{shortcode-54a9a14051deeb2fe1575c310179d07cd7575f76}

At last, it appears the legal fight in the saga involving Anthropology professor John L. Comaroff could come to a close.

In early 2022, three current and former Anthropology graduate students filed a lawsuit accusing Harvard of ignoring and mishandling years of sexual misconduct complaints against professor John L. Comaroff. Now, the highly publicized lawsuit will move to mediation, a process by which parties can reach a resolution out of court through negotiations facilitated by a neutral third party.

Often used in civil disputes, mediation avoids public, dispositive rulings by a judge and offers an outcome that is often faster, cheaper, and more flexible than typical court proceedings. It is also totally confidential, affording parties a measure of privacy not always available in court.

That such a public case may end in such a private manner will seem, to some, striking. Onlookers might speculate that the plaintiffs chose not to go to trial because they have a weak case, or don’t care enough about justice.

That’s almost certainly wrong. Here’s why.

First, consider the benefits of mediation: A trial can be an exhausting and expensive process and may require exposing sensitive personal information in court. Mediation offers plaintiffs an alternative that can avoid these costs. Moreover, it carries little risk — if mediation fails, parties can still resume legal proceedings.

And, in this instance, it seems exceedingly unlikely that plaintiffs moved to mediation for lack of a strong case. This past spring, a federal judge ruled that nine out of the lawsuit’s ten counts are substantive enough to proceed to factual discovery.

Finally, while we believe in the importance of greater transparency when it comes to allegations of sexual harassment against professors, we also hold that our structures must respect the complainants’ right to choose the best path forward for them.

The plaintiffs’ choice to move to mediation is, rightly, a personal one, and we will not speculate as to why they made it. We support their decision.

While we celebrate what looks like progress for the plaintiffs in this case, the larger fight for transparency and justice regarding sexual misconduct on campus continues. Though he is currently on medical leave and remains barred from advising graduate students, Comaroff is far from gone — in fact, he is slated to teach classes again next semester.

Especially while he remains involved in our community, students have a right to know the truth about Comaroff, including whether and to what extent Harvard acted to protect him. Without violating the privacy of the plaintiffs, we deserve firm answers regarding the many deeply troubling allegations made in the suit.

More broadly, we continue to believe that institutions must act proactively to fight the epidemic of sexual misconduct on college campuses. While Harvard has much to do, this imperative also requires that national policymakers work harder to improve and enforce Title IX against universities.

Harvard is nearly out of the courts and Comaroff will soon be back in the classroom, but still our campus waits with bated breath, wondering: How long will it take for Harvard to defend students from the threat inside its gates?

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.