Changes in Sexual Assault Policy ‘Hurried Through’

After student outcry and national media attention following a Faculty vote to change the Administrative Board’s method of handling sexual assault cases, next Tuesday’s Faculty Meeting will again address the issue.

The item has been added to next week’s agenda after a number of professors have expressed displeasure with the way in which the change was presented to the Faculty.

Katharine Park, professor of the history of science and chair of the Committee on Women’s Studies, filed the motion Monday morning to again discuss the policy.

At its May 7 meeting, the Faculty unanimously and without debate voted to require corroborating evidence before the Ad Board investigates peer-to-peer disputes—including sexual assaults.

Park said she did not attend the May 7 Faculty Meeting because she did not know the Faculty would be voting to change the investigation of sexual assaults.

Park suggested the need to provide more support for students who have been sexually assaulted, especially now that their case may not be heard by the Ad Board.

“Many Faculty I’ve talked to think that it would be good for some task force or Faculty committee to look over the entire issue to see whether the education or support structures are the best for our students, especially in relation to sexual misconduct,” Park said.

Professor of Romance Languages and Literature Bradley S. Epps, who attended the May 7 meeting, said he thought the Ad Board procedural change was not clearly explained at the Faculty meeting.

“The motion was approved in a manner that was for me totally unexpected and that was couched in language that was far from clear,” Epps said. “When the vote was happening I remained silent—I didn’t say ‘yay’ and I didn’t say ‘nay.’”

“I remember saying to a colleague ‘What just happened?’” Epps added.

Epps said because the motion was “hurried through the Faculty” he did not feel he had a chance to speak up.

Jay M. Harris, Wolfson professor of Jewish Studies and a member of the Faculty Council, however said he thinks Faculty did have an opportunity to question the proposal.

“If a Faculty member feels [a motion] hasn’t been explained, it’s his or her obligation to stand up and say ‘I don’t understand this,’” Harris said.

Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis ’68, who presented the change in Ad Board procedure at the May 7 meeting as part of a routine motion for the Faculty to approve next year’s Handbook for Students, said that he presented the changes to the handbook in the same manner that he has in the past few years.

But Epps noted the motion on the Ad Board was not presented as thoroughly as a motion on study abroad that was made at the same meeting.

“Unlike the motion regarding study abroad, this was not explicitly detailed to the Faculty before,” Epps said. “As a result, we did not know it was going to be on the docket.”

Epps said he supports Park’s move to reexamine the sexual assault issue.

“The members of the Ad Board do not have sufficient legal or medical expertise, but that does not mean that disengagement is the only course of action,” Epps said. “The ‘he-said-she-said’ phrase that was bandied about may come back to being ‘he-said’...The burden of proof is once again placed on women.”

Harris said while he does not think the change is a perfect solution, he thinks it is “honest.”

“It’s become clear we can’t deal with cases with no corroborating evidence,” Harris said. “It’s silly to pretend we can.”

Harris said he is not opposed to more discussion on the sexual assault policy as long as the Faculty have educated themselves on the issue before the meeting.

“I hope that people who are coming have read the Ellison report, which I doubt they have, and if somebody has something to suggest to really make this a better procedure for students that would be great,” Harris said. “I’d hate to reinvent the wheel and end up with the same result, but [it is worth discussing] as long as people have something new to say.”

A committee chaired by Professor of Anthropology Peter T. Ellison began investigating how the Ad Board could better handle peer-to-peer cases last spring after the Ad Board had trouble in investigating a number of sexual assault allegations.

They submitted a report in January proposing that the Ad Board not investigate cases without corroborating evidence, although this report was not given to professors before last week’s vote.

Lecturer on Literature Heather K. Love ’91, who supports Park and Epps’ efforts, said she thinks it will be “problematic” if the Ad Board change is allowed to stand without further reform.

“I’m hoping the Faculty uses the opportunity at the next meeting to really take the time to talk about how sexual assault is handled at Harvard,” Love said.

Love, Epps and Park will meet today with other concerned professors to prepare for the discussion at next week’s Faculty meeting.

Love said they may walk over to the rally Coalition Against Sexual Violence (CASV) is staging in front of University Hall today at noon to increase awareness about the Ad Board change.

CASV sent an e-mail to students on Friday asking them to urge their professors to try to overturn the decision on Ad Board procedure.

Park said she is not sure whether she will try to overturn the decision at next week’s meeting.

Since no Faculty member asked for a motion overturning the decision to be considered at next week’s meeting prior to noon on Monday, a four-fifths would be required to reverse the prior vote.

—Staff writer Anne K. Kofol can be reached at kofol@fas.harvard.edu.