Harvard Rethinks Misconduct Policy

The Harvard faculty met Tuesday and unanimously approved a new committee to study the university’s overall sexual misconduct policy, said Harvard Assistant Dean David Fithian.

The action was taken to calm an uproar on the campus over a faculty vote May 7 that had changed university policy.

Under the old policy, the school would automatically look into any claim of a peer dispute, including a sexual assault.

The May 7 change requires anyone filing a complaint to provide “sufficient independent corroboration” of misconduct before the school will investigate.

The new policy--believed by some to be the first such requirement in the nation--sparked soul-searching among faculty who approved it, a protest from angry students and women’s groups, and fierce debate over Harvard’s responsibility to investigate difficult-to-prove claims.

The peer-dispute process is an option for students to mete out internal punishments, whether for theft, sexual misconduct or assault. Students can always take a claim to the police, regardless of whether the university’s Administrative Board takes up a case, or students can opt for mediation.

Everett Mendelsohn, a history of science professor, said it was only after the May 7 vote that he and many colleagues realized what they had done.

“I wouldn’t put it down to any attempt to hoodwink us or fool us,” he said. “I would put it down as a procedural mistake. You want to keep things simple, but some things shouldn’t be kept simple.”

A faculty committee studied the issue for months, concluding that refusing to investigate cases that were bound to end without resolution would save time and resources and ultimately benefit students.

But students accused the university of hustling the change through without debate at a faculty meeting overshadowed by end-of-the-year exams and the upcoming summer break.

Margaret Anadu, a junior computer science major, said she was infuriated by the vote, particularly since students who had been working on revamping the sexual assault policy had not been consulted.

“It’s just intellectually dishonest to state you’re making a change to benefit certain individuals who were never consulted or thoroughly considered,” she said.

Fithian said the controversy over the May 7 change was a function of “unfortunate confusion” over the intentions of the committee that originally recommended the procedure.

In the 2000-01 school year, the Administrative Board reviewed seven cases of sexual misconduct. One case resulted in an expulsion and two resulted in exoneration. Four ended without findings--the kind of conclusion the board seeks to avoid, he said.

The effects of the new policy are being watched closely by both supporters and opponents.

Sheldon Steinbach, general counsel for the American Council on Education, said he knew of no other school that has adopted a rule of this nature.

“It’s creative, innovative, and an attempt to try and insert a degree of fairness in a process that is, because of the nature of allegations of sexual assault, unduly complicated,” he said. Wendy Murphy, a Boston attorney who consulted with students who protested the change last week, called it “the single most threatening idea that I’ve heard in all my years.”