Things can fall apart at Harvard. Perhaps you miss a few exams, do poorly on a paper, or run into other unforeseen problems. The paths to perdition are many, but they all lead to the same place: the infamous Administrative Board of Harvard College (Ad Board).

Thankfully, Dean of the College Benedict H. Gross ’71 recently told The Crimson that he hopes to convene a committee to reevaluate the Ad Board and its practices in the near future. We applaud this effort to look at ways to reform the Ad Board, and we hope that the review committee—which should include students—will take steps to increase student representation and improve transparency.

The Ad Board is an assembly of 30-odd faculty and administrators, which, since 1890, has been charged with the “application and enforcement of undergraduate academic regulations and standards of social conduct.” Although there is also a Student-Faculty Judicial Board, that Board has limited jurisdiction and has only heard one case in 20 years, so the Ad Board’s powers are nearly limitless. The cases the Ad Board hears fall into one of three categories: evaluating petitions for exceptions to standard rules, dealing with academic troubles, and adjudicating instances of student misconduct, and then doling out punishments as it deems necessary.

Petitions, which take up just over 70 percent of the Ad Board’s docket, are fairly straightforward—for instance, someone wants a summer school course to count for credit or to register late. But dealing with academic matters and student discipline often involves putting students on probation or encouraging them to take time off. This is weighty business that has a profound impact on the lives of the students on which the Ad Board passes judgment. And yet, unlike at many peer institutions, the Board does not have any student representatives.

This is problematic because students can often provide a valuable new perspective, because they better understand the strains and stresses acting upon their peers than faculty or administrators. Being judged by one’s peers also adds an air of legitimacy—we need only look to the American judicial system for an example, which has this notion as its cornerstone. Consequently, we believe that students should serve as full voting members of the administrative board. Allowing students to vote may not change the outcome of any instance of Ad Board review, but it would work to dispel the image of the board as a shadowy and removed tribunal.

That being said, the admission of students into the Ad Board’s ranks should be handled with appropriate sensitivity. The committee should seek out mature and capable students, of whom there are no doubt many, ensuring that the board’s procedural secrecy and equity are maintained. Furthermore, students on the Board should be required to recuse themselves from cases involving friends.

The Administrative Board should also take steps to ensure more transparency, particularly in letting students represent themselves in person. Currently, students are only given that option “in cases where formal disciplinary action is possible.” That means that a student under academic review is frequently limited to a written statement. All interactions with the Ad Board are handled by a student’s appointed advocate, generally his or her Resident Dean.

This is an egregious exclusion. As accountable adults, students who may be asked to take a leave of absence for academic reasons should be permitted to answer for their record. Moreover, a student is often his or her best advocate, and should not have to spend a year away from Harvard wondering whether they would still be at school if they could have represented themselves. While allowing students a few minutes for non-petition cases may slow down proceedings a bit, fairness should be a higher priority than the minute efficiency of the tribunal.

No doubt the members of the Ad Board do their best to reach a just conclusion in every case, but they lack, and even refuse, some of the information those decisions require. Dean Gross’s review should be treated as a chance to guarantee that every student is given a fair and fully informed hearing in every instance.