Throughout the aftermath of the March 17 assault of a student sleeping in his own room in Barnard, the Review has been unequivocal in its views regarding the crime. From the first, we have argued that due process is paramount, that vigilante justice is unacceptable and that once the perpetrators of the crime were identified, they be expelled. Last week’s editorial kept with these principles when it expressed extreme disappointment that the perpetrators of the assault not only remained on campus but had had their expulsions overturned, and would eventually receive degrees from Oberlin.
The responses to these editorials have been overwhelmingly passionate, from all sides of the issue. As this week’s Perspectives section highlights, there is significant student dissatisfaction with the ruling. The administration response has been more defensive. Dean of Students Peter Goldsmith, in a letter to this issue of the Review, (below and right) cites College regulations that provide precedent for the particular, non-expulsion punishment given to the assaulters. He also cites the relative administrative isolation from the judicial process at Oberlin as opposed to other schools, presumably in response to the Review’s calling the expulsion reversals an “act of spineless acquiescence on the part of the administration [which] shames the College and tarnishes the degrees that it issues.” 
What Goldsmith seems to be saying in his letter is that, essentially, the overturning of the expulsions isn’t his “fault,” President Nancy Dye’s “fault” or the “fault” of any other administrator. This is technically true, and last week’s editorial incorrectly implied a link of responsibility for the judicial actions of Community Board to direct administrative action. However, the situation is far more complex than any direct links of causation could explain. 
As Goldsmith points out, judicial action at Oberlin is community-based, with three faculty and two students making the decisions in both the original hearing and (a different set) on the reversal. Overseeing these meetings is the Judicial Coordinator, who, though without a vote, has considerable influence upon judicial proceedings. For one, according to the Oberlin College Rules and Regs (Section V, Part A, No. 8), the JC “Possess[es] the authority along with the Dean of Students and his or her designee to impose a temporary stay away, temporary housing relocation, or temporary suspension until a decision has been reached by the Judicial Board.” 
This option, of removing the assaulters from campus, was one most definitely within the competencies of the College administration, and was an option not exercised at any time.
Further, the JC –– a member of the administration –– “determine[s sanctions] with due regard for precedent. That is, the Judicial Coordinator should prepare in advance a log of similar infractions so that the Board may be guided by precedent.” (Rules and Regs, Section VII, Part B, No. 6) This capacity allows the administration to frame the sanction, implying severity by analogy to previous infraction sanctions; the power of this position is obvious.
However, perhaps most important are not the official capacities of the College administration with regard to judicial action, but the administration’s place as a figurehead for all College actions. In the College Bylaws, under “General Duties of the President,” it reads, “The President shall be the chief executive officer of the Corporation. He [or she] shall have all the powers and perform all the duties imposed by law upon the executive head of the corporation and also those incident to his [or her] office, and, subject to the control of the Board of Trustees, shall be responsible for the effective administration and operation of the College.” The President is thus both literally and figuratively the head of the College, and similarly the Dean of Students is the literal and figurative head of student affairs. 
So while the administration is not directly responsible for either the expulsion verdict or its reversal, it cannot effectively say that it is completely removed from the situation. Though we cannot expect the College to answer for the assault itself, it is imperative that it answer for the handling of the assaulters’ sanctions.


Editorials are the responsibility of the Review editorial board –– the Editor in Chief, Managing Editor and Perspectives Editor –– and do not necessarily reflect the view of the staff of the Review.