The Faculty's Vote: How Did It Happen?

Everyone who walked out of the Loeb after yesterday's Faculty meeting seemed to be asking himself the same question: How had the Faculty managed to reverse, within less than an hour, its position on taking political stands as a corporate body?

In that time, the Faculty had first voted down an endorsement of the October 15 moratorium-apparently because the moratorium was too political an issue-and then had turned around to approve a motion calling for a speedy withdrawal of U. S. forces from Vietnam-a political stand if there ever was one.

The answer appears to lie partly in the differing ways in which the proponents of the two "political" resolutions argued their respective cases. Everett I. Mendelsohn, professor of the History of Science, and others supporting endorsement of the October 15 moratorium spoke a hard line: they urged the Faculty to take an open political stand, and made an inadequate effort to ease the fears of those Faculty members afraid of opening future meetings to a flood of political resolutions having little or no connection with academic affairs.

NEWS ANALYSIS

"It's not an attempt to get around the moral and political issues, but an attempt to have the Faculty face those issues," Mendelsohn said of his resolution. Another proponent argued that "Every action we have taken since April has a political content."

Those who supported the withdrawal resolution, though they too called on the Faculty to take an overt political stand, laid greater emphasis on the unique nature of the case, and tried to reassure the Faculty members who feared that the resolution would be interpreted as the view even of those who voted against it.

In introducing the withdrawal resolution, John T. Edsell '23, professor of Biological Chemistry, commented that, ifpassed, it would represent the "sense of the Faculty," and that the parliamentarian said this meant "the sense of the majority of the Faculty." Edsell went on to say, "Obviously it has no binding force on those who dissent."

While seconding the motion, Rogers G. Albritton, professor of Philosophy, continued to hammer away at the uniqueness of the war, and of this particular Faculty meeting. "Debates on political matters should not become customary at our meetings." he said, and noted that calling an unofficial convocation would set a worse precedent for Faculty debate of political matters.

Foul-Up

Those backing the withdrawal motion then benefitted from a parliamentary foul-up. Seymour Martin Lipset, professor of Government and Social Relations, ver-bally stumbled as he moved that the Faculty recess to a convocation in effect that they not vote as an official body on Vietnam.

Many Faculty members appeared to have difficulty comprehending his motion, but there was a quick look of anguish on some faces when Lipset, before correcting himself, suggested that the Faculty reconvene in half an hour. By this time, the clock was approaching six, and many Faculty members undoubtedly did not want to stay past the normal 6:15 endpoint of the meetings.

The voting on Lipset's motion for recess-which failed by only one vote-was confused. Both proponents and opponents of formally approving the withdrawal resolution inadvertently found themselves voting the wrong way.

Groundwork Helped

Lipset's motion received 45 fewer votes than the comparable amendment which took the political sting out of the resolution on the October 15 moratorium. In all probability, not all of the change was accounted for by confusion; the groundwork laid by Edsall and Albritton had undoubtedly convinced some Faculty members to alter their stance.

Once the convocation idea was defeated, it became apparent that the Faculty had to vote one way or the other, on a highly political issue. At least for the 50 Faculty members who supported the withdrawal resolution in the end, but had not originally wanted to approve it on he floor of the Faculty, the question of the propriety of debating Vietnam policy had been settled. They voted for the resolution and gave it a total of 255 votes-24 more than the combined total of no's and abstentions.

As the dust settled, John Kenneth Galbraith had the final word on the confusing afternoon. Moving to adjourn, he said "Let us admit there is some slight ambiguity in our postion, but that is always the case with any parliamentary body."