U.C. Discusses Date Rape Cases

The Undergraduate Council recommended nearly unanimously last night that the Administrative Board include Harvard students in reviewing date rape cases, but in a more limited role than suggested by the Date Rape Task Force.

Yesterday's meeting marked the second time in as many weeks that the council responded to last February's task force proposal on how the University should conduct disciplinary proceedings for cases involving allegations of student sexual misconduct.

The resolution, which was the brainchild of Vice Chair Malcolm A. Heinicke '93, attempts to prevent the disclosure of confidential information during the hearings.

Last February, the task force suggested that Dean of the College L. Fred fJewett '57 appoint two students to participate in all aspects of the disciplinary proceedings.

Heinicke's plan prevents students participants from determining punishment, and unless both parties under investigation agree, from gathering evidence in date rape cases.

Heinicke, who originally stood against any form of student involvement in date rape cases, said yesterday that the resolution takes advantage of student involvement without opening up the possibility for damaging an innocent persons reputation.

He argued that students who were worried about breaches of confidentiality might feel uncomfortable going before the Administrative Board if the task force proposal were adopted.

"The [task force's] plan, as it stands, would greatly increase the reticence of some students to go through the [disciplinary] process, and would severely abate the students' right to an approachable Ad Board," Heinicke said. "The stigma associated with rape can ruin the social and academic reputation of the person involved."

Before Heinicke's resolution passed, the council voted, 21-19, in favor of an amendment that removes the selection of the student participants from council control.

The amendment, drafted by Effie K. Anagnostopoulos '92, allows Jewett to chose the student representatives from a group screened by senior tutors and members of house committees.

Anagnostopoulos said that because senior tutorshave access to the applicants' disciplinary andacademic records, they should have input inselecting the pool of students forwarded toJewett.

But others, including Daniel H. Tabak '92,argued against the amendment, saying that bothsenior tutors and house committees would beunqualified to choose a representative body ofstudents. The council should assume theresponsibility instead, Tabak said.

"We're trying to get students on the Ad Board,not [be] mouth pieces for the senior tutors,"Tabak said. "Look at all the confusion we've had.What makes you think the senior tutors are goingto get it right immediately?"

April Osborg '92 agreed, saying that though thecouncil was not perfect, it was the best availableway.

"People don't necessarily feel that the U.C. istheir voice and perhaps they've chosen anotherway," said the former treasurer. "But if we don'tspeak up now, then we may be giving up anopportunity to have a say at all."

In other business, the council narrowly turneddown a recommendation, 22-21, for the Ad Board toturn all date rape cases over to criminal courts.

The council also endorsed mandatory workshopsto instruct first-year students about date rape.

Tabak, who sponsored the bill to remove daterape cases from Ad Board jurisdiction, said courtshave more experience and knowledge in handlingthese kind of cases.

Tabak said that out of the 2685 cases broughtbefore the Ad Board, only six involved allegationsof date rape. Tabak argued that the University'sinexperience in dealing with date rape makes it apoor judge.

"Clearly, the handling of rape cases by the AdBoard is bound to be hampered by the infrequencyof its involvement in such cases," Tabak stated inthe resolution. "Harvard should let the courtsystem do its job while Harvard does its job."

But some objected to sole reliance on the courtsystem, arguing that the Ad Board must deal with ahigher standard of behavior that is unique to theHarvard community.

"The Ad Board may not be legal scholars, butthey're adequate judges of behavior for theHarvard campus," Anagnostopoulos said. "The AdBoard has the right to decide cases that occurwithin the institution.

Anagnostopoulos said that because senior tutorshave access to the applicants' disciplinary andacademic records, they should have input inselecting the pool of students forwarded toJewett.

But others, including Daniel H. Tabak '92,argued against the amendment, saying that bothsenior tutors and house committees would beunqualified to choose a representative body ofstudents. The council should assume theresponsibility instead, Tabak said.

"We're trying to get students on the Ad Board,not [be] mouth pieces for the senior tutors,"Tabak said. "Look at all the confusion we've had.What makes you think the senior tutors are goingto get it right immediately?"

April Osborg '92 agreed, saying that though thecouncil was not perfect, it was the best availableway.

"People don't necessarily feel that the U.C. istheir voice and perhaps they've chosen anotherway," said the former treasurer. "But if we don'tspeak up now, then we may be giving up anopportunity to have a say at all."

In other business, the council narrowly turneddown a recommendation, 22-21, for the Ad Board toturn all date rape cases over to criminal courts.

The council also endorsed mandatory workshopsto instruct first-year students about date rape.

Tabak, who sponsored the bill to remove daterape cases from Ad Board jurisdiction, said courtshave more experience and knowledge in handlingthese kind of cases.

Tabak said that out of the 2685 cases broughtbefore the Ad Board, only six involved allegationsof date rape. Tabak argued that the University'sinexperience in dealing with date rape makes it apoor judge.

"Clearly, the handling of rape cases by the AdBoard is bound to be hampered by the infrequencyof its involvement in such cases," Tabak stated inthe resolution. "Harvard should let the courtsystem do its job while Harvard does its job."

But some objected to sole reliance on the courtsystem, arguing that the Ad Board must deal with ahigher standard of behavior that is unique to theHarvard community.

"The Ad Board may not be legal scholars, butthey're adequate judges of behavior for theHarvard campus," Anagnostopoulos said. "The AdBoard has the right to decide cases that occurwithin the institution.