Harvard Botched Handling of Threat

Rarely a week goes by without fair Harvard being mentioned in the local or national media. Most of the time, the University laps up the praise, whether it be a new appointment, a distinguished professor collecting another award or a new donation.

But this past month, Harvard has found itself in the media for a less flattering incident, and University officials aren't too happy about it. Last Monday, the Cambridge City Council passed an ordinance requiring University administrators to attend a meeting with top city and police officials to discuss their conduct during a stalking incident this summer.

The charge? That Harvard may have obstructed a criminal investigation.

This past summer, the University allegedly repeatedly failed to cooperate with a police search for a 17-year-old male summer school student. The boy was later arrested and arraigned on stalking and threatening charges.

"It appears from the story that an administration was doing everything to prevent the police from doing their job," Cambridge Councilor Michael A. Sullivan told The Crimson. "They weren't going to tell University police where the student was, which was providing problems for the security of the victim."

The University deserves to be criticized for its treatment of the investigation. Stalking--and death threats--are a serious matter. Yet the girl's requests to notify Harvard police were brushed off by Elizabeth C. Hewitt, director of the secondary school students' summer program.

To make matters worse, summer school administrators refused to disclose the boy's whereabouts, with Lowell House Master William H. Bossert allegedly threatening Harvard police if they pursued an attempt to locate him. It wasn't until after Cambridge Assistant District. Attorney David Yanetti called Bossert directly to demand the boy be turned over that Bossert complied.

Harvard itself continues to maintain that it acted appropriately and responsively. Its actions, however, belie its press releases. If Harvard did have good reason to believe that the boy was not a threat, University officials have yet to explain why.

Because of this, the University deserves to be called to accountability by the city. Harvard's failure to act responsibly and efficiently could have led to the girl's harm or death--and left Harvard wide open for a civil suit.

It is not enough, however, just to shine the spotlight on Harvard. Although obstruction of stalking cases may not always get the press coverage that Harvard's did, that does not mean it doesn't happen elsewhere.

If stalking cases on college campuses are to be effectively handled, the best solution is to practice preventive action. The Cambridge order itself is part of a larger consent-order package, which requests that City Manager Robert W. Healy prepares a training program on domestic violence which administrators from all colleges and high schools in Cambridge will be required to attend. Such an order, although it may cause some grumbling, will hopefully prevent future, conflicts such as this past summer's from occurring.

All in all, it wasn't pretty situation. Harvard got burned, both by the city of Cambridge and by the local media. The city's paternalistic response makes the University look like a child getting a nasty scolding.

Nevertheless, the Cambridge order has the potential to be a positive force, if for no other reason than that it makes clear that colleges and high schools have to address the dangers of stalking and domestic violence.

And the next time a death threat occurs, Harvard officials will perhaps take it a bit more seriously.