Three top University officials released a memorandum Tuesday to all House Committee Chairmen in an attempt to resolve the issue of student dissatisfaction with the present Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (CRR).
The memorandum-authored by Dean May, Dean Dunlop, and Radcliffe President Mary I. Bunting-scheduled a meeting on the CRR issue between House chairmen or representatives and administration officials for next Wednesday.
Possible recommendations for reform or abolition of the CRR will be discussed at the meeting. Though the CRR can still function without student representation, the administration will apparently seek to pinpoint the causes of rejection, and possibly resolve them.
By voting down the CRR electoral procedures in referenda the past two weeks, students have decided not to send delegates to the CRR.
The memorandum suggests that motives behind the election results varied-from outright rejection of the CRR concept in Lowell and Adams House, to disapproval of the electoral procedures in Mather.
If students feel that the CRR should be abolished, the memorandum suggests the possibility of turning over extreme disciplinary problems to the Cambridge Police for prosecution since such violations would be crimes under Massachusetts statues.
Most House Committee Chairmen have planned to hold House meetings or to poll students about their feelings on the CRR before the student-administration meeting next week.
"I just got the memorandum," Saverio P. Mirarchi '72, Adams House Committee Chairman, said yesterday. "We will discuss the CRR issue at a meeting Sunday night." Mirarchi also suggested that two delegates from each House rather than one, be sent to next Wednesday's meeting, each representing a side of the CRR issue.
David Samuels '74, president of the Freshman Council, said a Council subcommittee had already discussed possible recommendations for the reform of the CRR.
"With the addition of the right recommendations," Samuels said, "students may be able to send delegates to the CRR. The five recommendations made by the Council subcommittee for reform of the CRR were:
All meetings of the CRR should be open and/or transcripts published depending on the defendant's wishes;
Rights of appeal should be established;
A more equitable ratio than the present 3-1 (Faculty-student) on investigating committees be created;
Consideration of extenuating circumstances behind the defendant's action;
Establishment of a uniform code of punishment.
"My interpretation of the general feeling among students is that something other than the present CRR should be established." Samuels said, "College affairs should be handled internally with participation from all members of the community."