Faculty Caucuses Are Still Around

Four months and a summer later, an institution that many Faculty members hoped would disband after the April crisis still continues: the 'liberal' and 'conservative' Faculty caucuses.

The leaders of both groups met over the summer and in the last two weeks have held two general meetings. Both plan to continue weekly conferences.

The caucuses and their disagreement have changed little since the occupation of University Hall.

As in April, the conservative group remains a more cohesive body of about 45-50 senior Faculty and much broader spectrum of views.

"Our members seem to agree with our steering committee," says Robert L. Wolff, professor of History and chairman of the conservative group, "more often than their members seem to agree with their steering committee."

The unity of the conservative group hints at one of the fundamental sources of disagreement between the caucuses, both last April and now: a difference in style. "Their side really believes more in arranging things in an orderly way beforehand," says John Womack, jr., assistant professor of History "in stream-lining things, managing things." The liberal group seems to prefer public decision-making.

The caucuses' negotiating structure seems to be more formal than before. While the membership of both groups insist that their organization is informal and varies from meeting to meeting, each caucus now has a steering committee of six or seven meetings.

At present, the steering committees are meeting for lunch each Monday to alert their members to potential sources of opposition. So far no formal platforms have been agreed upon.

The conservative steering committee consists of Wilson, Wolff, Andrew Gleason, professor of Mathematies, and

Richard Hernstein, professor of Psychology.

The liberal steering group is larger and less defined. It consists of walzer; John Womack, Jr., assistant professor of History; Roderick Furth, professor of Philosophy; Arthur Solomon, professor of Romance Languages; Wassily Leontief, professor of Economics: Juan Marichal; Cary Marx, assistant professor of Sociology: Gerald Holton; professor of Physics and Martin Peretz, assistant professor of Social Studies.

Conservative members feel that despite the more formal procedure and communication, the boundaries and communication between the groups remains fluid. "My fear in April," says Wilson, "was that the Faculty would be divided into two or three or four bitterly warring factions and create a Berkeley-type situation."

While no such bitter divisions have emerged, the liberals tend to be less enthusiastic in their account of communications between the cancuses. Womack believes that while the steering committees have remained on good terms, "there has been a kind of sharpening of feeling and an accumulating resentment from people in both caucuses."

The substantive issues dividing the caucuses remain ill-defined, since neither caucus has seen the Fainsod Committee report and neither has heard the Administration's formal account of the proceedings of the summer.

But disagreement has begun to emerge over the treatment of what have come to be called the "shadow cases": the four corporation appointees whose nominations President Pusey resubmitted to the departments after the Freund Committee and Joint Committee refused to take disciplinary action against them.

Pusey's decision apparently alarmed members of both caucuses, but according to conservative Faculty the concern stemmed from a misunderstanding of the facts.

The appointments of those involved, they say, had expired before the April crisis, and were waiting for Corporation approval when the occupation occurred. After the occupation, the Freund Committee had only circumstantial evidence that the four had been involved in the incident, but since the Committee had no jurisdiction to subpoena witnesses for a more thorough investigation. The disciplinary board decided it didn't have sufficient evidence to initiate proceedings.

"As I understand it," says Wilson, "the President said, 'there are these cases in which there are derogatory implications. What Faculty group should speak on them?' "Wilson contends that Pusey consulted the Committee of 15 and some Faculty members from both caucuses before he re-submitted the names to the departments. "It wasn't Pusey's decision," says Wilson. "it was the Faculty's decision."

Liberal caucus members agree with this account but argue that it doesn't resolve many questions. Some liberal Faculty are concerned that Pusey could decide the appointments were open to challenge.

"A large number of Faculty didn't think they were," says Walzer. Other Faculty members indicate they believe concern about this issue goes far beyond the ranks of the liberal caucus.

Liberal caucus members feel the Administration has often been indifferent to their concerns and to Faculty concerns in general. Communications with the administration at lower levels, they feel, has improved markedly since the crisis. Some attribute this to the power liberals displayed during the April Faculty votes. "The number of people who can get their opinions to the places where decisions are made is increasing." says Womack. But he adds, "What there is in our caucus is a feeling that higher up there is a lack of sympathy and cooperation."

The other major issue likely to divide the two caucuses concerns Faculty self-government. Liberal Faculty seem determined to make the Faculty a self-governing body and to minimize the role of the administration in Faculty affairs. They consequently favor the election of members to any new governing group, such as the Faculty Council which the Fainsod Report is expected to propose.

Conservative caucus members favor the appointment of any new Faculty groups. The conservative group, according to Wilson, feels "shrewd and sensitive" administrators could ensure that all views were represented on any new governing board whereas an elected board might lean to one side or the other.

Surprisingly, the issue of students on committees no longer seems to divide the groups. Both caucuses have accepted the need to include students on governing committees whose decisions affect the students directly. Some conservatives seem to feel student representation never should have been an issue. "In April." says one, "issues came to a head so fast that nobody was sure of what he thought."