And Justice for Some

BACK IN THE Middle Ages, justice was a pretty informal commodity. In between jousting bouts, feudal lords would hang out in their fiefs, arbitrarily judging any and all disputes that may have occurred there.

Of course, that's not the American way. In this country, we have a different--though not always perfect--system, in which cases are overseen by judges, argued by lawyers and decided by juries, all bound in a complex framework of law, rights and precedent.

Except, that is, at Harvard. At this University, feudal arrangements of justice still survive in 1992--most notably in the way the College deals with charges of rape and sexual assault brought by Harvard students against their peers. By allowing--and even encouraging--students to bring these types of criminal cases to the Administrative Board, Harvard has established a private judicial system right here in Cambridge.

Like all feudal organizations, Harvard's judicial fiefdom doesn't care about its effect on neighboring areas outside its own jurisdiction--like the rest of America.

That's too bad. Because in the case of date rape, separate justice for Harvard students compromises equal justice for all Americans.

THERE'S NO question that acquaintance rape and assault is a very real problem throughout this country, and at Harvard.

A national survey of female college students, conducted by Ms. magazine in 1985, showed that one in six had suffered a rape or attempted rape in the previous year. Of those raped, 84 percent knew their attackers and 57 percent were on dates when the attack occurred.

Here at Harvard, the University's College Life Survey of 1987-88 revealed that 32 percent of undergraduate women and eight percent of undergraduate men had "experienced unwanted or inappropriate sexual attention"--though not necessarily rape or assault--from a Harvard or non-Harvard peer.

There's also no question that these crimes are extremely underreported, especially on campuses.

Only 10 percent of all rapes are reported, according to FBI victimization surveys. And for on-campus rapes, the figure drops to 4 percent, the Ms. magazine survey showed.

At Harvard, only five percent of those who had experienced "unwanted attention" reported it to College authorities.

The reason for this silence is that victims tend to blame themselves or are blamed by others--including the police, the courts, their families and their communities--for provoking the attack. This country's legal system, in short, is not too friendly to the victims of sexual assaults.

It was precisely these sorts of concerns--that date rapes were going unreported, victims unrecognized and attackers unpunished--that prompted the College to establish a Date Rape Task Force last year.

Cases of date rape and sexual assault at Harvard--as well as sexual misconduct, a less severe, non-criminal breach of Harvard's behavioral standards--are currently settled by the Ad Board, the same board that adjudicates other disciplinary and academic cases in the College. In its recently released report, the Task Force proposes measures that would improve the Ad Board's procedure for handling date rape cases.

But why, in the first place, should cases of sex crimes be heard before the Ad Board? Shouldn't these matter be settled in the courts of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?

"COLLEGES," the Task Force report argues, "must respond to behavior that harms the physical and emotional well-being of their students and violates standards of behavior."

Fair enough. There may be special requirements in an academic community that require stricter standards of behavior. So even if Massachusetts law doesn't consider "sexual misconduct" a crime, this standard should be upheld by Harvard.

But rape and sexual assault--by acquaintances or strangers--are violent crimes and felonies under Massachusetts law. Doesn't the Commonwealth prosecute those accused of sex crimes?

It does, of course--but only that small minority of cases that are reported.

One of the Task Force report's goals, therefore, is to encourage victims of date rape and sexual assault at Harvard to report the crimes--but to College authorities, not necessarily the Cambridge police. Hence the task force's emphasis on procedural reform of the Ad Board.

The Task Force also recommended steps for an adviser to take that will put victims in touch with representatives from the real world legal system. But that's not enough.

IMPROVING the comfort level at Harvard for victims to bring sex crime cases before the Ad Board may prove to be a pyhrric victory in the battle against sex crimes in America.

If victims feel that justice can be served effectively through a user-friendly Ad Board, they may be tempted not to pursue the matter in the Massachusetts legal system.

After all, the Ad Board can impose none-too-light penalties on convicted accusers of its own right--like expulsion from the College, for example.

And with the non-Harvard legal system remaining hostile to sex crime victims, there's a double incentive for Harvard students not to seek justice beyond the ivory tower.

But beyond the ivory tower--that is, in the real world-all other victims of sex crimes in America must seek justice with the legal authorities. And that's where the focus of the Task Force's recommendations should have been.

If forced to the courts like everyone else in America, intelligent, respected and politically adept Harvard students might be able to change legal system's problematic attitude toward sex crime victims--for the benefit of all. The College could still punish student offenders, based on the court's judgments.

But that won't happen if they stay comfortable within the confines of Harvard's judicial fief. And that would be a real crime.