The inclusion of two undergraduates on the committee pleased student leaders, who said they felt that they often did not have enough input in upper-level decisions.

“This committee had students on it for a change,” Undergraduate Council president Rohit Chopra ’04 said at the May rally. “Things are looking up.”

Throughout the fall, the committee met with students who had been involved in cases brought before the Administrative Board (Ad Board), peer counselors, faculty, national and local experts and held several open meetings around campus as they gathered information for their report.

Meanwhile, the OCR—following up the anonymous complaint filed the past spring—conducted its own concurrent investigation into Harvard’s sexual assault policies.

During the fall, Harvard changed the wording of the evidentiary requirement for peer disputes on the Ad Board’s website from “sufficient independent corroboration” to “supporting information.”

The OCR affirmed the legality of Harvard’s policy on April 1, although CASV members claimed that the OCR only ruled in Harvard’s favor because of the quiet change in the policy’s wording.

Wendy R. Murphy, the attorney for the complainant in the OCR case, said that the changed language widened the scope of those who can initiate disciplinary proceedings to those who share their experience verbally but do not have supporting evidence.

“[The victim] gets all the bells and whistles, which is dramatically different from what [a victim] got a year ago,” Murphy said.

The Big Announcement

The Leaning Committee released its findings on April 17 of this year, and the recommendations contained in the report held potentially far-reaching changes for Harvard’s sexual assault policy.

The report recommended the creation of a new office for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, staffed by a director, an education specialist and a part-time staffer to run educational programs for male students.

The Leaning Committee also advocated the creation of educational programs in the upperclass Houses, and further suggested that one entire night of programming during first-year orientation week be devoted to sexual assault.

The committee also recommended the expansion of the single fact finder’s role in Ad Board cases.

The Leaning Committee proposed that the fact finder, intended to be a neutral investigator, be responsible for gathering evidence in every sexual assault case that comes before the board—essentially ensuring that no case is ignored.

And while disciplinary procedures were not part of the committee’s original mandate, members of the Leaning Committee nonetheless said that they felt disciplinary mechanisms are tied too closely to education and resources. In addition to recommending a single fact finder, the committee recommended that Ad Board members receive more training on handling peer disputes.