|
 ow that Columbia
University has forsaken basic civil liberties in the handling of
sexual-misconduct charges, other
institutions
of higher learning may soon follow suit. With a $15,000 donation
from the Ms. Foundation, the Students Active for Ending Rape (SAFER),
the group that persuaded Columbia to junk basic rules of procedural
fairness, are taking their crusade national.
On February 23, the Columbia University student chapter of the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) invited Harvey Silverglate, an attorney
and member of the Massachusetts ACLU board of directors, and Vivian
Berger, a retired Columbia law professor, to discuss the deficiencies
of Columbia's new sexual misconduct policy. Silverglate and Berger
advised the gathering that the Columbia policy abridges the right
of accused students to be present during testimony, to cross-examine
witnesses, and to have access to full transcripts or tapes of the
proceedings. In fact, it doesn't even set a burden of proof that
must be met to assess guilt or innocence.
SAFER's support for a policy that undermines the principle of protecting
the innocent is rooted in its belief that all charges of rape are
legitimate. When questioned about the policy's defects, Sarah Richardson,
a SAFER student leader, told the Boston Globe, "Why are we
so concerned about the rapist?"
Nor does SAFER seem much concerned about the basic civil rights
of those who dare to criticize the sexual-misconduct policy. The
student organization regularly employs menacing scare-tactics to
attack its critics. Even though Columbia President George Rupp has
endorsed the new policy, SAFER members recently ganged up on him
in a public meeting, chanting: "Fess up George Rupp! How many rapes
did you cover up?"
Despite the fact that the policy has been implemented, SAFER continues
to impugn the character of those who critique the policy. James
Applegate, one of the two university senators courageous enough
to vote against the
| “SAFER's
position essentially contends that anyone who opposes
the policy on due-process grounds is a would-be sexual
assailant.” |
|
policy, told the ACLU forum that he knew of other Senators who shared
his concerns but were too afraid to go on record as opposing the
measure.
Jeff Senter, another SAFER leader, called ACLU's Silverglate "far
right" in the pages of the Columbia Daily Spectator. By branding
Silverglate a conservative, SAFER believes it can dismiss anything
he says. And Columbia students, who are almost universally left-of-center,
are wont to conclude that conservative views are unworthy of consideration.
For Silverglate, the "far right" appellation was a surprise. He
has worked extensively on behalf of the ACLU, not generally recognized
as a right-wing lobby group. Also, Silverglate notes that he began
his legal career by defending Harvard students who were protesting
the Vietnam War.
SAFER has launched a similar smear campaign against Karl Ward, the
ACLU member who organized the Feb. 23rd-panel discussion. Ward has
campaigned on behalf of Ralph Nader, but was accused by SAFER of
being a "reactionary." Supporters of the policy have described Ward's
opposition to it as "underhanded," "inflammatory rhetoric," and
"political in nature."
Ironically, SAFER even went so far as to claim that the muffled
critics of Columbia's sexual-misconduct policy are at root motivated
by fear, observing, "Increased recognition of campus sexual assault
is, after all, a threat to many." SAFER's position essentially contends
that anyone who opposes the policy on due-process grounds is a would-be
sexual assailant.
Representatives from the university's administration and from SAFER
were invited to defend the policy at the ACLU-sponsored discussion.
But the head of the sexual-misconduct office at Columbia, Charlene
Allen, declined, saying that she refused to discuss the policy with
people "external to the Columbia community." As the only speaker
who was neither a Columbia student nor a professor, Silverglate
noted that Columbia's concern that he is "external" obviously wasn't
much of a concern when it accepted his payments for his son's Columbia
education or when it solicited donations from him.
SAFER not only refused to participate in the ACLU's recent event,
its members tore down posters which advertised the event and an
offer by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education to help
students accused under the policy. When contacted about the damaged
posters, SAFER leader Sarah Richardson would not confirm or deny
the charges. Another SAFER leader dismissed reports that the group
tore down the posters, suggesting instead that the maintenance staff
might be responsible.
Remarkably, after all her group had done to discredit its critics,
Richardson recently wrote an Op-Ed in the Columbia Daily Spectator
decrying student activism that involved criticizing other student
groups, asserting that this only "fragments the support base needed
to present a united front to the Administration."
Richardson now says that the Columbia administration, not SAFER,
is responsible for omitting basic legal protections from the sexual-misconduct
policy. She says: "The disciplinary procedure of the Sexual Misconduct
Policy is simply [modified] Dean's Discipline" But the complete
opposite is the case. The Dean's discipline actually allows for
the accused to have an attorney or legal adviser present at the
hearing; it also requires that a recording or transcript be made
of all proceedings so that appeals can be conducted properly. By
contrast, under the sexual-misconduct policy, the only records that
must be kept for the purposes of handling appeals are the notes
of the judges who handed down the initial verdict.
Because Columbia is a private institution, the courts would probably
uphold the university's right to maintain its kangaroo court. But
the question at hand is not whether the policy is technically permissible,
but rather, what lesson Columbia, as a university, wishes to convey
to its students about rights and about justice. SAFER wants to transform
the open intellectual environment that has classically defined academic
institutions, replacing due process with a dogma that defines all
women as victims, stifles free and honest discussion, and replaces
it with academic authoritarianism.
|
