A Frank Conversation About Campus Rape

Article here. Excerpt:

'Due process dominated the first part of their conversation. Gertner thought it was appropriate for Harvard to create an office to ensure it was complying with Title IX, but that the process created to adjudicate sexual-assault claims was flawed in these ways:

• “There were no lawyers––no opportunity fo the accused in particular to consult anyone.”
• “There was no hearing. Now hearings are difficult. A hearing doesn't have to be accused and accuser facing one another, her being ripped to shreds by his lawyer. It could be a situation where one side says x, one says says y, and you ask questions based on a written script––in other words, no one is directly confronted, there are questions in advance. But it's an opportunity to flesh out what happened.”
• “There had to be an appeal to someone other than administrators in the Title IX office … an adjudicator that is not in the Title IX office, in other words, that does not have an interest in seeing that the university's funds are protected.”
• With respect to intoxication, “the Harvard policy was explicitly uneven.” If someone had sex with a drunk victim, he was guilty of sexual assault, but if he were buzzed, “that didn't have any impact on his responsibility. We wanted to at least have a conversation about that. If both are impaired what should be done?”'