Some argue that such openness would discourage victims from coming forward, unwilling to share their private horror with the public. The press, accordingly, should be responsible enough not to print the names and "sexual background" of such victims.

And, as the Date Rape Task Force recommended, the University should provide more information about current (and, hopefully, expanded) counseling for victims of sexual misconduct.

But, as we've said before, protecting alleged victims and perpetrators from closed-door and sometimes unfair and overly grueling trials must take precedence. This goes for all disciplinary cases, not just those involving alleged acquaintance rape.

Others have argued that Harvard should not judge such crimes at all--that all complaints of sexual misconduct should be referred to the legal authorities in Cambridge.

Clearly this would be "fair" in some sense, as Harvard's victims would have to face the same procedures as all others in the city.

But the Harvard community has a responsibility to decide for itself whether certain members of the community must leave. And we should not trust the Cambridge legal system to make that decision for us--especially given the reluctance of victims to take their cases to authorities widely perceived as unsympathetic to cases of rape.

What proponents of ending Harvard's role in acquaintance rape cases fail to acknowledge is that Harvard is free to adopt behavioral standards stricter than those written in criminal law.

Furthermore, Harvard cannot simply refer all cases of sexual misconduct to the courts. A Cambridge jury's decision that no rape occurred would not preclude a violation of Harvard's standards for behavior. The court may find nothing wrong with they consider "mild" sexual misconduct---Harvard should punish all such misconduct.

IN SHORT, the answers to the problems of deciding complex sexual misconduct cases do not lie in simple reformulations of board definitions. True reform is called for--reform the council is unwilling to recommend, Nonetheless, the Ad Board cannot continue to face disciplinary matters without public scrutiny. Too much is at stake for their decisions to be completely closed ones.