Faculty Postpones Debate On Discipline of Members

The Faculty yesterday formally approved the committee which will discipline students who use violence or engage in other unacceptable activities within the University, but it deferred until October 21 consideration of a parallel committee for disciplining Faculty.

The decision to postpone consideration of the committee for Faculty discipline came late in the meeting. Michael Walzer, associate professor of Governement and chairman of the Faculty's liberal caucus, urged a delay because the little time remaining was not enough to air the questions he and other Faculty members had about the procedures envisioned under the proposal.

The plan for disciplining Faculty was developed by the Committee of Fifteen to serve as an interim measure until it can devise a final plan. The proposal is roughly similar to the controversial procedures used to discipline Jack R. Stauder 61, instructor in Social Anthropology, and the highest ranking Corporation appointee arrested at University Hall.

Under the plan, the Faculty members of the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (the new student discipline panel) will also serve as a fact-finding panel for Faculty misconduct.

If President Pusey decides the facts warrant further action, a five-man committee-composed of two Corporation members and the three Faculty members on both the Committee of 15 and the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities-will hold hearings and present a discipline recommendation to the Corporation.

Committee Composition

In addition to three Faculty members of the Committee of Fifteen, the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities includes three Faculty members of college and GSAS Administrative Boards and three student members of the Committee of Fifteen.

(The text of the disciplinary procedures of the new Committee on Rights and Responsibilities will appear in Thursday's CRIMSON.)

The Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities which these committees are to enforce was adopted by the Faculty June 9. It provides for punishing students or Faculty who occupy buildings, disrupt classes, or use violence against other members of the University.

Walzer Questions.

When debate on the plan for disciplining Faculty came Walzer made his motion for postponement, citing several "very real and very hard questions" he had about the proposal:

Would the new committee view certain parts of the committee report on Stauder's discipline as judicial additions to the rules of Harvard?

Just what acts constituted encouraging violations of University rules under the report on the Stauder case?

Would the new committee have the power to require Faculty members to appear for a hearing? If Faculty members refused to appear, would this constitute grounds for dismissal or other discipline?

Earlier, the student half of the discipline procedure was approved by a 302-59

vote after a short debate. Alan Heimert '49, spokesman for the Committee of Fifteen, said the plan had been developed after informal consultation with Faculty members because Heimert's group had only temporary authority from the governing boards.

Another Committee of Fifteen members, Gerald Holton, professor of Physics, said it was "just a necessity to spin off this task from the over-loaded committee of Fifteen."

Opponents of the committee for student discipline argued it had been presented to the Faculty on too short notice, and that it would have been better to let the Faculty as a whole devise the plan.