TWO WEEKS AGO, the Undergraduate Council asked Harvard to take only a small step forward on the issue of acquaintance rape. unfortunately, a giant lead is needed.

The council approved a definition of rape as any sexual act that occurs "despite the expressed unwillingness of the victim"--thereby requiring a physical or verbal expression of dissent.

Council members left in a "grey area" those cases in which the initiator "fails to elicit consent resulting in the physical or psychological harm of the victim." They dubbed this new category of sexual crime "sexual negligence"--those cases in which the alleged victim expressed neither consent nor lack of consent.

In a limited sense, this would be an improvement on the Ad Board's current non-policy policy. Now the Ad Board decides cases without this sort of student input and in fact has no set of established producers for dealing with acquaintance rape. We praise the U.C. for beginning a constructive dialogue about sexual misconduct.

But by creating the new category, the council is addressing the most difficult problem of these cases--fairly adjudicating them--in the wrong way.

THE COUNCIL members who suggested the change recognized that silence does not indicate consent. Separation of these cases opens a door for insensitive judges (in this case, Harvard Ad Board members) to interpret the standard more broadly--perhaps even to excuse the crime due to lack of dissent.

In addition, the council recommended that disciplinary action for perpetrators of "sexual negligence" be less severe than for perpetrators of rape--when the unwillingness of the alleged victim was expressed.

But how is it less a crime to force sex on someone who finds it physically or psychologically difficult to say no than it is to force sex on someone who does express unwillingness? Why should victims too traumatized to shout or fight back treated differently from those who are able to do so?

Of course, in some cases those who bring charges of acquaintance rape are intentionally or unintentionally distorting what can be murky facts. But the answer should not be to adopt a standard unfair to those victims who have been raped but who could not express their anger, fear, shame or unwillingness.

The Date Rape Task Force was right to adopt a definition of rape as any sexual act "that occurs without the expressed consent of the person....." This makes it incumbent on initiators of sex to obtain a specific "yes" or "no".

STILL, PROBLEMS remain with judging these cases. The parties involved may have legitimate dispute over whether consent or dissent or neither was expressed.

If so, how is the community to decide who is right? The U.C.'s answer was this new category, designed to provide guidelines for the Ad Board's closed decision. But no new category can prevent bad adjudication. The category itself, aside from being poorly reasoned, could also be, as suggested above, poorly applied.

So what is the answer? the first step--and it is only a beginning--should be hearings open to the press.

We have heard horror stories from alleged victims grilled for hours by Ad Board members---only to have their cases dismissed on faulty reasoning. Surely this discourages victims from coming forward.

Similarly, alleged perpetrators often face a Star Chamber-type trial in which no public review permitted. The Public should have a look at the facts of such cases.