However, many peer universities that do not identify their discipline systems as judicial do use more widely accepted terms as their standards of proof. A Stanford student must be judged guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” commonly thought of as a 95 percent certainty test. At Dartmouth and Columbia, there must be a “preponderance of the evidence”—typically considered more than 50 percent proof—that a student is guilty.

When Harvard’s Ad Board deliberates under its “sufficiently persuaded” standard, it requires a simple majority of its roughly 30 members or, for cases of required withdrawal, a two-thirds majority.Students who have gone through the process said they had trouble understanding the Ad Board’s standard of proof.

Natasha, a student who went before the Board for a non-academic disciplinary case and requested that her name be changed because she did not want it known that she had faced Board proceedings, said she had no idea what criteria she was being judged upon.

“Do they have a rubric I didn’t see, or were they using their judgment?” Natasha recalled wondering as she awaited her decision. “Were they basing this just off of my statement and my interview, or out of prior knowledge that they had about me?”

Daniel, a student implicated in the current Government 1310 cheating scandal, said he was dismayed when his resident dean told him the decision would come down to the “gut feeling” of each deliberator.

“‘How do I influence your gut?’” Daniel recalled wondering. “If there’s no burden of proof, you don’t even know what you have to do.”

POWERFUL PANEL

In a second effort intended in part to improve students’ perception of the Board, the reform committee recommended decreasing the number of people present at an accused student’s Board interview.

Although the new subcommittee hearings have been praised by some for making the Ad Board process less intimidating, critics say that the reform has had the unintended consequence of reducing the amount of evidence directly available to the full Board.

Previously, most hearings were conducted with all of the roughly 30 members of the full Board present. Now, small subcommittees of only two or three Board members conduct the student interviews for each case.

Sundquist said that the shift was motivated by two factors: a desire to make students less anxious about the proceedings, and a sense that the full Board was not needed at every step in the process.

Following a subcommittee student interview, the members prepare a report listing their findings and recommending a punishment. The full Board then meets, without the student present, to vote, taking into consideration the subcommittee’s report and other evidence.

Curtis, who left Harvard before the new reform was implemented, said she thinks much is lost in the new interview format.

“It often worked in a positive way for the student that they were able to present their case in their own words and answer questions directly,” Curtis said. She added that she often reflected on a student’s presentation and demeanor when casting her vote.

Furthermore, now that Board members only sit in on a small fraction of interviews, Curtis said that she is concerned they have less opportunity to accrue expertise in the fact-finding process.