The University of Maryland at College Park, shown in this 2010 file photo, has adopted a new sexual misconduct policy that identifies incidents as “Sexual Assault I” and “Sexual Assault II.” (Marvin Joseph/Washington Post)

The University of Maryland at College Park adopted a new sexual misconduct policy this month — with special procedures for investigation and discipline — after lengthy deliberations on fine points such as how to define sexual assault and what role attorneys should play.

U-Md. President Wallace D. Loh, a former law professor, said this week he spent months “personally going over” the policy and “arguing with my legal counsel [and] with various groups on campus.”

For example, Loh rejected a provision of a University System of Maryland policy that specifies two kinds of sexual assault, Loh said Tuesday in an interview with The Washington Post.

The system, which encompasses the state’s 37,000-student flagship university and most other public universities in Maryland, defines “Sexual Assault I” as nonconsensual sexual intercourse and “Sexual Assault II” as nonconsensual sexual contact, which would be “any intentional touching of the intimate parts of another person, causing another to touch one’s intimate parts, or disrobing or exposure of another without consent.”

U-Md.’s new policy, announced in mid-October, defines sexual assault as “any act of sexual penetration with another individual without consent.” And what the state system calls Sexual Assault II, U-Md. calls, with some modifications, “nonconsensual sexual contact.” That includes “any unwanted intentional touching of the intimate body parts of another person.” But U-Md. does not label this offense as assault.

University of Maryland president Wallace D. Loh. (University of Maryland)

Explaining his thinking, Loh told The Post: “I said, ‘Wait a second, if somebody touches somebody else, nonconsensually, that constitutes an assault?’ You are demeaning the word assault. You’re trivializing it.”

Loh said he was also worried about what would happen if “Sexual Assault II” is put on a student’s transcript after a finding of misconduct. “The one thing I pressed very strongly on is, you should punish the person for unwanted touching . . . but it should not be ‘assault,’ ” Loh said.

In criminal law, definitions of offenses that fall under the term sexual assault vary from state to state. The U.S. Justice Department’s Office on Violence Against Women defines sexual assault as “any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient” ranging from attempted rape to fondling.

U-Md.’s rewrite of its policy comes as colleges and universities across the country are reviewing how they define and respond to sexual violence. Schools face pressure to do so from student activists and from the federal government. On Wednesday, the U.S. Education Department reported that 86 postsecondary institutions are under federal investigation for how they handle sexual violence reports. U-Md. is not among them.

In 2013, federal data show, the university received 19 reports of forcible sex offenses on campus. Some reports result in criminal cases, but many do not. The university often investigates incidents that prosecutors choose not to pursue; even if there was no crime, a student conduct rule might have been broken.

One of the most significant changes at College Park is the creation of a new Office of Sexual Misconduct and Relationship Violence, which opened in March under the direction of attorney Catherine A. Carroll. Carroll’s office has a special investigator assigned to sexual violence ­issues, and she said she is looking to hire another.

Under old procedures, the university investigated sexual violence reports in much the way it handled other student conduct complaints, with a hearing, written statements and sometimes a police report. New procedures call for Carroll’s office to conduct a complete investigation and make findings and recommendations for possible punishment. If needed, a five-member committee of students, faculty and staff will review a case and determine whether a student is responsible for an offense and what punishment should be.

Loh said he weighed the role of attorneys in these internal proceedings.

“There are those on our campus who believe, ‘Well this is really not a criminal trial, and therefore there should be no ­attorneys present,’ ” Loh said. “And there are those who believe there should be an attorney present.”

Loh decided to allow both sides in a case to have an attorney present during an investigation and a hearing. But the attorneys are not allowed to cross-examine either party and are there only in an advisory role.

“What we’re looking for is something between a full-fledged criminal trial versus the very informal, casual process that universities used in the past — meaning as recently as a year ago — and finding somewhere in between,” he said. “But that ‘somewhere in between’ — boy, there are differences of opinion.”