In September, Dean of the College Rakesh Khurana announced the formation of a committee of students, faculty, and administrators to study the implementation of Harvard College’s controversial sanctions on single-gender social organizations in a letter to undergraduates. In particular, the group was charged with determining the scope of the sanctions, recommending compliance measures for student organizations, and developing a disciplinary process. Last week, one of the committee co-chairs and College administrators hosted the first town hall to solicit student feedback on the issue.

As we opined last month, we commend the administration for engaging undergraduates in the process of implementing its sanctions. Lamentably, the town hall raised more questions than it answered.

In last month’s editorial, we criticized the vagueness of Dean Khurana’s letter for suggesting that aspects of the policy remained in flux. The town hall did nothing to quell that suspicion. Asked point blank whether final club members could qualify for a Rhodes scholarship, administrators could have responded with a definite “no,” as indeed the policy clearly dictates. Instead, Professor Kay K. Shelemay, one of the committee’s co-chairs, prevaricated: “I hesitate to speak for Dean Khurana, and I did not design the policy.”

This renewed uncertainty over the implementation committee’s true objectives muddles the role of students in the committee on sanctions. If the body intends to indeed focus solely on the implementation, it is encouraging that the administration has chosen to incorporate student feedback. Undergraduates are uniquely familiar with how campus organizations operate, choose their leaders, and interface with the University. As a result, they can best advise College administrators as they seek to develop the specifics of the new rules.

By contrast, if this committee is a backdoor attempt to redesign the original policy, its structure makes less sense. Of course, student input and argument must factor into this process, but ultimately, administrators must arrive at a final decision before tackling the logistics. They have training, education, institutional perspective, understanding of the possible, and long-term commitment to Harvard. It is precisely their job to outline a vision for the College, even if we do not always fully agree with it.

Fundamentally, more clarity is needed. If the policy itself is up for debate, administrators should simply admit so. The issue can then be debated fully and openly: over the past semester, it has become clear that there are both strong proponents and opponents of the sanctions. Following a broader campus conversation—one incorporating Harvard's more than 6,000 undergraduates, and not just 15—the College could then reassess the wisdom of its initial decision.

If, on the other hand, opponents of the measure are simply waging a futile rearguard action, the administration should communicate that as well so that dialogue can focus on the relevant details that are still to be decided. It has been frustrating to see a lack of transparent communication. The exact nuances of the policy are sorely needed, but a cogent stance on the sanctions is a prerequisite to the pragmatics. We hope Dean Khurana and other administrators share this view.