As the sole and nearly-omnipotent disciplinary mechanism of Harvard College, the Administrative Board has, for the most part, succeeded in avoiding any kind of in-depth public scrutiny. Criticisms that the Ad Board should adopt court-like procedures have been deftly deflected by administrators who insist the board is an educational, rather than legal, institution. And, as ethics of privacy prevent public access to specific cases, it is difficult to gauge empirically whether these procedures are truly fair.

Recent signs, however, seem to indicate that the Ad Board, in its present state, is not adequately equipped to handle particular matters, especially when it is forced to step out of its proclaimed "educational" role and engage in substantive fact-finding. A case last spring involving sexual assault is one such instance; the women who brought forth the charge wrote, after the proceedings, that "the [Ad Board] system doesn't work. It is flawed. It is archaic and it is not made to deal with cases of sexual assault."

As it stands, the Ad Board handles all kinds of disciplinary cases, both those that directly relate to a student's academic work at the College and those that fall generally under the rubric of "conduct unbecoming a Harvard student." The latter category can include offenses of a criminal nature. For all cases, it would be ideal if students could select outside representation instead of having their options limited to representation by College officials. Further, the perceived fairness and accountability of the Ad Board could be greatly improved if students sat as members and if the records of the proceedings were made public (with names with-held). But though these changes would go a long way toward improving the College's disciplinary system, the most important changes must come in the way the Ad Board handles serious cases of a criminal nature.

Conceding its own limitations, the Ad Board relies on the reports of disciplinary subcommittees in complicated cases. But whereas the Ad Board can conceivably distinguish itself from a court of law if it does not engage in fact-finding, a disciplinary subcommittee cannot. Subcommittees, like courts of law, interview the accused and accuser, examine witnesses and summarize their findings in a written report. No matter how hard the administration attempts to avoid using the language of the law, it is ultimately a semantic distortion to refer to such investigative disciplinary subcommittees--implicitly extensions of the Ad Board--as "educational" bodies.

Even more troubling is that these disciplinary subcommittees are clearly ill-equipped to deal with serious disciplinary matters, especially criminal offenses such as rape and sexual assault. While a court of law has the resources to gather evidence, a subcommittee does not. While a court of law affords the opportunity for both parties to cross-examine witnesses, a subcommittee does not. While a court of law allows independent attorney representation, a subcommittee does not. And finally, while a court of law brings facts in direct contact to those passing judgment, a subcommittee, at best, acts as an unpredictable filter and, at worst, a cracked lens.

In this light, the Ad Board must do two things. First, in serious matters where a student's conduct might constitute a serious criminal offense--i.e., rape and physical or sexual assault--the Board must defer its fact-finding role to the courts. It is based on these findings, and not on those of a subcommittee, that the board should subsequently fulfill its educational and disciplinary mission.

Secondly, for non-criminal but equally complicated matters, the Ad Board must reform its current subcommittee system to reflect the safeguards afforded by the legal process just as it now reflects the legal system's fact-finding process. Such a body need not necessarily mirror a court, but at the very least, students should be allowed independent representation. Theoretically, the subcommittee should embody principles that make fairness, not education, its top priority. In such a revised system, we would hope that the Ad Board could truly fulfill its goal of being an educational body while at the same time affording students a clearer and more balanced disciplinary process.