3.05 General Principles for Consideration of Student Performance and Conduct

When additional or special expertise would be useful, the Dean may designate other members of the senior faculty of the University to serve on these Panels.

Note on cases involving allegations of sexual and gender-based harassment and other sexual misconduct:

As set forth in Section 6.17 of the Handbook, Harvard Medical School has adopted the University-wide Interim Title IX Sexual Harassment Policy and Interim Other Sexual Misconduct Policy. In addition, the University’s Sexual and Gender Based Harassment policy addresses sexual harassment and other sexual misconduct alleged to have occurred before August 14, 2020. Copies of all policies and their associated grievance procedures can be found here. In all such cases, the Harvard University Office for Dispute Resolution (“ODR”) is responsible for implementing the University’s grievance procedures, which will determine whether a student committed a policy violation. Whenever a formal complaint of sexual harassment or other sexual misconduct is investigated and the University’s grievance procedures result in a finding that a policy violation has occurred, the APRB must accept that finding as final and non-reviewable. The only opportunity to appeal the determination of a policy violation is provided within the grievance procedures implemented by the ODR. Appeals within HMS pertain only to the decision of the APRB in determining discipline.

These general principles are applicable to the Academic Progress and Review Board for the Master’s Programs (APRB) and the Standing Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (SCRR) and will be employed in consideration of academic performance, unprofessional conduct, and procedures on student rights and responsibilities.

Administrative titles used in describing these procedures may change from time to time. The term “reviewing body” refers to any individual or panel with responsibility for factfinding or decision-making under these procedures. The term “days” as used herein means business days.

These procedures will be implemented with fairness, objectivity, and thoroughness, and with appropriate regard for the reputation of individuals. To that end, the confidentiality of these procedures will be maintained to the extent consistent with their effective use and with other obligations of the School.

These review procedures are academic, not legal. Any evidence that a reviewing body deems relevant and trustworthy may be considered. Formal rules of evidence do not apply. In any matter, a reviewing body will have access to and may consider a student’s academic or disciplinary record as a whole. A student may be accompanied to any appearance before a reviewing body by an advisor who is a member of the student body, faculty, or administrative staff of the Medical School. Although a student may seek legal advice with respect to these procedures, students may not be represented by an attorney before a reviewing body, and attorneys will not attend interviews of a student or other witnesses by a reviewing body. The exception to this is disciplinary reviews related to Title IX violations; for these reviews, students may not be accompanied by a member of the student body, but may be accompanied by an attorney. The Dean of the Faculty, the Dean for Graduate Education, and any other academic leader with responsibility for the Master’s programs (e.g., Dean of Students, Associate Dean for Graduate Education, etc.) may attend any interview or meeting by a reviewing body.

Reviewing bodies are permitted and encouraged to take advantage of University staff and resources, including technical, legal, administrative, and medical resources, in discharging their responsibilities under these procedures. Specifically, counsel for the University may be involved to provide legal advice and staff support to a reviewing body