s Process is made by the Title IX Investigator/Compliance Officer, with input from the Title IX Coordinator and the complainant.

New language in the section on “Capacity to Consent” states that “the question of what the respondent should have known” is based on what a person who is “sober and exercising good judgment would have known about the condition of the complainant.”

The Student Conduct Process, which is how the University adjudicates violations of Rights and Responsibilities besides sexual misconduct, now follows a lower standard of proof.

Formerly, a student would be found guilty of a violation if there was “clear and convincing evidence,” meaning that it had to be much more likely than not that the student committed a violation of the handbook, if not completely guaranteed.

Now, a student can be found responsible if there is “a preponderance of the evidence,” meaning that it is only necessary to prove that it’s more likely than not that the student is responsible.

According to Guerard, the change was made “to provide a consistent standard in both processes (Student Conduct Process and Special Examiner’s Process) and reflects best practice.”

The new Student Conduct Process also includes a list of student rights during the process. These include the rights to a copy of the handbook, a fair process, to be presumed not responsible until decided otherwise, to speak on one’s own behalf and to be accompanied by an Advisor.

Other changes to the Rights and Responsibilities handbook include a new requirement that any student hosting a guest on campus be with that guest at all times.

Professors may now require students to use the website turnitin.com, which checks papers for plagiarism.

Students also cannot drop a course in which they are suspected of academic cheating.

New language in section 5.11 states that the smell of marijuana can be considered grounds for a violation of campus drug policy, but only in conjunction with other evidence.

Empty alcohol bottles which are used for decoration will now be confiscated, along with any items that violate safety restrictions, such as flammable gas, ceiling decorations and air conditioning units.

Finally, Area Coordinators—the new term for Community Development Coordinators—now have the power to reassign housing along with the director of the Department of Community Living. Formerly, this power was held by the director of DCL along with the Dean of Students.

Printed copies of the handbook will be released in mid-September, according to the email.