There is no question that certain behavior is unacceptable for University students. The Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities is correct to hold students to a high standard of personal conduct. But no matter how inexcusable a violation of the code may be, the University should not lower the standard of proof for determining whether a violation has occurred. The Michigan Student Assembly, which retracted its support of an amendment to the code that would have lowered the standard, did the right thing when it changed its position. Now, University officials should recognize the gravity of lowering the burden of proof and end their pursuit of such an amendment. Instead, the preventative education being done during University orientation and by student groups should continue.

On Dec. 6, Vice President for Student Affairs E. Royster Harper spoke to the Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs — the faculty’s leading governing body — about changes to the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities, which outlines the rules for students’ behavior. One of the proposed amendments would change the standard of evidence needed to find a student in violation of a policy from “clear and convincing evidence” to a “preponderance of evidence.” Effectively, the amendment would mean that University reviewers wouldn’t have to be certain that a violation occurred — they would only have to believe that a violation was more likely than not. While MSA originally voted to support this amendment in October, the assembly voted last Tuesday to retract its support.

While the amendment would affect all violations pertaining to the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities, it appears to have been created with sexual assault cases in mind. There is no doubt that sexual crimes are repugnant, but this policy change is the wrong approach to prevent them. It will only make it less certain that the University is justly punishing violators. Adjudicators have a responsibility to make sure indisputable evidence exists that proves an accused student violated the code.

It’s terrible for any person to become a victim of sexual abuse, but being falsely charged with committing a sexual crime is terrible, too. False convictions can ruin students’ lives. The University should be exercising a high standard in determining whether a violation has taken place. Too much hangs in the balance for these decisions to be made more lightly.

One justification for the amendment has been that other universities like the University of Virginia and Dartmouth College have similar standards of proof. But the University shouldn’t feel the need to bring its policies in line with other institutions if those policies are flawed.

Instead of adopting policies that could lead to innocent students being held responsible for crimes they didn’t commit, the University should focus on preventing sexual assault in the first place. Many of these measures are already in place — freshmen orientation covers topics like how to protect yourself against sexual violence, asking for consent and what constitutes rape. Organizations on campus, like the Sexual Assault Prevention and Awareness Center, help to stop sexual assaults before they happen. If administrators feel like these efforts aren’t enough, they should expand them, not lower their standards for determining guilt.

Students who breach the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities should be held accountable — but not unless they are undeniably in violation. Proof isn’t something the University should ever think it can do without.