CRR Finds Another Loophole In "all But Acquitting' Messing

The CRR found yet another loophole in the much-criticized Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities and used it to all but acquit Ellen J. Messing '72-4 of the charges brought against her by the Administration last Spring.

Although the CRR unanimously upheld the Administration's contention that Messing's participation in the antiwar sit-in at Littauer Center May 10 constituted a violation of the Resolution the eight-member panel decided not to require her to withdraw from the University.

The conviction was Messing's second and under the guideline outlined in the Resolution any student presently under suspension must automatically withdraw it found guilty of a second violation.

Messing received as indefinite suspension in a June 1970 CRR decision. That ruling also required Messing's dismissal for one year.

The CRR mostly sidestepped this stipulation, using the Resolution's preamble as a guise. The preamble states that "the Committee reserves the right... to grant exception by mutual agreement of all parties in the proceedings, to any of its rules.

Glen W. Bowersock '57, CRR chairman, said yesterday the Committee felt a violation had occured, but that Messing's participation did not warrant severe disciplinary action.

Although Bowersock denied that the Committee feared the possibility of setting dangerous precedents by acquitting Messing, the final ruling belies that statement. The CRR found Messing guilty, but the failure to discipline her for what Bowersock termed "a definite violation of the Resolution" suggests that the CRR itself did not believe strongly in its own decision.

The CRR could not allow Messing to escape without at least a slap on the hand. As Richard B. Stewart, the Administration's prosecutor, said in his concluding remarks, if the CRR acquitted Messing, "it would be an open invitation to any group to sit in at any University building."

Stewart's warning seemed to have influenced the Committee members. Bowersock said yesterday that the CRR tried to disregard the political implications of its decision But the omnipotent nature of a disciplinary body forces it to deal with the political problems of the academic community.

One such problem is the Administration's method of identification. Although at least 30 persons sat in at Littauer, only five were eventually charged. All five have a long history of active radicalism at Harvard.

Bowersock said yesterday that the CRR not only was aware of the Administration's inequitable identification process, but that the Committee would make a formal complaint in its public statement on the Messing case, which will be released on Monday.

"The University simply had not done its job in the Messing case." Bowersock said. "We feel very strongly about the selectivity of the Administration's identification."

Further reconsideration of the CRR and its role in the academic community comes up Tuesday at the Faculty meeting. While the fate of the CRR hangs in the balance. Bowersock said the Committee members have pledged to continue serving "as long as the CRR exists."

"None of us is on the CRR by choice." Bowersock said. "But we're doing everything we can to insure the proceedings are fair."

It may be that the CRR members feel it is impossible to be fair. This belief, unconscious as it might be, probably led to their decision to convict Ellen Messing, but not to punish her for the inequities of a Resolution she had meeting to do wish