Among the changes: accused may watch all hearings over closed circuit television, the complainant explicitly bears the burden of proof, and the standard of evidence used in determining guilt is set just below the criminal standard.

Following a slew of national coverage, Columbia received a flood of mail from alumni, college professors, and outraged individuals. Vice President of Columbia’s Office of Public Affairs, Alan Stone, responded with a form letter that read in part: “Accused students have the right to written notice of the charges. They have a right to a hearing where they can present any evidence in their defense. They have a ‘full’ opportunity to rebut the evidence – which means adequate time to respond.”

Even though Stone asserts that the Wall Street Journal editorial was “not accurate,” he fails to contest claims that accused students do not have the right to confront their accuser, cross examine witnesses, or have an attorney present during trial. Also distinctly absent from Stone’s letter, and any written defense penned by the student activists who wrote the policy, was assurance that the burden of proof was specified—that accused parties need not be required to prove their innocence.

The University Counsel, Patricia Catapano, chalks up all the newspaper print about FIRE’s (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) concerns to its “misinterpretation of what the policy said.” She claims, in all University proceedings, “There’s no question who bears the burden of proof. It’s always the complainant.” As to the newly discovered standard of evidence, Catapano said that it would be “the highest standard below criminal,” adding, “There was no intention to make it the criminal standard.”

One wonders why Catapano did not use the opportunity to correct these alleged ambiguities when FIRE wrote the University on August 1, 2000, or perhaps why Stone failed to include this in his list of rights students are guaranteed in all disciplinary proceedings at Columbia. Only until after the ambiguities and defects were highlighted in the national media, and after their hired gun resigned, was this alleged misinterpretation unveiled.

In fact, a simple “clarification” from just one administrator during the Senate hearings might have settled some of the most serious concerns of the policy’s critics, who feared, in the absence of any clear burden of proof, whether the standard of evidence employed might consequently be guided by the ever changing emotional whims of the judges hearing the case.

While Columbia searches for a new person to head-up the Sexual Misconduct Office, the Director of Student Services will occupy the position. At a May 9 meeting with students, joined by Catapano and Stone, temporary head J. J. Haywood told an audience of students that after the Wall Street Journal editorial, “the trustees became interested and wanted to make sure everything was fair.” She then admitted, “These changes were … not really communicated to students.”

Catapano was adamant about calling the “changes” Haywood mentioned mere “clarifications,” adding “We really haven’t changed what’s in the policy.” Conveniently, because the clarifications do not “go against the meaning of the Senate,” according to Catapano, a new vote on the Senate floor will not likely be required.

One may speculate that Columbia kept the entire community in the dark for an academic year about well-publicized, genuine worries to sustain the acquiescence of the SAFER (Students Active for Ending Rape) activists who threatened to take over buildings in response to Allen’s resignation. And lastly, if the University is simply clarifying what was always understood, one must sincerely marvel as to why Charlene Allen, the head of the very office charged with enforcing the policy, felt the need to resign over what was seemingly ambiguous even to her.

Although due process remains an uncertainty at Columbia, the widespread dissemination of information related to this fierce assault on civil libertarian values appears to have inhibited other schools from following in Columbia’s footsteps. SAFER had planned on establishing a national organization to help students at other schools pass similar policies. They are still moving forward with such efforts, but are doomed for failure.

At New York University, students began organizing within several months of the policy being adopted at Columbia. Since the public outcry over Columbia’s policy, however, NYU administrators have firmly stated they will not be modeling their sexual misconduct policy after Columbia’s, saying, “Our policy is aimed at preserving the rights of both the accuser and the accused.”

At George Washington University, the faculty rejected a similar sexual misconduct policy, voting 15 to 0. The policy at GW was slightly different, which might account for the relative submission by Columbia professors: under the GW policy, the faculty as well as students could be held culpable by the kangaroo courts.