Frustration with Harvard’s efforts to stem the tide of sexual assault is nothing new, but the latest policy, unveiled this past summer, gives students plenty of reasons to be skeptical. Activists have voiced concerns regarding everything from the absence of explicit language enshrining a standard of affirmative consent to a dearth of student involvement, but the real shortcomings are much more systemic than any of these complaints would suggest.

Mia Karvonides, Harvard’s Title IX officer, claimed at a meeting in early September that the “complex” and “nuanced” language of the new sexual assault policy represents one of its great strengths. The fact that a legalistic reading of the policy is required to actually understand its power, however, hints at the bigger issue: not just how students can be expected to interpret the rules, but how violations of the policy will actually be identified by the college.

Under the policy, the newly created Office of Sexual and Gender Based Dispute Resolution, or ODR, will serve as the central investigative body of the university, employing a team of professionals to look into infractions. Various disciplinary boards across the university will then mete out punishment based on the recommendations of the ODR. Little has been said, however, about whether or not the Office of Dispute Resolution is really capable of doing its job.

Three problems immediately come to the fore. First, the necessity of maintaining a full-fledged, full-time investigative body promises to place a significant financial burden on the university. And while Harvard may be able to bear the expense of hiring and training what essentially amounts to a quasi-legal detective agency, whether Harvard’s model will be broadly replicable at less affluent universities is an open question. All students should have equal access to justice, but the quality of in-house investigative bodies would likely vary widely across schools. There are also basic issues of jurisdiction that must be addressed. What if the perpetrator is not affiliated with Harvard—say, a Yale student attending the Harvard-Yale game? Having a double investigative standard for what amounts to a fairly universal crime just doesn’t make sense.

Second, the ODR is not part of the legal establishment. There will be little accountability or transparency, owing to the confidential nature of most investigations. The employees of the ODR will likely not be trained to the same standard as professional police detectives, and they will have no way of independently ushering students who have committed serious crimes into the criminal justice system. Questions of impartiality must also be answered: What happens if the accused is a star athlete? A future Rhodes Scholar? The child of a wealthy benefactor of the university? While our nation’s police forces aren’t necessarily as capable or sensitive as they should be as far as sexual assault is concerned, they are at least independent entities without a stake in the ultimate verdict. Cases of sexual assault cover-ups at other colleges should make us think twice before instituting a system with the potential for serious conflicts of interest.

Finally, while students always have recourse to courts of law, the scope of the ODR’s mission suggests that it is intended to supplant more traditional legal avenues. Sexual assault is a heinous crime, and simply expelling or moving a perpetrator does nothing to protect others from an individual with a demonstrated willingness to commit antisocial acts. Harvard of course has an interest in taking action against students who fail to adhere to its code of conduct, but the university can’t do nearly as much as the legal system when it comes to bringing about justice or protecting survivors and potential victims. It seems highly disingenuous to even suggest that it can.

As a consequence of these flaws, the new sexual assault policy will do little to address what can only be described as a university-wide crisis. It smacks of a meretricious attempt to slap a band-aid on a system that has let down survivors, schools, and society time and again. In an age when roughly a quarter of women and many others experience sexual assault while simply pursuing a college education, a world-class university like ours needs to step up to the plate and admit to the error of its ways. Now is the time for Harvard to live up to its name and lead.

Ian R. Van Wye ’17 is a Crimson editorial writer in Mather House.