Faculty to Vote on Douglas Dismissal Tuesday

This Tuesday the full Faculty will vote on a motion to dismiss D. Drew Douglas, Class of 2000, from the College for sexually assaulting a female undergraduate.

But while dismissal would require Douglas to leave Harvard indefinitely, five members of the Faculty Council have proposed that the former Mather House resident be allowed to withdraw, according to Mallinckrodt Professor of Applied Physics William Paul.

If the motion is approved, Douglas could return to campus in five years if he meets certain conditions set by the Administrative Board. If he were to be dismissed, Douglas would have to petition the full Faculty to re-apply for admission.

Douglas pled guilty on Sept. 24, 1998, in Middlesex Superior Court to a charge of indecent assault and battery stemming from an April 4 incident. The woman assaulted by Douglas originally brought the case to the Ad Board, which later determined a rape had occurred.

The Ad Board voted to demand that Douglas withdraw and to recommend dismissal, which requires a vote of the entire Faculty.

Douglas' case is the second time in the last year that the Ad Board has found that a rape occurred on campus. In February 1998, Joshua M. Elster, also Class of 2000, raped a female undergraduate. Last September, he pled guilty to three counts of rape, two counts of assault and battery and one count of indecent assault in Middlesex Superior Court.

The former Kirkland House resident is currently serving three years probation but no jail time.

The Ad Board has demanded that Elster withdraw from the College and recommended his dismissal, but the Faculty has yet to vote on his case.

"While readmission[after being required to withdraw] is not automatic and there are various conditions that must be met, a student who is required to withdraw is expected to return when those conditions have been met," wrote Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 in an e-mail message.

Dismissal means separation from the College for usually more than five years with the option to petition for readmission--a move that requires a vote of the full Faculty.

As a result of his court conviction, Douglas is on probation for five years and is already prohibited from seeking readmission to Harvard during this time.

"I am, obviously, disgusted that this motion has even been proposed," the woman assaulted by Douglas wrote in an e-mail message. "This counter-motion would essentially give a convicted sex offender a slap on the wrist and nothing more serious than withdrawal on his record."

The five professors who have proposed that Douglas be asked to withdraw are Paul, Professor of Psychology Daniel T. Gilbert, Associate Professor of Government Louise M. Richardson, Associate Professor of Computer Science Margo I. Seltzer'83 and Professor of Greek and Latin Richard F.Thomas.

"It is unclear exactly what the reasoning behind their proposal is, but I do know that it is not merely procedural," the woman assaulted by Douglas wrote. "It is possible, and seems likely, that they do not consider his crime worthy of dismissal. Under consideration is not whether he raped me (the Ad Board has already ruled that he did, in fact, rape me) but only what the punishment should be."

Gilbert and Seltzer refused to comment on the reasons behind their proposal. Richardson and Thomas could not be reached for comment.

The motion for Douglas' dismissal was first introduced in a closed portion of an Oct. 20 Faculty meeting but did not reach a vote, Paul said.

"Lots of issues were brought up. None were resolved. The conversation flew in all directions," Paul said. "People have [now] had more time to go out and think about it."

Paul said some Faculty members have raised concerns about the disciplinary proceedings surrounding the case.

"Some Faculty are asking whether...the rights of the accused might have been violated by the Harvard process, the process of consideration by the Ad Board," Paul said. "The rights of the accused may have been violated because he didn't have access to counsel at an appropriate time."

Paul said some members of the Faculty were especially concerned that Douglas may have made incriminating comments before the Ad Board, since the College does not allow students to bring attorneys with them when they appear before the 25-person committee.

Legal experts interviewed this week said the Ad Board's refusal to allow lawyers in its proceedings is extremely rare among universities of its caliber.

The Faculty members who have questioned whether Douglas' rights have been violated believe the lack of counsel could have affected the outcome of Douglas's criminal case, Paul said.

"This is the first time that I know of that a serious rape case has come before the Faculty," Paul added. "[This may be] the first time that we have to face up to the fact that our procedures in place may not be appropriate."

Paul said the community may need to look at changing the current processes and rules.

"We need to have some more discussion in the community generally so this sort of problem doesn't come up," he said. "It has been an absolutely unenjoyable experience that we don't want to repeat."

He said the Faculty would not necessarily seek to determine whether the rape occurred but simply to exact punishment.

"The Ad Board has a responsibility of establishing facts," he said. "The Faculty has a responsibility of voting punishments...when the recommended punishment is dismissal or expulsion."

Douglas is currently under house arrest for 18 months.

"It seems to me that Drew Douglas's life has already been sufficiently destroyed by this process to make additional sanctions superfluous," said James L. Sultan, Douglas' attorney.