CRR Disciplinary Actions Ratified at Faculty Meeting

The Faculty yesterday approved without amendment the second half of the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities, which creates a system for disciplining students judged in violation of the Resolution.

The first part of the Resolution-the actual statement of rights and responsibilities-was passed by the Faculty on April 10.

The disciplinary part of the Resolution-with the exception of the portion concerning discipline of administrators and Faculty, which the Faculty returned to the Committee of Fifteen for reconsideration-passed yesterday by a 160-22 vote.

The Resolution provides for an elected disciplinary committee consisting of five tenured and two non-tenured Faculty members, one senior tutor, and six students. This committee is empowered to apply all forms of discipline except dismissal or expulsion which require a two-thirds vote of the Faculty.

Temporary Suspension

The Resolution also says that a student engaging in "unacceptable activity" may be suspended temporarily by a committee made of Dean Dunlop and equal numbers of Faculty chosen by the Faculty. Council and students chosen from the various student-Faculty committees.

But student members of at least three of these committees said last night that they would refuse to fill such a function.

"We were not elected to exercise disciplinary authority and we will not do it," Richard S. Tilden '71. of the Committee on Undergraduate Education (CUE). said last night.

All five student members of the CUE, seven [all those contacted last night, according to Douglas Tucci '72] on the Committee on Houses (COH), and one on the Committee on Students and Community Relations said last night that they would refuse to serve on the CRR in any way.

This refusal, according to both Tilden and Tucci, includes helping the Faculty Council fill any vacancies that may occur on the new CRR.

The Resolution also creates an om-budsman committee, to act as a "clearinghouse for grievances."

Opposition to the Resolution as passed came from both students and Faculty.

About 200 students gathered outside Memorial Hall before the Faculty meeting, voicing opposition to the entire CRR, and gathering signatures on a petition asking that "all punishments be rescinded, all charges be dropped, and the CRR be abolished."

The petition gathered over 1100 signatures in two hours.

Within the meeting itself, three amendments, all of which were defecated, were proposed by more radical Faculty members.

One amendment-proposed by Lance C. Buhl, lecturer on History, and further amended by Marc J. Roberts, assistant professor of Economics-asked that the Resolution provide, "at the discretion of the student charged, open and public hearings, transcriptions of all hearings, and speedy release of such transcripts."

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 126-38.

"It requires more than a general commitment to openness to protect the rights of all parties involved in the hearings." James Q. Wilson, professor of Government and a member of the Committee of Fifteen, said. "We must preserve the committee's right to hold orderly proceedings."

Alan Heimert '49, Master of Eliot House and another member of the Committee, said last night that the defeat of the Buhl amendment does not mean that hearings cannot be open in the future, but merely that they need not be. The decision is left to the new committee.

Filling Vacancies

A second amendment-proposed by Roger L. Winters, senior tutor of Dudley House-moved that vacancies on the new committee be filled from their original constituencies.

The resolution as passed says that if vacancies occur-as in the cases of the two student members of the old CRR who resigned last week-the Faculty Council is authorized to nominate additional students for appointment by the Dean of the Faculty.

The Resolution adds that the Faculty Council is expected to consult with student members of the various student Faculty committees in filling such vacancies-13 of whom said last night that they would not participate.

The Winters amendment was defeated by a 94-65 vote.

The third amendment-proposed by Charles G. Gross, lecturer on Psychology-moved that none of the Resolution be effective until ratified by a majority vote of a student referendum.

"It shocks and dismays me that the Faculty seems unaware that these mechanics are totally unacceptable to the majority of students, not just to those on the far left." Gross said.

"We owe it to the 11,000 students who did not sign a petition that we protect them," George M. Hanfmann, professor of Fine Arts. replied. "We must maintain the functions of teaching and research in a free society, not a left-dictatorial society."

The Gross amendment was defeated 125-49.