FAS Committee Recommends Overhauled Disciplinary Appeals Process, More Faculty on Ad Board

A Faculty of Arts and Sciences committee recommended that Harvard College rework its process for appealing disciplinary sanctions and institute a minimum requirement for the number of tenure-track faculty who serve on the Administrative Board — the College’s main disciplinary body for student misconduct.

The recommendations, which were released in a report Friday, were endorsed by FAS Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra. The report sidestepped the question of whether the Ad Board should have student members or not, a change the College’s student government has been demanding in recent weeks.

The committee recommended that the FAS only allow appeals from students who were required to withdraw from the school as a result of their sanctions. This would prevent students who are put on probation from petitioning for their case to be reheard — which is currently allowed.

The faculty group also suggested that the FAS form a pool of ladder faculty with experience in disciplinary proceedings. These faculty members would serve on either a new committee tasked with evaluating student appeals or on the Ad Board when the group is overwhelmed with cases. The FAS’ docket committee is currently the first layer of review for appeals.

The committee’s recommendations will be discussed by the FAS in its monthly meeting on Tuesday.

The Ad Board review was first announced in October by Hoekstra after students and faculty members criticized the Ad Board’s handling of disciplinary proceedings against pro-Palestine student protesters in the previous semester. Many alleged the body had been unfairly harsh when it initially blocked 13 seniors from graduating that spring.

Though the report states that probation “does not impede a student’s academic progress and appears only temporarily on a student’s record,” it can impact the timing of their graduation.

Last year, most of the students sanctioned for their participation in the pro-Palestine Harvard Yard encampment were placed on probation, instead of suspension. Because they were not in “good standing,” however, they were not allowed to graduate until after their subsequent appeals.

The committee — composed of eight professors and administrators — was chaired by History professor Ann M. Blair ’84. The body also reviewed the disciplinary process at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, though it did not make any substantive recommendations as it determined the school’s process already had sufficient faculty representation.

The report said the committee had met with representatives of the Harvard Undergraduate Association who presented arguments for student involvement on the Ad Board. Although the committee described the HUA’s arguments as “cogent,” it wrote that it couldn’t make a recommendation on student participation as the proposal came too late in the committee’s consultation process.

The appeals system which the committee recommended be overhauled currently relies on two general FAS bodies: the docket committee and the Faculty Council. The smaller docket committee must first rule that an appeal meets one of two grounds — procedural error or sanctions inconsistent with usual practice — before sending it to a final vote of the larger Faculty Council. If an appeal passes both bodies, the Ad Board will be asked to reconsider its decision.

The report stated that “most” professors on the docket committee — who are tasked with overseeing much more than disciplinary cases and whose members don’t necessarily have expertise with Ad Board proceedings — reported that they were unaware of their disciplinary role until they were faced with a case.

But the proposed pool of ladder professors would fill the new appeals committee with members who have direct experience with these proceedings. It would also provide experienced faculty members a chance to serve on the Ad Board itself.

The committee suggested a minimum of four professors for the Ad Board but wrote that they would leave the details to Hoekstra.

“A greater presence of ladder faculty on the Ad Board has been a recommendation in all prior documents reviewing the Ad Board and is a top priority among the recommendations of this committee,” the report read.

In addition to calling for more experienced faculty, the committee suggested inaugurating training for Ad Board members and faculty who serve as personal advisers to students coming before the boards. Last year, several professors who advised students in Ad Board proceedings related to the encampment penned a Crimson op-ed criticizing the administration and the disciplinary process.

The committee also recommended that the Ad Boards be reviewed regularly in the future — both by the FAS dean and the bodies themselves. It suggested the FAS dean review the College and GSAS Ad Boards every 10 years, while the boards themself conduct annual self-assessments.

—Staff writer William C. Mao can be reached at william.mao@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @williamcmao.

—Staff writer Veronica H. Paulus can be reached at veronica.paulus@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @VeronicaHPaulus.