September 11, 2014
In my experience, the best policy in the face of uncertainty and complexity is to listening to people who are smarter than you. This strategy is precisely what Hamilton’s administration is doing in regards to the sexual misconduct policy changes on the Hill. College campuses nationwide face epidemic levels of under-reporting and mishandling of sexual assault and harassment. Statistics back this up, and devastating victim accounts at peer schools truly highlight a deep misunderstanding and carelessness for this issue.
Compared to most colleges, Hamilton excels in education, prevention, transparency and victim support. Recent figures paint a grim picture, but in proper context, they reflect a healthy and vigorous judiciary system. What is happening with the new changes is simply an upgrade. The two biggest changes to our current system, which will only further aide victims are: 1) the inclusion of an independent investigator in the process and 2) the restructuring of the Hamilton College Harassment and Sexual Misconduct Board to become two separate boards, neither of which will henceforth have student members.
The first change was always obvious to me; in fact, I often wondered how it was even legal to not include it. In a country where the right to a fair and speedy trial is put in the Bill of Rights, it feels vaguely unconstitutional to imply that a college is given some bizarre jurisprudence over their students, and that they have the ultimate authority to replace a true justice system. Colleges do many things well, but they are not court systems. Now the school will involve experienced attorneys in all cases of sexual assault in order to make sure all investigations are done fully, and that the new legal guidelines are followed completely. Having worked with the Dean of Students Office in the past, I have tremendous confidence in their abilities to be thorough and diligent, but there is something comforting in the fact that a trained professional is now involved in this delicate and important process. Instead of being disconnected from the national legal system, the process is included, if only to this small degree.
The second change is in pursuance of other new federal regulations and leaves me with a few more questions. Obviously I believe Hamilton should follow the law, and in this case, I am not questioning the law, but rather, how its premise should apply to other aspects of the College. The new regulations prohibit student boards that are responsible for sanctioning sexual assault perpetrators. For reasons involving privacy, fairness and seriousness, I can understand this stipulation. In our current age of under-reporting and lackluster college responses, I support trying to treat these cases with the most care possible. But if students are not allowed to examine and sanction each other here, should the same rule apply to all judiciary cases? As a former member of the Judicial Board, I speak with open bias, but I think the Board is currently functional and harmless. The problem is where they draw the line between situations the government and the College entrust students to oversee and the ones they do not? If it is a matter of rape involving two parties, does the chance for conflict of interest at a small school like Hamilton rise drastically? Is it that the personal violation of another person is something more grievous than poor personal choices which only affect the perpetrator? In both cases, I would argue yes, but each type of situation could still eventually result in suspension or expulsion. Is that level of responsibility and authority something else the system should consider when appointing students?
To be clear, the Board is always composed of three students and two faculty or staff members. Therefore, we are not alone in these cases. I hope that conversations at a legal and administrative level begin parsing out what makes sexual assault so different from other issues that student input is prohibited—whether or not similar policies should be applied to any case where a student’s academic future is in jeopardy.
I fully support all the current recommendations and changes, and simply hope to highlight how these changes will improve Hamilton’s and all colleges’ approaches to sexual harassment and assault while also extending some recommendations guiding principles out onto the other areas of our judicial system. Maybe it will simply help illuminate the serious difference in the nature if different crimes. Maybe it will encourage thoughtful conversations on how we should handle students’ futures, and what checks and balances there are in place to protect them from what may be well-meaning but are ultimately inexperienced hands. It may simply involve reviewing Judicial Board and Honor Court performance at the end of each semester or maybe implementing a more rigorous selection process. For now, I think the conversation should stay on sexual misconduct, but I hope some day, it spurs an all-encompassing discussion as well.
No comments yet.
Comment Guidelines
Please log in to post a comment