Title IX Suit Supports Legitimate Grievances

To the editors:

The Crimson is right that Harvard’s new corroboration rule is a huge step backward (Editorial, “Equal Under Law,” Sept. 20). This absurd policy mimics se xist corroboration laws that were in place until the 1970s when the women’s movement successfully fought for reform. The Crimson is also correct when it characterizes Harvard’s new policy as evidence the College is turning a blind eye to the serious problem of sexual violence on campus—a problem that disproportionately affects women students.

As The Crimson’s editorial points out, Harvard’s failure to provide necessary training for members of the Ad Board directly contributes to their inability to resolve sexual assault cases. The solution is not to abdicate responsibility, but to provide mandatory education for all Ad Board members. Alternatively, as The Crimson notes, Harvard could establish a separate board of specially trained individuals to hear these cases and determine the credibility of the individuals involved. Rather than depriving the accused of their rights, this would show the College’s dedication to fairness and equality for all students. Efforts to force Harvard to adopt rules akin to those applied in the criminal justice system must fail. Harvard is not the government; the Ad Board is not sending anyone to jail; and the Bill of Rights is not at stake.

Where The Crimson went astray, however, was in its assertion that the Title IX claim now pending before the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is “questionable.” As defined by OCR, Title IX forbids sexual harassment in education—and characterizes the most severe form as sexual assault. To say that sexual assault is not sexual harassment is to believe that the use of words to harass and intimidate women on campus violates civil rights laws, but the use of physical or sexual violence to bring about the same result does not.

Likewise, we disagree with The Crimson’s suggestion that the Title IX claim is an ineffective method of seeking change. The Coalition Against Sexual Violence (CASV) has worked in good faith with Harvard to improve its response to the problem of sexual assault since 1998. And in the few months since the OCR claim was filed, there have been several changes that might not have happened if students had not reached out to the Department of Education for intervention. Just last week, Harvard announced a new administrative position—Coordinator of Sexual Assault Prevention Services. We are optimistic that this new hire will make substantive gains and we look forward to continued improvement as OCR continues its investigation.

Alisha C. Johnson ’04

Alexandra Neuhaus-Follini ’04-’05

Wendy J. Murphy

Sept. 20, 2002

Wendy J. Murphy is a visting scholar at Harvard Law School. The writers represent the views of the CASV.