THE MESSING CASE

To the Editors of The Crimson:

I hope that you will permit me to correct a series of factual errors in your report on the CRR of Wednesday, November 8, 1972. You state "The conviction was Messing's second." It was in fact her fourth. The three previous decisions were issued on June 4, 1969 by the Committee of Fifteen: on May 29, 1970 by the CRR; and on June 11, 1970 by the CRR. The decision in the third instance was that Miss Messing be required to withdraw from the University for no less than two academic terms, and that upon readmission after than time, she be under a suspended requirement to withdraw for two terms until graduation or voluntary departure from the University.

You will see that the terms of the June 11, 1970 decision show that the Crimson's report that Miss Messing received an indefinite suspension at that time is also incorrect.

The Crimson further stated that any student presently under suspension must automatically withdraw if found guilty of a second violation. What Appendix B to the CRR Procedures says is as follows: "In the event of any further misconduct during the period of suspension deemed by the Committee sufficiently serious to warrant disciplinary action, the suspension will be nullified, and the requirement to withdraw for no less than the stated period made effective." The discretion given to the Committee by this statement, together with the provisions in the Preamble concerning the Committee's judgements, were the basis of the present decision to extend Miss Messing's suspended requirement to withdraw for a year of graduate study should she attend the Graduate School. The quotation from the Preamble to the CRR Procedures printed in The Crimson concerns exceptions to procedural rules by mutual agreement of all parties. Such mutual agreement obviously has no place in the Committee's decisions. G.W. Bowerseck Chairman   Committee on Rights and Responsibilities