The Judicial Board’s standard of proof continues to be a topic of discussion for Student Government officials advocating for stricter guidelines with dissent from some administrators.

The standard upheld for student judicial hearings stands at 75 percent with the burden on the complainant. This “clearing and convincing” standard puts a “disproportionate burden of proof on the University,” Paul Cousins, director of the Office of Student Conduct, said.

But Lock Whiteside, who is a graduate student in his second term as Student Chief Justice, said he has made raising that standard of proof a priority during his terms.

The Student Senate passed Resolution 55 during its Jan. 9 meeting, which endorsed the “reinstatement of the people’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

According to Whiteside, he will present this legislation to reinstate a 95 percent standard of proof to the Judicial Board members in their Jan. 25 meeting and then form a focus group of student senators and Judicial Board members before presenting the case to Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Tom Stafford.

“We had evidence of student support for this, and by the votes, [know] that [Student] Senate supports it,” Whiteside said.

But, according to Cousins, Whiteside’s proposal would require “a change to the Code of Student Conduct, which requires a change to the University policy.”

Such policy change would have to receive approval from Cousins, the Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Evelyn Reiman, Stafford, Chancellor James Oblinger and the Board of Trustees.

“In order to convince any of these people, you would have to have a pretty strong case,” Cousins said. “[University policies] aren’t created casually and they aren’t changed easily.”

And Cousins said he believes supporters of this change to the burden of proof are misinformed.

“There is a fundamental lack of understanding about how the disciplinary process works,” he said. “It’s not based in any fact. It’s not based on any truth.”

However, Cousins said he invites those who have had their rights violated to come to direct these complaints to his office.

“I’m the director,” he said. “It’s my job to fix it, and I’m anxious to do that.”

Another concern, according to Cousins, is the lack of discussion about the impact raising the standard of proof would have on the greater campus community.

“Sometimes I feel I’m speaking for the trees here,” he said. “It’s a balance” between individual student’s needs and the safety of the community.”

According to Cousins, the proposed standard of proof means “the 95 percent only benefits the individual in question.”

“I don’t think it’s an appropriate measure,” he said. “But I’m open to debate. I’m game for that.”

Whiteside said he has found Cousins “close-minded” on the subject.

“But I’m optimistic. I’m comfortable with the present status [of changes] to the standard of proof,” he said.