Speaking Truth to Justice

The recent news coverage of two sexual assault cases on campus have enlightened and shocked many students about the way Harvard's Administrative Board collectively thinks, talks about and acts upon cases of sexual violence at the College. It is of utmost importance that while we discuss these issues and share our sense of disbelief that Harvard's administration has acted so irresponsibly, we keep in mind a greater goal. That goal is change.

The two survivors who have been brave enough to become a voice for this important issue have gone through a lot of pain, not only in dealing with their own trauma but in the second ordeal of seeking just punishment of their attackers. Now that they have spoken their truth to justice, it is our turn to take on their struggle and make it our own, as students who are concerned about the safety and the values of our community.

Perhaps we as individuals feel that we are mere drops in the ocean to the administration, and that stops us from taking the first step towards action; but imagine, for a moment, how it would feel to be a survivor of rape, and to be treated the way these two students were.

Now imagine that you gather all of your strength to speak, and nothing changes. These two students have done enough by sharing their voices with us. They have earned the right to be able to sleep at night knowing that their peers are hard at work supporting their cause-our cause.

If Harvard has, as it claims, nothing to gain by dismissing, rather than expelling, people like Josh Elster and Drew Douglas. (thereby allowing them to reapply at a later date) then what do they have to lose by expelling them? Why not the more severe punishment? We, as students who are subject to the rules that the Ad Board follows, deserve to hear a reason other than that the Ad Board reserves the right to reverse itself later on if new facts arise.

When a court of law finds someone guilty of a sex offense, what further or more permanent evidence does Harvard need to believe that someone is, in fact, guilty of a sex offense and should be punished in kind? So far, the administration's response to this question has been unconvincing.

Why not acknowledge that because the Ad Board is not a court of law, it is not equipped to deal with the sensitive nature and legal intricacies of sexual assault cases? The Ad Board will not review cases of armed robbery or murder. They send these cases to the court system. What makes rape a special brand of violent crime? Or, perhaps more accurately, why hasn't Harvard formally acknowledged sexual assault of all kinds, including "date rape," as violent crime? If anything, it seems that sexual assault is something Harvard would want to send to the courts rather than assume liability for seeking "justice" Empowering Faculty members and administrators with no specific qualifications other than their academic careers to question a survivor about the details of a recent trauma is a disaster waiting to happen. I imagine that being questioned this way is an equally scary exercise for a defendant. In a recent development, defendants in the process will be informed of their right to have an attorney present at Ad Board hearings. What is the next step to protect victims from the inadequacies of Harvard's system?

At the root of this controversy is the system itself, which is inherently flawed. The Faculty, not the Ad Board, will ultimately vote on the punishment of Josh Elster and Drew Douglas. The Faculty is not a disciplinary body. It is an academic one. The very fact that the Faculty must vote on issues other than plagiarism and email violations is a disservice to students and to Faculty.

They consider issues of an academic nature worthy of expulsion because they are qualified to expel people who infringe upon the academic code of honor. They are not, and they know they are not qualified to determine how the perpetrator of a violent crime should be punished That is what the courts are for. No wonder they have never voted to expel someone for rape.

Both Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 and Assistant Dean of the College Karen Avery '85 have likened expulsion to the death penalty. Perhaps they do protest too much? It is clear that Harvard administrators have concerns far wider than the undergraduates they serve. I have no expectations that the difficult questions these cases raise will be addressed to my satisfaction by anyone who is in a position to do so.

I am saddened that the administration would rather cling to the status quo than acknowledge the failings of its current system, even if it means doing so at the expense of its own students' welfare. Is this the kind of community we want to live in? Is it the kind of place we want to leave for those who come through these gates long after we are gone?

The two survivors who shared their stories seem to have finally found some peace despite not because of, Harvard's efforts at dealing with their respective cases. They have shown that they want other survivors to have a better experience than they did.

I want them, and the countless others who are unable to speak, to know that I will not walk away from these issues until I feel I have done everything I can to make the path to peace an easier road for victims of violent crime. And I like the many survivors of rape and sexual assault on this campus, am not alone. Taya L. Weiss '99 is a social studies concentrator in Quincy House.