Student sues Harvard over assault policy

Harvard University's newly-implemented sexual assault policy is facing a legal challenge and raising questions about how colleges and universities treat alleged victims. An anonymous Harvard student has filed a formal complaint with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights against the university over the policy, which requires those claiming to have been sexually assaulted to provide "sufficient, independent, corroborating evidence." The complaint, brought in June, alleges a violation of United States Title IX, the law that prevents discrimination in education based on gender. Title IX also requires that students are given a prompt and equitable grievance investigation. The student's claim stems from a change in the procedure for filing sexual assault allegations at the university made by Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences in May. Those claiming to have been sexually assaulted must now provide evidence that is likely to be discovered during an investigation. In August, the Office for Civil Rights decided to formally investigate the woman's claim that the policy is in violation of Title IX. "Requiring students to bring sufficient, independent corroboration is a violation of Title IX," said Wendy Murphy, who represents the anonymous complainant. "A prompt and equitable investigation becomes impossible." Federal attorneys are now investigating the claim and are expected to decide the matter in the coming months. While Penn does not have plans to make a similar change in its sexual assault policy at this time, there is a concern that an affirmative ruling from the OCR will result in a rise of similar policies on campuses across the country, according to Penn Women's Center Director Ellie DiLapi. DiLapi said people "are concerned about the devastating impact that the Harvard policy will have for anyone who gets victimized on that campus." Penn Law Professor David Rudovsky said that the implications will vary depending on how the issue is resolved. "If the policy is sustained, other schools could follow suit. If not, schools would have to be careful," Rudovsky said. "The final resolution will have some impact for other universities." Harvard officials stress that this is not a change in policy but rather, a change in procedure. According to an official Harvard Web site that explains the change, "the new step does not change the standard of corroborative proof which has always been needed to resolve peer disputes by the Administrative Board.... The new step, which is designed to screen potential cases more thoroughly before the Board commences its full process, will, we hope, spare some students an intrusive investigation that may take months and, experience has shown, often leaves them dissatisfied and frustrated."