Advertisement

CHUL Calls for 2 Committees To Study Resolution on CRR

The Committee on Houses and Undergraduate Life voted yesterday to endorse formation of student and faculty committees to consider both conceptual and structural reform of the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities.

In a near unanimous vote, CHUL endorsed "the idea of its student members forming a subcommittee to consider reform of the resolution on rights and responsibilities and of the structure and procedures" of the CRR.

CHUL's resolution also requested that Dean Rosovsky appoint a faculty committee to discuss CRR reform with its subcommittee, as soon as the latter "deems fit."

In other business, CHUL:

* nearly unanimously rejected a motion to let students voluntarily add to their term bill a $2 donation to the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group.

* learned from Dean Whitlock that a report to students on overcrowding will be written this spring, although it will not be out as requested by CHUL before the House lotteries next week;

* decided to have a major discussion of the off-campus living fee in its next meeting in May; and

* asked its housing systems subcommittee to consider altering the rule which prohibits sophomores from changing Houses until after December 1.

Subcommittee

Dean Whitlock said last night that Dean Rosovsky--who missed yesterday's meeting--will form the faculty council subcommittee, but he said that the council group will not meet with the CHUL subcommittee until the students have formulated some preliminary recommendations.

However, one member of CHUL, James G. LeMoyne '74-3, said last night that the students would meet with the council members at a much earlier stage of discussion.

Dean Whitlock said yesterday that the faculty would probably approve some structural reform of the CRR, such as equalizing student and faculty representation and eliminating the admission of hearsay evidence.

But Whitlock added that the faculty would probably not accept conceptual changes--alterations in the wording of the resolution, which critics call vague and repressive.

No final recommendations from the two committees are expected earlier than next fall. Any proposals would go first to the council and then to the faculty.

Recommended Articles

Advertisement