Therefore, it is good news to hear MSU is taking steps to become compliant with new U.S. Department of Education, or DOE, policy suggestions regarding sexual harassment, the biggest of which affect the university’s jurisdiction in sexual harassment cases.

Previously, the university hadn’t exercised power in off-campus cases. Under the new guidelines, officials would be required to review each case to determine if an off-campus incident resulted in a threatening environment for the student on campus. Kristine Zayko, deputy general counsel for MSU, specified the university only could take action if it established there was a “hostile environment on-campus.”

Implementing this policy shows recognition of both the social aspects of interaction as well as the nature of cause and effect by indicating what most people intuitively know: Arbitrary boundaries rarely solve problems. For example, if someone assaulted another person at an off-campus party, it should be assumed that atmosphere/attitude will be carried over to on-campus activities.

In the event where a student must attend classes with, live with or interact with someone who wishes them some type of harm, the university should have the ability to factor in the off-campus behavior.

This shouldn’t be taken to mean MSU has infinite authority to seek out and punish every act of off-campus sexual harassment.

The new policy guidelines don’t seem to give carte blanche for MSU to investigate and take action in every sexual assault involving students. Instead, the wording appears to allow for certain things to be taken under consideration.

A letter from the DOE outlining some the policies contains this statement: “If a student files a complaint with the school, regardless of where the conduct occurred, the school must process the complaint in accordance with its established procedures. … The school should take the earlier sexual assault into account in determining whether there is a sexually hostile environment.”

More than anything, it seems to be allowing the university the ability to establish a pattern by looking at events that occurred outside the current purview of university activities. And although that seems to be a technical change, it still is an important one.

If nothing else, a change such as this one should be helpful in making sure activities not connected to the university — as in those carried out outside the scope of university activities or boundaries — simply are not dismissed as being unrelated. If a student targets another student for harassment, that student should not be able to hide in plain sight because his or her act happened in a place outside of MSU.