Harvard is already embroiled in a PC scandal, but that hasn’t stopped it from taking pre-emptive measures to guarantee another one. Harvard’s Office for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (the force behind the movement to abolish Harvard’s single-gender clubs) has launched a new “learning language” website. The site makes it clear that Harvard no longer abides by the “innocent until proven guilty” standard and due process as required by law when it comes to allegations of sexual assault.
Take, for example, the site’s definition of “Innocent Until Proven Guilty,” which includes this gem:
In the context of sexual assault, “innocent until proven guilty” is sometimes invoked to silence survivors…
The site also calls into question “Standards of Evidence” used in a court of law to convict sexual predators as outdated. According to the site’s definition:
Criticism of this standard exists because in cases of sexual assault, it places a burden of proof on the victim. Oftentimes there are no witnesses to sexual assaults, leaving room for doubt or uncertainty, making conviction difficult. Preponderance of evidence is the standard used in American civil courts. According to this standard, the evidence suggests that an incident is “more likely than not” to have occurred. Many victims may be hesitant to contact police or have evidence collected due to fear of mistreatment, victim blaming, or shame, making criminal prosecution impossible.
This theory is, of course, not unique to Harvard. The White House and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights have been working to push universities to use Title IX to abolish standards of evidence in disciplinary proceedings, most famously in a “Dear Colleague” letter to administrators issued last year. The letter argued that colleges must lower their standards of evidence in sexual assault cases from “clear and convincing evidence” to “preponderance of the evidence,” must allow accusers to appeal not-guilty verdicts, and must provide for “accelerated investigations,” which could deprive an accused student of a chance to collect name-clearing evidence.
Harvard, it seems, has adopted the White House’s suggestions as hard and fast rules, and is even advocating for a further watering-down of due process. And they’re making sure all of their major clubs abide by the OSAPR’s definitions. If a Harvard club receives more than $300,000 in annual funding, they are required to participate in an OSAPR training program, where they will be instructed on the ins-and-outs of handling even specious sexual assault claims.
There is one ray of sunshine for the accused. According to the “vocabulary” website, the OSAPR is at least concerned with how labeling someone a sexual assault “perpetrator” could have a long-term impact: Because “perpetrator” has negative social connotations, a survivor might prefer the term “person who caused harm” or “someone engaging in harmful behaviors.”
They do stress, however, that perpetrators — er, sorry, persons who have caused harm — will still have to overcome their “Hegemonic Masculinity” and their dependence on “Patriarchy” to earn a spot back in polite, Harvard society.