{shortcode-7708f8bcd7a7cc274f1fd9701e0c8accbc6dde91}

In its September edition, an article in the Harvard Salient used rhetoric that closely mirrored a speech by Adolf Hitler.

Even though The Crimson provided College Dean David J. Deming with a copy of the article, he declined to comment on it, choosing not to take this moment to denounce the use of a Nazi phrase in a magazine distributed directly to many dorms on campus. Instead, he said he would not look into the article unless he received a complaint.

We wanted to file one — through the Non-Discrimination and Anti-Bullying complaint procedure — but were shocked by the onerous process for doing so.

If the College is not going to pursue an investigation into the Salient’s vile speech — even when they are aware it occurred — without a complaint being filed, the University needs to substantially revise its procedure for filing those complaints.

At the moment, the Non-Discrimination and Anti-Bullying complaint procedure is a lengthy, multistep process. Based on the University’s public guidance, a student must first contact a College official called their “local designated resource.” The student then must meet with that official and potentially try to find ways to informally resolve the complaint.

If that resolution fails, a student may then file a formal complaint. This complaint cannot be filed anonymously and the complainant has a right to know who filed the complaint.

Getting cold feet yet? At this point you’re just getting started. Filing a formal complaint triggers a process that can last 90 business days. The complaint then has to pass an initial review, then be assigned an investigator, then be investigated, then allow for a written response from the respondent, then a finalized investigative report is compiled, and then a determination panel issues a decision — which can be appealed.

The process isn’t just lengthy — significant portions are also concerningly opaque. The 21 page document describing the Non-Discrimination and Anti-Bullying policy leaves out several key details, like what attempts at informal resolution even look like.

This lack of clarity surrounding the reporting process alone may discourage students from filing complaints. And the absence of the option to file a formal complaint anonymously surely deters students from the process. Revealing the identities of students who raise these concerns runs the risk of exposing them to harassment by the person they’re reporting.

Notably, the anonymity policy also applies to the process for filing a complaint about faculty, researchers, postdoctoral fellows, and staff. Though some anonymous reporting options exist, filing a formal discrimination complaint apparently requires sacrificing anonymity. The idea of publicly filing a complaint against a professor who controls your academic success, or a postdoc with influence over your potential career opportunities, is exceptionally daunting. Power dynamics would almost certainly make a student think twice about taking action, no matter how serious the situation might be, and could risk dissuading students from confronting discriminatory behavior altogether.

One might argue that refusing to allow anonymous formal complaints prevents students from filing spuriously. But Harvard’s meticulous investigative process already provides a significant safeguard against unjust punishment. Even if there are a few more illegitimate cases, it is worth sifting through these, to avoid silencing genuine reports of campus discrimination.

If Dean Deming really wants us to “put it through the process,” then the College needs to provide a process that is easily accessible and safe for all students.

To ensure students understand how to seek help when they encounter discrimination, the College needs to simplify the reporting process, and publicize it among students in a uniform and clear manner. Practically speaking, administrators should include more information about how to find resources to file a complaint and how to navigate the actual reporting process. Beyond providing this guidance, the College should provide the option to file an anonymous formal complaint in order to avoid driving students away from reporting.

These are not reforms that would require a herculean effort on Harvard’s part to execute. Yet they have the potential to make our University’s system for reporting campus discrimination vastly more functional.

Dean Deming put the responsibility on students to report discriminatory speech. But Harvard also has a role to play — offering a system that makes that possible.

Layla L. Hijjawi, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a Social Studies concentrator in Quincy House. Elizabeth R. Place, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a joint concentrator in Slavic Studies and English in Quincy House.