In the future, students might want to think twice about their actions off campus.

If proposed changes to the student conduct code are approved by the University Board of Regents in the upcoming months, the Office for Student Conduct and Academic Integrity could start punishing students for off-campus behavior.

Jurisdiction of the code would extend beyond campus only if the conduct negatively affected a “substantial University interest,” according to draft changes the Board reviewed Nov. 9. Students who commit criminal offenses or are deemed a danger to themselves or others would be eligible for a wide range of sanctions.

Under the current code, a student could be in the same class as an alleged assailant, but the University couldn’t take any action against the accused if the crime happened off campus, said Amelious Whyte, chief of staff in the Office for Student Affairs.

The University faced such a situation a few years ago, he said. Two students in a very small program, which made it hard to switch classes, ended up staying in the same class after one allegedly sexually assaulted the other.

The University separated the students by asking them to show up to class at different times, ensuring they wouldn’t see each other in the hallways or ride in the elevators together, Whyte said. But, he said, the University could only request that the students comply.

Under the proposed changes, the University could mandate a classroom switch or suspend the accused student, Whyte said.

Roberta Gibbons, the associate director at the Aurora Center for Advocacy and Education, said her office started pushing for a conduct-code jurisdictional change almost 10 years ago to help stem sexual assaults, domestic abuse and relationship abuse.

Gibbons said it would be easier to enforce restraining orders if the University extended the code.

Now, she said, students from the same university who get a restraining order through Hennepin County typically can’t secure a distance provision.

Since the campus is under University jurisdiction, the courts typically leave it up to the school to separate the students – something not possible under the current code, Gibbons said.

Mark Rotenberg, the University’s general counsel, said the University already enforces restraining orders with distance provisions.

First-year student Talbrey Benson said she doesn’t think the University should have the right to interfere with students’ lives off campus.

“It seems like what they’re trying to do has the students’ best interest in mind,” she said. “But it seems like it could be blown out of proportion and not used wisely.”

The code will not be applied in every situation, Whyte said. A deciding factor, he said, would be whether a student’s experience at the University would be impacted.

“If it’s going to impact the student’s ability to get their education,” he said, “then the University might decide that’s something they may need to step in and do something with.”

Whyte said the University’s intent will not be to go after off-campus drinking violations, but it could sanction students caught buying alcohol for minors or hosting parties for which police issue many citations.

“If there was a party where a lot of people who were drinking underage, if that even in and of itself is looked at as being a danger to the people’s health and safety,” the code could be enforced, he said.

First-year student Travis Stowers said the University has a duty to uphold some moral standards, but the code shouldn’t be open to all crimes off campus.

“With the house parties it goes too far,” he said. “It should be limited and not for everything.”

With the conduct code changes, a student wouldn’t even need to be found guilty by a court to be punished by the University, Whyte said.

Rotenberg said a student acquitted of all charges could still be sanctioned because the University’s standard of proof is lower than the courts system’s.

“The penalties just aren’t as severe, so we don’t have such a severe standard of proof,” he said.