Board Testimony May Hurt Students--Monro

The debate over student testimony before the Administrative Board may end up in the Faculty, and if students are allowed to testify, it could result in stiffer penalties in disciplinary cases, Dean Monro declared yesterday.

He said the Administrative Board has discussed reform of its procedures along the lines suggested by the Harvard Undergraduate Council, but "this is not a matter we're going to be able to settle in a hurry." The Board will consult the Masters and perhaps the full Faculty before making a decision.

Monro insisted that "students are now very skillfully represented before the Board by their senior tutors." Personal testimony by offenders, he suggested, "could erode the personal way these matters are taken up. It could result in stiffened discipline."

Under a 65-year-old procedure, a student suspected of an offense submits a written record of the facts in his case to his senior tutor, who later informs him of the Board's decision. He may appeal the decision if a member of the Faculty is willing to bring it before a regular meeting.

Too Many Cases

The HUC's suggestion that voluntary testimony be permitted in academic as well as displinary cases was dismissed by Monro. He said "the volume of cases makes that impossible."

Senior tutors, who, as members of the Board, have been considering the request for personal appearance, seem persuaded that the plan is fine in principle. But as R. Carey Mclntosh '55, of Dunster House, put it, "it's a terribly complicated issue." He suggested the Board break cases down into categories and make a separate decision on testimony for each.

"I'm very much moved by the argument that the Board may be fairer if a student is allowed to appear." Frederick C. Cabot '59, acting senior tutor in Winthrop House, said yesterday. He suggested, however, that few students would accept the opportunity to appear before the Board for questioning.

Cabot said the Board will disregard the HUC's claim that disciplinary cases take on a special urgency because of larger draft calls. "The University should in no way go to an extreme to shelter people from the draft," he insisted.

One senior tutor complained that "the question of pure efficiency is unfortunately very important." Complications of student testimony could increase a senior tutor's workload, he said, and "make his job unbearable."