{shortcode-f580d3700c88ef3bc02969925a0de8be8d6e0487}

The Harvard College Administrative Board has had a rough few months. After a series of controversial decisions, reversals, and re-reversals concerning student protestors involved in the encampment last spring, it’s clear that Harvard’s disciplinary process is in dire need of reform.

The solution? Give students a seat at the table.

The saga began back in May, when the Ad Board suspended five student protestors and placed more than 20 others on probation for their participation in the Harvard Yard encampment. The decision, which peremptorily prevented 13 seniors from graduating, immediately drew widespread criticism.

What followed was a dizzying display of institutional infighting and whiplash. First, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences officially overruled the Ad Board, voting to confer degrees on the 13 censured seniors and declaring that the FAS “is the ultimate disciplinary body” for the College. Next, the Harvard Corporation, the University’s highest governing body, stepped in on the side of the Ad Board, undercutting the authority of the FAS and reinstating the decision to prevent the 13 seniors from graduating. Ultimately, though, the Ad Board walked back its decision anyway, reversing the five suspensions and releasing diplomas to 11 of the 13 seniors.

Whew.

Clearly, something in that process went very wrong. Regardless of where you stand on the encampment itself, or even on the appropriate disciplinary response from the University, one thing is certain: No one benefits from a civil war between the Ad Board and the FAS. Internal conflict at this scale undermines the University’s ability to make sound decisions.

More broadly, the purpose of the Ad Board is to fairly enforce the rules in a way that fosters trust and maintains the well-being of the entire community. The fact that the FAS — the largest division at Harvard and the very people responsible for the intellectual development of its undergraduates — overwhelmingly overruled the Ad Board indicates that the Board has failed its mission and does not accurately represent the wishes of the students or faculty at Harvard. The Ad Board has lost touch with the community.

Part of the problem came from the fact that, for three years, only a single tenured faculty member, College Dean Rakesh Khurana, sat on the Ad Board. The rest consisted of resident deans, administrators, and non-ladder faculty.

This year, two additional faculty have joined the Ad Board, reasserting the FAS’s vested interest in disciplinary matters in an effort to restore the body’s legitimacy. But that doesn’t go far enough.

If the Ad Board truly wants to make decisions in the best interest of the Harvard community, it needs to turn to those who understand student affairs the best — namely, students themselves. The principle is simple: those closest to the issues should have a voice in their resolution. We trust juries of our peers in our legal system; why not in university disciplinary proceedings?

It isn’t a new idea to have students serve on governing bodies. Indeed, in July, Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 referred in an announcement to a historical body known as the University Committee on Rights and Responsibilities, which was designed to coordinate fact-finding for disciplinary cases and included “faculty and students designated by each school.”

Although the UCRR only involved students for fact-finding, there’s no reason that students, some of Harvard’s key community stakeholders, should not also be involved in the actual decision making process.

At several other schools, including Colgate University, students serve on their disciplinary boards. Even Harvard’s own Honor Council — which adjudicates academic integrity cases — contains students.

These examples demonstrate that students are trustworthy, capable, and discreet enough to make critical decisions about their peers without leaking classified information. Honor Council decisions are no less consequential than those issued by the Ad Board. So why not let students weigh in on Ad Board proceedings too?

It would be naive to imagine that all of the Ad Board’s problems would be resolved merely by adding students — or anybody else, for that matter. The Ad Board is tasked with deciding some of the most personal and contentious issues on our campus while balancing the interests of different University stakeholders, a responsibility that is undoubtedly challenging.

But at the very least, adding students would give a voice to a group otherwise unheard on the Board. Until that happens, the Ad Board will continue to make decisions that are out of touch with the stakeholders it exists to serve.

By embracing student representation, Harvard can create a more just, equitable, and effective disciplinary system — one that truly reflects the values and interests of its entire community.

Matthew R. Tobin ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Winthrop House.