Don’t Stall on Ad Board Reform

Last spring it seemed that the College was finally ready to reevaluate the Administrative Board of Harvard College, the archaic body of about 30 administrators that serves as the College’s primary disciplinary arm. This fall, we were told, a committee named by then-Dean of the College Benedict H. Gross ’71would reevaluate the entire system, with a particular eye toward the lack of student representation on the Board. We had hoped that this reevaluation would fix the lack of due process in Harvard’s disciplinary system.

But this summer, Gross abruptly resigned, and with him seems to have gone the prospect of reform this fall.

To be fair, Gross’ interim successor, David R. Pilbeam has not completely dropped the ball on this critically important issue. In an e-mail to The Crimson, Pilbeam wrote that he hoped by the end of the term to appoint three faculty members to prepare a report on reforming the Board for his permanent successor. Yet this is hardly enough; we hope that the reform process will be fast-tracked so that students do not continue to suffer under a broken regime. Waiting for a permanent dean is not a suitable excuse to delay.

The biggest problem with the current system is that students are often not allowed to appear in person before the Board to advocate for themselves. The board hears three types of cases: petitions, academic review, and disciplinary cases. Petitions include fairly standard academic requests like taking time off, registering late, or counting courses not taken at Harvard, and take up most of the Board’s docket. It would be grossly inefficient for students to be present for such routine decisions.

But in disciplinary cases and academic reviews, which can lead to students being asked to leave Harvard for a year or longer, students are often not allowed to speak to the Board. Indeed, they are only allowed to appear “in certain disciplinary cases…under specific guidelines.” While we recognize that entering a private institution causes us to surrender some rights as citizens, the Administrative Board should adhere to the spirit, if not the letter, of due process. Students who are facing possible dismissal from the College should be allowed to appear before the Board to explain their actions and make the best possible case for themselves.

Instead, students are forced to blindly put their faith in their resident dean or assistant dean of freshmen, who serves as their advocate to the Board. Though the advocate abstains from voting on matters regarding students he or she represents, it is certainly a gross conflict of interest to have the student’s sole liaison to a judicial body also be a member of that body.

Another major flaw in the system is the lack of student representation on the Administrative Board. Students representatives would provide a valuable additional perspective that the Board currently lacks as they would be able to contextualize each students’ alleged infractions.

The importance of student representation has been recognized at many other schools that have student representatives on their disciplinary boards and also at Harvard. Indeed, in 1987, the Student-Faculty Judicial Board was created to respond to just these concerns. Unfortunately, its jurisdiction is so limited that it has heard only one case in the twenty years since.

The Administrative Board claims that it is “primarily concerned for the educational and personal growth of undergraduates, both as individuals and as members of an academic community.” In light of the lack of the student representation, transparency, and proper advocacy, however, that pledge rings hollow. The College must reform the Board, and it should do so without delay.