Opinion ID: 6349800
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Initial Review

Text: During the relevant timeframe, an Initial Review began when a complaining student submitted to the Secretary of the Ad Board a detailed written statement summarizing [the student's] allegations.7 Once received, the Secretary notified the accused student8 and the Dean of Harvard College (who served as the Ad Board's Chair) that an accusation had been lodged. The Secretary then met with the accused student to verbally outline the accusation, the disciplinary process, and the attendant confidentiality policies. Also included in that first meeting was the student's resident dean (mentioned throughout the Ad Board Procedures but whose role was neither defined nor explained in the record before us). Commensurately, the Ad Board Chair did a couple of things. First, the Chair appointed a subcommittee of Ad Board members (usually two or three people) and second, refer[red] the matter to a fact finder to review and investigate the allegations. This fact finder was usually a professional from outside the University and was ordinarily an independent 7As mentioned above, in 2013, Dean Ellison was the Secretary of the Board. 8The accused student was not permitted to review the complainant's written accusation at this time. - 8 - consultant with conflict resolution experience (but was not a member of the Ad Board). The process called for both the complainant and the accused to choose a member of the Ad Board to serve as his or her Board Rep throughout the adjudicative proceedings. The students could -- but were not obligated to -- choose their resident dean to serve in this capacity. The Board Rep's role was to represent the student to the subcommittee and to the full Ad Board as well as be a liaison who ensured the student's 'voice' [wa]s heard. In fulfilling this role, the Board Rep would: be present at all meetings, speak on [the student's] behalf, make certain that [the student was] kept informed throughout the process, and participate[] in deliberations about [the] case. But the Board Rep w[ould] not advocate for [the student]. In addition to a Board Rep, each student could choose a personal advis[o]r for support and advice throughout the process. The personal advisor had to be an officer of the University affiliated with the [FAS] but could not be a family member or an undergraduate student. The advisor had access to all case information [and could] attend [investigative] interviews. Once the Board Rep and personal advisor were in place, the Initial Review proceeded. The accused was tasked with preparing for the Ad Board Secretary a written statement responding - 9 - to the allegations previously communicated to him. Before submitting the statement, the student was encouraged to share a draft of the response with their Board Rep for feedback about the style, organization, length, and clarity, while also anticipating questions [the response] may raise for the Board. Once submitted, both the accused and the complainant could read each other's formal written statement and further respond in writing to the Ad Board Secretary. All statements were then forwarded to the fact finder and subcommittee which provided each student with an opportunity to individually meet with them to discuss the allegations and to answer questions. The fact finder's next job was to evaluate the information gathered from the students and provide an assessment of the allegations to the subcommittee. Together, the subcommittee and fact finder gave the Ad Board a recommendation of whether the school should issue a charge against the accused. But before a recommendation was sent to the full Ad Board for consideration, the complainant and the accused were given an opportunity to further respond to it. Upon receipt of a recommendation and all investigative materials gathered during the Initial Review, the full Ad Board made a determination as to whether a charge -- specifically defined as the decision by the Board to pursue a case against the - 10 - [accused] -- should issue. If yes (as happened here) phase two of Harvard's disciplinary process got underway.