Jewett says the Task Force was composed of "interested students." While he conceded that they were not a random sample, he denies that the administration tried to divert attention from the issue.

"If that's what happened, that certainly was not the intention from the beginning," he says. "We intended the group to investigate the issues and come up with things to improve it, which I think happened."

An open RUS meeting of 20 students selected the Task Force's student Co-Chair Emily M. Tucker '93. Tucker was one of two students who led the "Attack Jewett" postering campaign. Tucker and Viggiani, the other co-chair of the Task Force, then chose the members of the Task Force.

"You have to wonder a little bit about the way that Task Force was formed," says a source close to the debate, who asked not to be identified. "The Task Force was largely formed through RUS and to say that RUS is representative of all the women on campus is to go very far."

Fifteen of 19 members of the Task Force were women, including five of six students.

The source questions the extent to which the Task Force represented the entire community. "We have to recognize that they were taking a stand on decisive issues," he says. "The question remains how far did they go to get a consensus of the College community?"

Tucker did not return repeated calls over the past two weeks. Viggiani, who left the College two weeks ago, could not be reached to comment on the composition of the Task Force.

Jewett said yesterday the Task Force tried to solicit the opinions of a wide spectrum of students.

"The Task Force talked with a whole variety of students, the end result was not limited," he said.

Three months after the Task Force report was released, the council came out in opposition to the definition and the organization of the peer dispute subcommittees. On November 18, the Ad Board voted by a large majority to reject the Task Force definition and the proposed subcommittees.

"The Undergraduate Council gave Jewett a very easy way out of the debate," according to a source familiar with the debate. "There definitely were several members of the Ad Board for whom the Undergraduate Council definition was a very easy sell. Jewett was definitely one of those members."

Days later, Heinicke of the council and Viggiani of the Task Force testified before the Faculty Council to present the two definitions. The Faculty Council did not vote on the issue, but a number of faculty members expressed a general consensus in favor of the Undergraduate Council definition.

Jewett says criticism of the Task Force's work were unfair. He says the peer dispute subcommittees and the definition, which the Ad Board rejected, were not an essential part of the report.

"They were clearly not the most important parts of the report," he says. "Many of the procedural issues which they raised were accepted."

Now Jewett--more than two years after students angrily denounced his insensitivity--seems to have quietly disposed of a hot issue in the clammy bureaucracy of the College administration. Not only has he successfully pushed the definition he wanted, but he has done so with barely a murmur of resistance. The issue goes out not with a bang but a whimper.