After student outcry and national media attention following a Faculty vote to change the Administrative Board’s method of handling sexual assault cases, next Tuesday’s Faculty Meeting will again address the issue.

The item has been added to next week’s agenda after a number of professors have expressed displeasure with the way in which the change was presented to the Faculty.

Katharine Park, professor of the history of science and chair of the Committee on Women’s Studies, filed the motion Monday morning to again discuss the policy.

At its May 7 meeting, the Faculty unanimously and without debate voted to require corroborating evidence before the Ad Board investigates peer-to-peer disputes—including sexual assaults.

Park said she did not attend the May 7 Faculty Meeting because she did not know the Faculty would be voting to change the investigation of sexual assaults.

Park suggested the need to provide more support for students who have been sexually assaulted, especially now that their case may not be heard by the Ad Board.

“Many Faculty I’ve talked to think that it would be good for some task force or Faculty committee to look over the entire issue to see whether the education or support structures are the best for our students, especially in relation to sexual misconduct,” Park said.

Professor of Romance Languages and Literature Bradley S. Epps, who attended the May 7 meeting, said he thought the Ad Board procedural change was not clearly explained at the Faculty meeting.

“The motion was approved in a manner that was for me totally unexpected and that was couched in language that was far from clear,” Epps said. “When the vote was happening I remained silent—I didn’t say ‘yay’ and I didn’t say ‘nay.’”

“I remember saying to a colleague ‘What just happened?’” Epps added.

Epps said because the motion was “hurried through the Faculty” he did not feel he had a chance to speak up.

Jay M. Harris, Wolfson professor of Jewish Studies and a member of the Faculty Council, however said he thinks Faculty did have an opportunity to question the proposal.

“If a Faculty member feels [a motion] hasn’t been explained, it’s his or her obligation to stand up and say ‘I don’t understand this,’” Harris said.

Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis ’68, who presented the change in Ad Board procedure at the May 7 meeting as part of a routine motion for the Faculty to approve next year’s Handbook for Students, said that he presented the changes to the handbook in the same manner that he has in the past few years.

But Epps noted the motion on the Ad Board was not presented as thoroughly as a motion on study abroad that was made at the same meeting.