University Discipline

LAST TUESDAY ONE more student came up before the CRR. This time Ellen Messing '73 was charged with breaking into the Government Department's offices and with participating in a disruptive sit-in. In spite of repeated student refusals to send representatives to this Faculty-controlled politically motivated court, the CRR continues to conduct its hearings.

Through the "opening up" of the CRR proceedings via closed circuit television, the community was able for the first time to see some of the Committee's notorious practices: allowing James Q. Wilson, the complainant, to remain in the room during the testimony of his secretaries, which immediately followed his, is one example.

Of course, this is to say nothing of the content of past CRR decisions which have upheld the right of the Administration to try selected individuals involved in group actions, as it is doing in Messing's hearing.

Messing's case involves the issue of disciplining Faculty, administrators, and members of the Corporation. The reasons for last May's demonstration, coming in the wake of renewed bombing of Hanoi and the mining of Haiphong Harbor, were the Government Department's "open-chair" policy toward Henry A. Kissinger '50 and its complicity in the Indochina war. But how is a student to seek redress of these grievances? The Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities states that "No violation of the rights of members of the University, nor any failure to meet responsibilities, should be interpreted as justifying any violation of the rights of members of the University." Yet, there is no institutional mechanism by which students can effectively question the actions of other elements of the University community.

The Administration has failed to provide direct evidence that Messing was one of those who broke into the offices. Further, the CRR has dismissed as "his opinion" Dean Whitlock's statement at the time of the sit-in that the demonstrators were in violation of the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities. We hope that Messing will be cleared of all charges, but there is still the larger issue of the CRR itself.

THOUGH IT CONTINUES to prosecute students such as Messing, the Administration itself has admitted the inadequacy of the CRR. Its inability to impose sufficiently severe sanctions is a "particularly serious problem," according to President Bok. As this inability stems directly from widespread recognition of the illegitimacy of the CRR, students and Faculty must continue to oppose it on every available occasion. However, unless students and Faculty formulate viable alternatives to the CRR, disciplinary matters may revert to the Administrative Board.

The Faculty will be considering the CRR at its November 14 meeting. On October 18 Dean Whitlock sent a letter to all CHUL members asking them to solicit student opinion on alternate methods of discipline. Students and their representatives should meet to restate their opposition to both the existing Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities and its implementing mechanism, and to formulate their own proposals.