Rejecting Assault

On Tuesday, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) of the United States Department of Education upheld Harvard’s policy of requiring “supporting evidence” before the Ad Board hears a sexual assault case. The federal agency’s ruling found the procedure to be consistent with the gender-equity provisions of Title IX despite the challenge filed by an anonymous Harvard undergraduate. The student argued that Harvard’s policy—which as of last spring was worded to require the claimant to provide “sufficient independent corroboration”—discriminated against women, denying prompt and equitable recourse to students who experienced sexual assault.

As Harvard tried to defend its practices before the OCR, it continued to backpedal when defining its standard. What was initially called “sufficient independent corroboration” became only “corroborating evidence” and then “supporting information.” In doing so, the University quietly reversed much of the damage that would have been done by the original standard. Though the policy, as now worded, is not illegal, it still fails to address the needs of Harvard’s sexual assault victims. The corroboration standard attempted to cope with the inadequacy of the Ad Board in hearing sexual assault cases by simply making it harder to bring such cases—cutting down, the University claimed, on the emotional agony of pursuing a case. While the policy no longer makes bringing a case more difficult, it by no means addresses the inadequacy of the Ad Board and surrounding disciplinary requirements. The present bureaucracy and insensitivity of the process are themselves compounding the emotional agony of sexual assault at Harvard.

Last spring, Harvard established the “Committee to Address Sexual Assault at Harvard,” commonly known as the Leaning Committee after its chair, Assistant Professor of Medicine Jennifer Leaning. The committee will release its recommendations later this month, and we hope these recommendations will be helpful in preventing sexual assault at Harvard, through education, treatment and other services, and ensure that survivors of assault recover in a welcoming and supportive University community.

In addition to prevention and treatment, Harvard needs to rethink how it disciplines sexual violence. The Ad Board remains insufficient: the administrators who sit on the board are untrained in dealing with sexual assault cases, making it difficult for them to conduct adequate investigations or recognize subtle symptoms and evidence. Sexual assault cases merit care, knowledge and sensitivity; Harvard needs a body other than the ill-equipped Ad Board to provide these three. A separate board, with expertise and training, would be better able to do justice to cases of sexual violence.

For Harvard to deny its students adequate support, should they become victims of sexual violence, is unacceptable. Sexual violence can poison the college experience for a student; its mishandling by the University can intensify the pain. Though Harvard’s policy has met the requirements of the OCR, the University has not yet met the needs of its students.