Officials are working to clarify sections of the university’s student code of conduct.

Student Rights and Responsibilities director Chad Trisler said his department must update the code every five years, and many changes are under way for the 2013-2014 code. Many simply involve reworking the present code to avoid confusion, he said. The new code will reduce the revisions to every two years instead of five and create one document every student can look at and understand what’s expected of them, he said.

Trisler said a committee composed of students, staff and faculty was formed to determine updates, he said, and the group was thorough in their analysis and decisions.

“At this point we have what we think is a pretty solid draft, but we want every student, every staff and faculty member to tell us what they think we missed or what they think should be in there,” he said.

Dean of Students Katherine Sermersheim delivered a campus-wide email April 23 that requested commentary on the proposed changes from anyone who wishes to provide it. Anyone can download the new code and comment, Trisler said, and the new code will go into effect sometime this summer for the fall semester.

“We’re asking for anything,” he said.

Undergraduate Student Government President Elect Adrian Miller, a sophomore from Carbondale studying political science, said incorporating the student’s voice is the most important policy change in the code.

“Administrators might not understand the student (or) the situation,” he said. “To be able to have the student’s voice present on that appeals process will reassure the students that the university does care about the students, and that they are striving to do things to ensure that they are represented.”

Cheating is one issue the code addresses. Trisler said the process for dealing with a student who is caught cheating is too long of a process that could take months and includes the professor addressing the student. The complaint then travels to the department’s chair, then the dean and then the provost. Code updates could shorten the process by making it much more specific in what must be done when, and issues will go directly to the department dean to resolve the issue in half the time, he said.

Harassment is another issue the code mentions but does not clearly define, especially concerning the Internet, he said.

Trisler said the definitions for harassment will be more clearly defined and set to include social media in the process. This includes bullying in all forms, defining it in social media as consistent and repeated behavior. However, Trisler said the harassment’s definition cannot interfere with students’ rights to freedom of speech via social media.

The old code would say something was against university policy, such as physical assault or harassment, but doesn’t give an exact definition. The new code seeks to define these topics more clearly so everyone understands exactly what actions violates the code, he said.

The code also doesn’t address alcohol, Trisler said. The rules enforced with alcohol are in the building and facilities policy — a document most students don’t think to look at, he said.

Michael Uphoff, code committee member and senior from Monticello studying industrial technology, said beer pong has also been banned in the past, but conduct loopholes allow the game when it is entitled “water pong,” which is the same as beer pong using water. The entire game will be banned on campus, he said.

As many rules as there are in the code, there is an appeals process for students who are accused of breaking these rules. It also will be revised for students’ benefit and give them a chance to address hearing committees directly, a part of the process not allowed before, Trisler said.