Students Discuss Reform of Ad Board

As part of the start of the Ad Board Review Committee, two of its members, folklore professor Stephen Mitchell and Undergraduate Council President Matthew L. Sundquist ’09, hosted a discussion about the Administrative Board in the Mather House dining hall last night.

The 15 undergraduates who attended the event—the second such meeting—offered many examples of problems with the Ad Board, voicing concerns about issues including transparency, whether the same body should decide both academic and disciplinary cases, the assignation of advocates for students appearing before the Ad Board, and student representation on the board.

Mitchell, a former master of Eliot House who previously served on the Ad Board, said he did not come to defend the body, but he did end up explaining its functions.

He emphasized that uncertainty or confusion about Ad Board proceedings is not limited to the student body, but extends to much of the faculty as well. He added that the role of the review committee is still being developed.

“I don’t want to say we’re aimless, but there is no specific agenda other than to review the procedures of the Ad Board,” he said.

Sundquist, who will serve as the only student representative on the committee, said that last night’s meeting and others like it will help the committee identify areas to research in its review.

“We want to decide what we should look at before we try to make recommendations,” Sundquist said.

A major concern for students was a lack of available information about the Ad Board.

Meeting attendees said that the Ad Board handbook, which is provided to students who have to appear before the body, is unhelpful. They pointed to the dearth of information about the processes that are used to settle cases and the level of punishment for specific offenses.

Some students suggested allowing those appearing before the board to choose an advocate to represent them.

Under the current system, a resident dean is assigned to guide a student through the Ad Board hearing process, but often the dean is the same person who is referring the student to the Ad Board.

Meeting attendees called for student representation on the Ad Board, citing examples of many other colleges, such as the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, that allow students in disciplinary hearings.

“Student representation is definitely a good thing, but I’m not sure if it’s enough,” said Max H. Y. Wong ’10, who has appeared before the Ad Board. Wong added that it would also be necessary to make explanations of decisions public or to hold the Ad Board accountable to another body.

—Staff writer Chelsea L. Shover can be reached at clshover@fas.harvard.edu.
—Staff writer Laura C. McKiernan can be reached at lmckiern@fas.harvard.edu.