After an extensive, yearlong review, the collaborative efforts of Students Active in Ending Rape (SAFER), the Tufts Community Union Senate and the administration have resulted in the crafting of Tufts' new sexual assault policy and adjudication process.
The previous policy had been widely criticized for being inadequate and unclear, as well as for having an inherently flawed adjudication procedure for allegations of sexual assault — a process that included the controversial option of mediation.
Today, the sexual assault policy is manifested in a detailed nine-page document that clearly lays out for students a straightforward plan of action in the event of any incidence of sexual assault, outlining the resources and options available to victims.
The policy has an accompanying sexual assault adjudication policy that describes a new three-step judicial process entailing the filing of a complaint, a fact-finding phase and a final recommendation from the dean of student affairs.
One of the more noteworthy changes is the involvement of an independent expert in the fact-finding element. The fact-finder is charged with conducting an impartial examination of each allegation and providing a report to the dean.
The Daily applauds this move in particular, because bringing in a trained individual adds a previously lacking level of professionalism and expertise to the handling of these cases. In addition, it addresses another concern raised about the previous policy: that a conflict of interests exists in having Tufts administrators investigate these matters, since concerns about the university's liability could compromise their objectivity.
The inclusion of an outside expert eliminates the necessity of conducting a formal hearing at which both the alleged victim and perpetrator would be present. This is a vital step toward making the experience less painful for victims, sparing them the agony of being in the same room as the perpetrator.
Other modifications to the judicial process further enhance victim protection. One example is the elimination of the option of pursuing mediation between the alleged victim and perpetrator — particularly notable because the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education discourage the use of mediation. This method is controversial because it forces the victim into an uncomfortable and possibly unequal confrontation.
Perhaps most significant is the creation of the adjudication protocol itself. Under the previous system, there was no distinction between the handling of allegations of sexual assault and other Code of Conduct violations, such as plagiarism. The creation of the new judicial process addresses issues specific to sexual assault cases, crafting a fairer, more efficient means of handling such incidents that sends the important message that the university as a whole recognizes sexual assault as the serious and devastating crime that it is.
Allegations of sexual assault deserve to be treated with a level of seriousness in accordance with the potential harm suffered by victims, and the proceedings must respect victims' tremendous psychological needs. The reform of Tufts' policy is a huge step toward according sexual assault the recognition it deserves as an important, unfortunately prevalent, important issue.
We applaud those involved in the crafting of this adjudication process, especially the administration for having the honesty and transparency to acknowledge that the university's previous system for sexual assault cases was broken — and for working with students to craft a new one that works.
