Ad Board To Use Outside Investigators

Harvard’s Administrative Board, long criticized for being too secretive and denying defendants due process, has changed how it investigates accusations of rape and assault.

Starting this year, the Ad Board may assign a single “fact-finder” to investigate some disputes between students—including cases of rape and sexual assault—instead of appointing a three-to-four person committee.

The change is designed to speed up the investigative process, said Karen E. Avery ’87, assistant dean of the College for co-education.

“This is a procedural change, not a policy change,” Avery said. “We’ll always be examining the [Ad Board] process so we can improve upon it.”

In an unprecedented move that may bring professional investigators into disciplinary hearings, the fact-finder could be an Ad Board member or an individual from outside of the University with extensive legal experience, Avery said.

In past years, the Ad Board assigned a different subcommittee of three to four of its 30 members to investigate each peer dispute.

The subcommittee was responsible for interviewing the student reporting the complaint, the student charged and any witnesses. The subcommittee then presented its findings to the entire Ad Board, which determined subsequent disciplinary action.

But in the past few years, the Ad Board has struggled to supply subcommittees for each case in a timely manner as the number of overall cases has risen, according to Assistant Dean of the College David B. Fithian.

“Last year we had more cases than in recent years. If one more had come up, we may have had to say ‘We may not be able to get to this right away,’” he said. “It’s not fair for someone to wait, and it makes the case more difficult to investigate.”

The Ad Board decided 157 disciplinary cases last year.

This year, the Ad Board will decide on a “case-by-case basis” whether to appoint a subcommittee or a single fact-finder, Avery said.

In cases using a fact-finder, unlike cases involving a subcommittee, the student accused will have the opportunity to appear and speak in front of the full Ad Board.

Avery said that having the option to replace a subcommittee with one individual will improve and expedite the investigative process because it will require fewer people to coordinate their schedules.

Avery said she expects the length of investigations, which have ranged in the past from six weeks to four months, to decrease with the use of a fact-finder.

Fithian said the fact-finder will bring an increased level of involvement to cases brought by students.

“The fact-finder is not designed solely to streamline the process, but rather to work more quickly and work better,” he said. “A fact-finder can build up an expertise and sensitivity to cases that involve disputes among peers.”

And the changes should not affect the Ad Board’s rulings, Fithian said.

Harvey A. Silverglate, a criminal defense attorney, civil liberties litigator and author of The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses, said he opposes the Ad Board’s procedural change.

“The problem with the Harvard Ad Board is that the board that judges the defendant’s fate does not get to see or hear the witnesses,” he said. “Nobody should vote on somebody’s fate if they haven’t heard the witnesses. For [the Ad Board] to reduce the number of people who do the interviews is going exactly in the wrong direction.”

Many students on campus question whether the Ad Board is qualified to deal with cases of rape and sexual assault at all.

Sarah B. Levit-Shore ’04, a member of the Coalition Against Sexual Violence, said she has mixed feelings about the Ad Board’s procedural changes.

“We’re glad that the Ad Board is looking at a way to change and improve its procedures on sexual assault cases, but it’s questionable whether sexual assault cases ought to be dealt with through the Ad Board,” she said.

Radcliffe Union of Students President Natalia A.J. Truszkowska ‘04 said she worries that a fact-finder can only relate to one gender.

“I think the sex of the fact-finder is a very important issue,” she said. “With a lack of a committee, you can only have one gender represented and the victim may not feel comfortable with that gender.”

Fithian said the Ad Board is in the process of using its first fact-finder, but he would not discuss the specifics of the pending case.

“I am confident that the Board’s ability to decide on these cases in a fair, consistent and well-informed way is going to remain pretty high,” he said. “I don’t want people in these cases to think they are guinea pigs. It’s wrong to think the Board itself has moved in a different direction. This is simply a change in how we gather information and convey it to the Board.”

The new procedures are printed on page 21 of the Ad Board’s Guide for Students, given to all undergraduates at registration.