Administrators are closing in on the final stages of drafting a new sexual assault policy that may mean significant procedural changes in the way the College handles date rape cases.

Last semester, debate over definitions of rape and over the administration's review policy flared up following a report by the Date Rape Task Force. Among other issues yet to be settled is the Task Force's recommendation of a student sub-committee that would oversee all peer dispute cases to come before the Administrative Board.

In July, a Congressional act mandated that U.S. colleges and universities develop official policies for handling sexual assault cases.

Janet A. Viggiani, co-chair of the Task Force and assistant dean for co-education in the College, says the Ad Board has begun a series of meetings to discuss what she says is the central issue--a definition of date rape. Any proposals for procedural changes will then go before the Faculty Council by early to mid-fall for approval.

"Currently, two members of the Ad Board are drafting a proposed statement," Viggiani says. "What they're discussing right now is whether assault is a clear articulation of a 'no' or a 'yes.'"

The Task Force, which included students, faculty and administrators, was formed by Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 in fall 1990. In February, the body presented the Ad Board with its definition of rape: sex occurring "without the expressed consent of the person."

Sparked by the Task Force's conclusions, the Undergraduate Council arrived at a definition of its own amidst much debate later in the spring.

While the student government body did not support the Task Force's broad definition of date rape, and recommended instead that an expressed 'no' be the standard, they came up with an entirely new category called "sexual negligence."

The Task Force's extensive report also encouraged the board to establish a student sub-committee to oversee all peer dispute cases.

Jewett says he may recommend such a change to the Faculty Council as a symbolic gesture of trust in the student body.

"The student membership argument is a question of whether they ought to be part of that process rather than whether it would be a better decision," Jewett says.

"And if it were going to happen, it should be for any peer disputes, not just sexual assault," he adds.

Viggiani says that so far the strongest sense she has had of a consensus in board proceedings has been in favor of the Task Force's definition of rape.

"The sense of the members of the board is that the articulation of a 'yes' is what we'd like to see in relations between students," she says.

But Viggiani says the Task Force's recommendations may not in the end be considered the best policy choice.

According to Viggiani, "People felt that it was not a solid foundation for making disciplinary decision--it's hard to use [the 'yes' criterion] as a guide on whether an assault had taken place."

Still, Jewett says the College may continue to set tougher standards of conduct than those required by Massachusetts law.

"We have the right and the responsibility to set certain standards of behavior," he says. "We are not making a legal definition; we're judging the precedents and standards of the University."

And Harvard must arrive at an official policy definition, according to the Higher Education Reauthorization Act passed this summer.

The act requires universities to articulate a set policy for handling sexual assault cases. In addition, the act states that schools must give both the accuser and the accused the right to appear before a disciplinary board.

According to Jewett and Viggiani, the College should have no problem complying with the provisions.

"Most of what they're talking about is already part of University policy," Jewett says.

Viggiani says a group of administrators will meet soon with Harvard's acting general counsel to discuss whether current policy is in accord with the new law.

Though, as Viggiani notes, "the law comes at a time when we were looking into the same issue," the act's requirement of appearances by both the accuser and accused may necessitate additional changes in policy.

Administrators and the board must submit any proposals for procedural changes to the Faculty Council this semester.

John B. Fox Jr. '59, acting secretary of the Faculty, says the Faculty Council has not yet decided upon a schedule for considering the numerous fall semester proposals it expects.

The council may either accept Jewett's proposals or choose to debate the matter further, Fox says.