Last Wednesday's vote at the Graduate School of Design denying "remedial action" to Chester A. Hartman '57, effectively ends Hartman's seven-year battle for redress of his non-hiring, which he has alleged was based on his leftist political beliefs.
But the implications of the Hartman case--and the aftershocks which the case continues to produce in the GSD--are manifold.
The GSD faculty vote on Wednesday was pro forma; Hartman, who has never gained broad support among faculty members, called it "totally predictable."
In addition to rejecting five motions placed before it by Hartman himself, the faculty approved motions that uphold the earlier findings against the former assistant professor of City Planning by the Hartman Review Committee (HRC). The committee had been at odds with the work of the Academic Policy Committee of the GSD.
The approved motions call, in part, for a review of grievance procedures at the GSD and for faculty cooperation in future in-house inquiries.
The latter resolution comes in apparent response to a June letter by Donald G.M. Anderson, chairman of the GSD's Academic Policy Committee, which sharply criticized Francois C.D. Vigier, professor of City Planning and Urban Design, for his alleged failure to cooperate in the 1973 investigation by the Hartman Review Committee.
The Anderson letter, publicized for the first time this week, has already resulted in a counter-attack by Vigier, and promises to fuel the upcoming discussion of reform in the grievance process and the discussion of the larger question of the role of faculty members in the investigations of cases involving their co-workers.
Meanwhile, Hartman, who is aware that his protest has become largely symbolic, says he plans to appeal the faculty's vote to President Bok, and possibly also to the Overseers Visiting Committee of the GSD, the American Association of University Professors and the courts.