Eighteen months in the making and a year in the revealing, the much-anticipated report of the Committee to Review the Administrative board is finally in the open. The report, released by Dean of the College Evelynn M. Hammonds on Mar. 10, consists of three parts: The first covers changes that have already been implemented by Dean Hammonds at her discretion, the second contains recommendations for changes to faculty rules that will require a vote of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for implementation, and the third presents a set of issues for further “discussion and consideration.”

It is the third section, which provides recommendations for incorporating more student participation in the Ad Board process and increasing the role of the Resident Deans, that represents the most important and exciting change to the Ad Board system. Increasing student input would be a fundamentally positive development in reforming Harvard’s disciplinary process.

This is not to ignore the substantial and positive changes that Dean Hammonds has already taken steps to put in place. The College has done a good job of trying to make the Ad Board process more transparent and increasing support for students that appear before the board.

In particular, the change that requires the Secretary of the Ad Board to deliver disciplinary decisions to students instead of their resident deans addresses the difficult and awkward situation of having students’ resident deans act as both their advocates and judges. Under the new rules, personal advisors to students undergoing Ad Board review are also allowed expanded capacity to guide their advisees through  Ad Board procedures. In the interest of reducing student anxiety during personal appearances before the Ad Board, such appearances will now take place in front of a much smaller sub-committee of typically six or fewer members (as opposed to the entire Ad Board).

These changes are admirable efforts to make an inevitably uncomfortable situation somewhat less intimidating for students and to give students a better chance to adequately defend themselves and feel some sense of agency.

The proposed changes in the second section of the Ad Board report look promising as well. Providing disciplinary options besides two-term withdrawal in cases of academic dishonesty and introducing an official avenue of action that allows professors to deal with certain cases in-house (something many faculty members have apparently already been doing unofficially) will bring greater uniformity to the disciplinary process. Modification to the language in the Handbook for Students will bring transparency to the Ad Board and make students more knowledgeable about its procedures.

Given the sensible and encouraging reforms offered by the Ad Board report, it is a shame that it took so long for the report to be released. We hope that the College will go so far as to institute some form of student participation in the Ad Board process. While it is true that change is better late than never, we might point out that sooner, rather than later, is ideal.