Title IX and University Administration

Harvard Law School announced in January that it would adopt its own procedures for handling sexual assault, thereby departing from the University’s centralized approach. The procedures include a school-specific Title IX unit and legal counsel for involved parties. We believe that this break from the University is troubling because it detracts from Harvard’s efforts to unify its different schools; at the same time, the Law School’s actions reflect the University’s need to improve the process by which it develops central policy, especially by incorporating more voices in that process.

The University’s current endeavor to unite the university’s twelve degree-granting schools—called the One Harvard campaign—has spearheaded a $6.5 billion fundraising campaign. It has also led developments from the consolidation of Harvard’s 70-plus libraries to the coordination of its schools’ calendars. Breaking from this progress by unilaterally announcing unique sexual harassment procedures, instead of pursuing internal change through the administration, is a concerning development. The existence of separate procedures unique to the Law School threatens the consistency of decisions across the University’s graduate and undergraduate schools and could lead to a number of unintended but detrimental consequences, such as wide disparities in the experiences of both survivors and accused individuals between schools.

However, the current situation is largely a product of the University’s over-sized administrative structure. In a recent op-ed in The Chronicle of Higher Education, titled “The Silencing of Harvard’s Professors,” Law School professors Charles Fried and Robert H. Mnookin argued that “Harvard faces a serious governance problem that requires institutional change.” They warn of a growing central administration and the consequent deterioration of autonomy for individual schools.

It is certainly true that the role of administration has greatly increased in recent years, and not necessarily to the betterment of the University. On sexual assault procedures, University President Drew G. Faust has defended Harvard’s administrative structure and maintained that the decision-making incorporated representatives from across the University. However, as Fried and Mnookin pointed out, “These policies and procedures were arrived at by a working group of administrators… [and] [t]here were no law faculty members involved.” When law faculty first saw the procedures, many expressed their disapproval. On matters that affect the entire University, Harvard as an academic institution must base its decisions more on its faculty, and less on administrators.

This break in procedures from the Law School has proved unfortunate for the University’s public relations and for its larger goals. To prevent similar situations in the future—and for the sake of achieving full representation—Harvard should incorporate more perspectives in this type of decision-making; the University’s central policy must consider input not only from administrators, but also from faculty. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the University must show a cohesive front on campus-wide issues—such as sexual assault—both for the sake of consistency and for that of unity.