LAWSUIT: HARVARD Zealots Abuse Title IX to Nail the Accused
Harvard is perhaps the only institution in the country with multiple sets of Title IX procedures, depending on which branch of the university the student attends. At Harvard Law School, the parties are allowed to have full legal representation, the tribunal is basically independent, and there’s meaningful discovery. Harvard undergraduates, on the other hand, experience one of the most unfair procedures of any school—no hearing, no cross-examination, a single-investigator model that allows one person, hired by the Title IX office, to serve as investigator, judge, and jury.
Though inconsistent with the new Title IX regulations proposed by Betsy DeVos, the university is desperate to retain its one-sided procedures. According to a joint court filing last week, Judge Indira Talwani expressed skepticism during the hearing that Harvard had authority, under its Title IX policy, to move forward with it’s investigation of Jack Doe. The university, remarkably, insisted that if it couldn’t adjudicate Doe under its Title IX policy, it would charge him under Harvard’s general disciplinary policy, which has few limitations. (Talwani was more open to this argument.) Harvard’s position thus amounts to a suggestion that all sexual assault allegations will be adjudicated under its Title IX policy—except those for which the Title IX policy has no jurisdiction, in which case Harvard will just use another policy.
In other words, according to Harvard, there’s no limitation at all on when and how it can adjudicate sexual assault allegations.
mindingthecampus By KC Johnson
