This administration is a mess.

Last week, then-dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law resigned after his violation of sexual harassment policies became public. Campus spokesperson Dan Mogulof has since announced that UC Berkeley is currently investigating 17 different cases of sexual harassment.

Just as we were coming to terms with the campus’s inadequate response — particularly in light of a markedly similar problem last semester — Cal Athletics began termination proceedings against men’s basketball assistant coach Yann Hufnagel because he, too, violated campus sexual harassment policy.

In response, Janet Napolitano sent a scathing letter to Chancellor Nicholas Dirks last week, scolding him for his improper handling of these cases and lamenting the fact that she first heard of this all, like most members of the UC community, through the media.

Napolitano’s letter also forcefully urged Dirks to fire Graham Fleming, who resigned from his position as vice chancellor of research last spring over sexual harassment allegations, from his recently appointed position as an ambassador to UC Berkeley’s Global Campus initiative. This letter marks a level of micromanagement from the university president over a specific campus that should not ordinarily be necessary, but given Dirks’ disturbing inaction, Napolitano had no choice.

Had top-level administrators, such as Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Claude Steele and Dirks, responded appropriately to their colleagues’ transgressions, they could have kept their authority and credibility. Top administrators have to be better, or let’s fire them.

It starts with increased transparency. As the UC Berkeley community grasps the enormity of having 17 pending sexual harassment cases, administrators should begin to divulge how long these cases take to process. Additionally, all cases in which those accused are found to have broken campus codes of conduct should become publicized — with the consent of the survivor — and those implicated should be immediately fired. Sexual predators have no place on our campus.

That this strict punishment has been lacking at UC Berkeley demonstrates the conflicts of interest inherent in doling out punishments internally. When high-level campus officials discipline their colleagues and peers, whom they work with regularly and often know on a personal level, it’s easy for biases to take over.

This is why Napolitano’s plan to create a systemwide peer review committee to review and propose sanctions against any senior campus leader is so important. By including members of each UC campus, this committee will have more oversight and less bias.

And while moves such as this, which deal with responses and punishments, would absolutely help improve sexual harassment issues on this campus, the university must also actively work toward greater prevention methods before the harassment even starts. This goes beyond just trainings, though they are necessary. It means creating an environment where observers and bystanders of sexual harassment feel empowered and compelled to speak out and where men in positions of power understand that their female subordinates, peers and superiors deserve the same respect as their male counterparts.

Editorials represent the majority opinion of the Senior Editorial Board as written by the opinion editor.