And 14 of those cases were serious enough that the students involved were ultimately asked to withdraw from the College.

While Faculty members might not be necessary for routine matters, Kors criticizes Harvard for using mainly administrators--not more independent tenured Faculty members--to hear important subcommittee evidence. Lewis appoints subcommittee to gather evidence, talk to witnesses and summarize the reports for the whole board.

This several person group interviews the accused student and the accuser if there is one in the case, as well as any other witnesses or people who could shed light on the case. This could include interviewing HUPD officers, if clarification or elaboration is needed on an original police report.

"We tend to choose among the resident deans and a very few experienced administrators on the Board, rather than the at-large professors, whose schedules are harder to accommodate," Lewis writes.

Although a student is allowed to respond to the summarized evidence that the subcommittee presents to the entire Ad Board, Lewis notes that the subcommittee is not bound to interview every witness the accused student asks for.

"The chair uses his or her best judgment about whether those people need to be heard from in order to determine, with a reasonable degree of confidence, what actually happened," Lewis writes. "One tries to get information, either in writing or in person, from the people who were direct witnesses, but for everyone's benefit, we don't want subcommittee procedures to drag on forever talking to people who have very limited factual information to supply."

Edward N. Stoner II, an attorney in Pittsburgh who specializes in writing disciplinary codes for universities, says that he is surprised that students do not sit on Harvard's Ad Board.