Silverglate, a Harvard Law School graduate, says he takes issue with the board’s label as an educational body.

“They don’t get at the problem that this is a disciplinary body that pretends it’s something else,” he says.

Yet members of the Ad Board emphasize the educational nature of the body and say their intention is to have students learn from the proceedings.

Ellison is also quick to point out that the Ad Board does not allocate consequences with the same severity as a court of law.

“Ours is not a criminal process. We’re not going to take away somebody’s civil rights,” he says. “We have a whole different standard: hearsay is fine with us; we take cases that the district attorney would never take; we’re not adjudicating the law.”

Silverglate says he believes many of his clients are innocent, but “getting the board to listen is a next to impossible task.”

Michael Schneider, another lawyer who advises students who go before the Ad Board, says that as “a lawyer, but also as a parent,” he approves of the educational model.

“It often means that their ultimate resolution is not that punitive,” Schneider says. But he says that he is concerned that lawyers cannot be more involved in the Ad Board process.

Unlike the Law School’s disciplinary board, which Schneider says “takes due process quite seriously,” the Ad Board does not allow accused students to have any outside representatives.

“There is a role for lawyers and advocates to play in this process,” he says.

Biology Professor Richard M. Losick agrees that the board does not allow for many of the rights considered fundamental in the American legal system.

“Due process is a casualty of this greater mission of handling things in a educational way,” Losick says.

For example, the current Ad Board process does not allow the accused to be physically present while the accuser is giving testimony. Instead, the accused are given opportunities to respond in written statements and can hear about the information presented from their resident dean.

Though Losick agrees that the presence of the alleged offender would likely intimidate the victim, he points to Yale University’s model, in which the accused is able to listen to the testimony of the accuser through headphones in a separate room.

“It can’t be the case that we lower standards for finding out the truth and due process,” Losick says. “This is a university, of all places. Truth has to come first.”

—Staff writer Melody Y. Hu can be reached at melodyhu@fas.harvard.edu.

—Staff writer Eric P. Newcomer can be reached at newcomer@fas.harvard.edu.