Recent events have brought to light a serious procedural defect in the internal policies of the Administrative Board's handling of disciplinary cases. The Administration has made it clear in the past that the Ad Board is not a judicial arm of the University, but should be considered educational in nature. To foster a sense of community and provide the proper scholarly atmosphere for a University, the Administrative Board has at its disposal an internal system of rules and punishments. As part of the Ad Board's standard policy, the nature and results of disciplinary cases arising based upon these rules are not reported to the University community.

The result of a recent case has shown that the practices of the Ad Board appear inconsistent with its stated purpose and endanger the possibility of just outcomes. Several weeks ago, a student was Ad Boarded for making 'prank' calls and placed on probation, a form of punishment which becomes part of the student's permanent record. The Ad Board used an elastic "improper conduct" clause to justify the disciplinary action.

Although the student's actions were legal according to Massachusetts State Law and not considered 'harassing' by the University, the Ad Board considered some form of discipline appropriate. The Ad Board, according to the Handbook for Students, only reviews those cases "for which there is precedent for interpreting and applying the rules and standards of conduct of the Colleges" (316). Assuming this is true in practice, a precedent existed that dealt with 'prank' calls. Yet, there is no way for a student to know about the precedent, due to the policy of concealing of previous Ad Board cases from the University community.

However, the use of 'probation' does not coincide with the premise that the Ad Board is an educational arm of the University. A permanent mark on the student's record does not help the student learn that his/her behavior was improper, rather he or she is only conditioned against doing the same action again. Also, the rest of the University community remains oblivious to the results and has no way of learning not to participate in the improper actions.

Further, if a student has no way of determining whether his or her actions will be considered 'improper,' and consequently punishable, by the University, it is not appropriate to discipline the behavior with a permanent infraction on the student's record. Since the Ad Board can issue an 'admonishment,' a form of punishment not listed on any permanent record, the use of 'probation' in any case where wrong-doing cannot be known prior to disciplinary action is excessive.

The Civil Liberties Union of Harvard proposes the following revisions of the Administrative Board's policies to correct for the procedural problems shown in this case:

1) The Ad Board publish a list of all unique infractions that merit any sort of disciplinary action. To maintain confidentiality, the names of the individuals involved would be omitted. This effort would make actions by the University, in specific cases, appear less arbitrary. Also, it would further the Ad Board's purpose in educating the University community, by allowing the students access to the rules that govern their lives.

2) In cases where a previous example or set of strict guidelines does not exist that could reasonably justify a decision in a particular case, the Ad Board will be restricted to issuing an 'admonishment.' This proposal would protect students from being disciplined excessively for actions that it was impossible to know were considered wrong. In general, this proposal would only apply to elastic clauses (e.g. 'improper conduct'), since there are guidelines or precedents for most serious infractions of University policy.

In the last several years, the Administrative Board has demonstrated a willingness to revise its policies to protect students' right to procedural justice. These proposals further the purposes of the University and protect the rights of the students. The Civil Liberties Union of Harvard hopes the Administrative Board will seriously consider these proposals as a way to rectify the problems described. --R. Brian Black '97, Co-Director, Civil Liberties Union of Harvard