Two years ago comments by top College administrators on the victim's responsibility in date rape set the campus ablaze.

"When people are drunk, they may not remember whether they said yes or not," said Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57. "The person that's drunk is not always clear, is not articulate, and that's why you get these cases."

"I think women often find it difficult to say a forceful no," said Assistant Dean for Undergraduate Education Jeffrey Wolcowitz. "I have a sense that in many of these cases the woman thinks she has said no, but it may have been in subtle ways--ways that may have cause confusion."

Women's rights advocates reacted immediately--and angrily expressed their outrage. Two women postered the campus questioning the College's handling of date rape, and more directly, calling upon students to "Attack Jewett." Subsequently, a candle-light vigil and a sit-in at University Hall compelled Jewett to set up the Date Rape Task Force to examine the College's policy on the issue.

Last week, Jewett announced the College's plans to define date rape as sexual intercourse which occurs "against the will of the victim." The new definition espouses the negative criterion--an expressed no--which Jewett has advocated all along.

In an interview last week, Jewett did not back away from his comments in 1990. He says he was unfairly criticized at the time, and maintains that experience show his comments were on the mark.

"We've not had any cases that have come to the Ad Board that at least one of the parties had not been involved with alcohol," says Jewett. "Violence of any kind is usually accompanied by alcohol."

The decision may end three years of debate--which goes out not with a bang, but with a whimper--on how to define the issue, but it is unlikely that date rape and the controversy of how to discipline offenders will disappear.

The administration has quietly marshalled the volatile issue into committees and reports to contain a debate which once roiled the campus in fierce and angry discord. Three years of reports and responses, legal squabbles and statistics have led to tangible changes in the workings of the College's Administrative Board, which hears date rape cases. But these changes have come less from the politics of the campus and more from the inner machinery and introspection within the College administration.

To a great extent, the bureaucratization of the date rape question has also defanged the grass-roots campus debate and exhausted its momentum.

Most of the campus activists who railed against Jewett's alleged insensitivity have graduated. Most of students who served on the Date Rape Task Force, which was formed after the 1990 controversy, are also gone. Even Assistant Dean of Co-Education, the chief architect of the

We've not had any cases that have come to the Ad Board that at least one of the parties had not been involved with alcohol.  Dean L. Fred Jewett '57

In 1990, comments by Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 and another College administrator sparked off angry protests from women's rights advocates, including posters which blared 'Attack Jewett.' Two years later, the campus is largely silent on the issue as a steady stream of proposals and counter-proposals have trickled out. The Date Rape Task Force defines date rape as intercourse without 'expressed consent.' The Undergraduate Council defines it as intercourse 'despite expressed unwillingness.' Jewett has proposed a compromise definition. Resolution of this volatile issue may be in sight, which begs the question, Task Force's definition which Jewett and the Ad Board scuttled in November, left for law school last week.

Despite a recent Crimson poll that shows that students are almost evenly split between the council and Task Force definition, few voices of protest have been raised. The advocates of women's rights who succeeded the protesters of the 1990 controversy over date rape seem to play only an unsubstantial role in the current incarnation of the debate.

RUS Co-Chair Maura Swan '94 says she is not familiar with the intricacies of the College's reevaluation of its date rape policy. In the last year, RUS has have offered only a written statement endorsing the Task Force definition.

In the cycle of campus politics which seems to turn over every two years, Jewett alone remains the constant figure. And this constancy concentrates his influence. Students, on the other hand, lack the insight of institutional memory and perspective.

Setting the Standard

The definition which formed the focal point of the debate roughly parrots Massachusetts state law. The broad Task Force definition which raised eyebrows in suggesting Harvard students should be held to a higher standard than the law was branded by Jewett as "either impractical or inappropriate as a disciplinary standard."

The compromise definition favors the Undergraduate Council interpretation, because it requires an expression of the victim's will. The burden for this expression lies with the victim.

The Undergraduate Council definition, sponsored by then-Vice Chair Malcolm A. Heinicke '93 and approved last May, proposed a definition of rape as sex "that occurs despite the expressed unwillingness of the victim." The Civil Liberties Union of Harvard (CLUH), which has been involved in Jewett's efforts to demystify the Ad Board, supported the council definition.

The Task Force report released in February 1992 originally presented a broad definition of date rape as sex occurring "without the expressed consent of the victim." The Radcliffe Union of Students and The Crimson endorsed the definition.

The Task Force was initially charged to suggest date rape procedures required by federal law as well as education and counseling measures at the College. It also proposed "peer dispute subcommittees" that include students to hear disciplinary cases involving date rape. The report also called for a wide-ranging campaign to educate the campus community about the problem of date rape.

While its education and counseling recommendations were readily accepted by the College administration and students alike, the Task Force's definition of date rape and the suggested student participation in disciplinary cases--both rejected by the Ad Board--have drawn the most publicity.

The purpose of formulating a coherent definition of date rape, Jewett says, has been to give special recognition to the issue of date rape--and to adhere to federal law.

In the past, sexual assault has been treated under the broader category of violent crimes, says newly appointed Assistant Dean for Co-Education Virginia L. MacKay-Smith '78, who succeeded Viggiani last month. "Unfortunately in the past we dealt with date rape like other issues of physical violence," she said.

Policy-Making or Appeasement?

Beneath the debate over definitions and procedures lie a number of questions about how the College administration and Jewett in particular have gone about cobbling together a new policy to handle date rape cases.

First of all, why was the Date Rape Task Force created? And why was the composition of its student membership drawn largely from RUS?

Jewett created the Task Force under pressure from angry women's rights advocates who charged him with insensitivity, sparked fiery criticism from the Cambridge City Council and carried out an angry monologue against him in the campus media.

Jewett said last week that the main significance of the Task Force was to convey student attitudes to the administration, but at the same time conceded that the Task Force was not representative of the entire campus.

The question arises then: Why was a representative body not set up from the Harvard community?

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.

Evolving Date Rape Policy

From 1990 to 1993, Harvard's stance on the prosecution of date rape has remained under close scrutiny.

October 26, 1990

The Crimson prints a news feature which questioned the efficacy of how the Ad Board handles date rape cases. In the article, two College administrators make controversial comments about the difficulties of executing disciplinary action in such cases.

When people are drunk, they may not remember whether they said yes or not. The person that's drunk is not always clear, is not articulate, and that's why you get these cases," said Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57.

"I think the women often find it diffucult to say a forceful no. I have a sense that in many of these cases the women thinks she has said no, but it may have been in subtle ways- ways that may have caused confusion," said Assistant Dean for Undergraduate Education Jeffrey Wolcowitz.

In response to the comments by Jewett and Wolcowitz, two students poster the campus with a flyer titled "Attack Jewett" that asked students to voice their concerns directly to Jewett. Another poster with Wolcowitz's picture, asks: "Is date rape the woman's fault? The University seems to think so."

October 29, 1990

Seventy-five students stage a candle-light vigil calling for the two deans to retract their comments and for a faculty review of the Ad Board. Four days later, 45 students line the corridors of University Hall to pressure Jewett to retract his comments. Jewett announces plans to clarify his original comments.

November 8, 1990

Jewett proposes the Date Rape Task Force, saying he is willing to make significant changes in both Ad Board procedures and in the way the College communicates the problem of date rape to students. Later in the month, Emily Tucker '93 was elected the Task Force's co-chair in addition to then-Assistant Dean of Co-Education Janet A. Viggiani. A month later, Tucker, Viggiani and Jewett approve a 17-member Task Force.

February 10, 1992

The Date Rape Task Force issues its long-awaited report, proposing a broad definition of date rape as "sexual intercourse without expressed consent as well as "peer disputes subcommittees" which include students to hear disciplinary cases involving date rape. The report also calls for a wide-ranging campaign to educate the campus community about the problem of date rape.

May 6, 1992

The Undergraduate Council, spearheaded by then-Vice Chair Malcolm A. Heinicke '93, disagrees with the recommendations of the task force, issuing its own definition of date rape as "sexual intercousre that occurs despite the expressed unwillingness of the victim." The council also creates a special category of "sexual regligenca," that is "any act of sexual intercourse which occurs without the mutual consent of the parties involved." The council also opposes direct student involvement in disciplinary cases involving date rape. The Civil Liberties Union of Harvard (CLUH) later endorses the council's definition in a position paper.

November 16, 1992

The Ad Board rejects the Task Force's definition of date rape and peer dispute subcommittees, in a memo, Jewett called the definition "either impractical or inappropriate as a disciplinary standard." He also says the Ad Board favored a definition which "requires students to respect a partner's 'no.'"

November 18, 1992

The Faculty Council hears testimony from Undergraduate Council and Task Force representatives and appears to support the council's position on the definition. The Faculty Council, however, does not vote on the issue.

February 23, 1993

Jewett presents a new compromise date rape definition, the result of collaboration among Viggiani, her successor Viggiani L. Mackay-Smith '78 and Heinicke, which is "sexual intercourse against the will of the victim." The new definition favors the council's definition and reflects Jewett's desire for a negative criterion for the definition.CrimsonNancy E. Greene