University officials have approved revisions to the university’s sexual assault policies, including the reclassification of sexual assault into the most severe category in the university’s adjudication process.

The revisions are the result of an ongoing dialogue that began last January when students concerned with the university’s sexual assault policy formed AFIRMS – Advocates for Improved Response Methods to Sexual Assault.

“I know this has been a tremendously important issue to the campus community,” said Todd Olson, vice president for student affairs.

Olson commissioned the Discipline Review Committee, a standing committee of faculty, students and administrators – led by Jeanne Lord, interim associate vice president for student affairs, and Judy Johnson, director of the Office of Student Conduct – to review the sexual assault policy this year.

The group submitted its recommendations to Olson last month and he announced yesterday that he had approved all their recommendations, which will take effect at the beginning of the fall semester.

Students began calling for revisions to the policy last year after students began publicizing their frustrations with the status quo. AFIRMS had strongly lobbied for the reclassification of non-consensual penetration last spring in meetings with the Sexual Assault Working Group.

Olson approved the DRC’s recommendation to classify an incident alleging non-consensual to be adjudicated as a Category C Sexual Assault violation instead of a Category B Sexual Misconduct violation under the current policy.

“Another issue that’s still being decided is how to define consent,” Olson said, adding that the DRC was still finalizing the definition of “consent.”

Olson, however, said that the university would not change the university’s disclosure policy, which requires a complainant to sign a confidentiality agreement in order to learn of the sanction for the respondent, if he or she is found responsible.

Kate Dieringer (NHS ’05) challenged the university’s disclosure policy by filing a complaint with the Department of Education last April. She alleged that the policy had violated the Clery Act, which requires that universities make crime statistics public.

The Department of Education has not announced their decision.

And Olson said that while the university has been in communication with the department about clarifying its policies, the government did not influence the recent revisions.

“We are in full compliance with the Clery Act,” Olson said. “The clause allows universities to disclose that information, but Georgetown chooses not to do that.”

The sexual assault policy will also be revised to provide for more “careful and comprehensive” training for the hearing boards that rule on sexual assault and sexual misconduct cases.

Students last year had said that the hearing boards had treated complainants unsympathetically in adjudication cases.

AFIRMS had also lobbied for minimum sanctions – where each offense carries a mandatory punishment – in sexual assault cases, but Olson and the DRC ruled out the policy, instead opting for sanctioning guidelines.

“Minimum sanctions was not the wisest decision for us right now,” Olson said. Minimum sanctions, he added, could discourage complainants from bringing charges in cases where the respondent could bring counter charges.

The policy revisions also include a provision that calls for a physical barrier to separate the complainant and respondent during the hearing. Olson said that the addition of a barrier will help make “a difficult process [become] a little more humane.”