CRR Votes No Punishment For All Students Charged With Harassing Dean May

Charges have been dropped against the four students charged with harassing. Dean May during the Dec. 11 occupation of University Hall.

Instead, the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities voted Thursday that the Resolution passed by the Faculty last June was not explicit on the subject of "harassment."

"Such vote," the Committee stressed in letters sent to all four students yesterday, "by no means constitutes either condoning your action or any assurance that similar action in the future will not warrant disciplinary measures."

The full text of the letter will be printed in Monday's CRIMSON.

The four students-Vincent L. Goddard '73, Richard E. Hyland '69-4, Barry A. Margolin '70, and Dean Sheppard '71-were charged by Dean May with obstructing his freedom by shouting at him and following him around outside University Hall. May filed charges with the Committee on Dec. 17.

Dean Harassed

"The Committee considers that on Dec. 11, 1969, the dean of Harvard College did experience such personal harassment," the Committee statement reads. "At the same time," the statement coutinues, "the Committee also notes certain important elements which, had they been lacking, might have led the Committee to take serious disciplinary action against any one found to have meaningfully participated in the harassment." Factors mentioned in the letters include:

"The Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities does not list harassment as among the 'unacceptable activities' decribed therein;

"What transpired on Dec. 11 in Harvard Yard did not interfere with the freedom of speech or with the movement of the dean within the meaning of the Resolution nor did it obstruct the essential processes of the University;

"Though the Committee believes that the treatment accorded the dean was uncivil and unacceptable, it notes that some students may have believed that chanting slogans was not prescribed by the Resolution (as indeed it was not) and that this particular instance of persistent chanting while closely following the dean therefore was a tolerable extension of thegeneral right to carry on political activity;

"Even though the Committee believes that political activity should not extend to this form of personal harassment, it must also recognize that the powers of the Committee involve the taking of disciplinary measures with respect to actions that violate the Resolution and not to the general supervisions of the good order of the University or the good conduct of its student members."

In addition, Hyland, who was under a suspended suspension for his participation in the occupation of University Hall last April, was warned that his activities on Dec. 11 justified "effectuating the requirement to withdraw for one year voted by the Committee of 15."

However, a separte letter from the Committee said, the Committee recognized "extraordinary mitigating circumstances."

Hyland was notified that "any further misconduct, however slight, will result in your being required to withdraw immediately."

In the letters, the Committee advises all students that in the future "they should expect that complaints may be heard and disciplinary action may follow in cases involving the persistent, loud, and proximate shouting or chanting at members of the University or in cases otherwise involving the subjection of individuals to intense personal harassment."

Ad Board

It is unclear, however, the letters say, whether such complaints should be heard by the Committee or by the Administrative Board.

James Q. Wilson, professor of Government and chairman of the Committee, said last night that a revised Resolution-possibly but not certainly dealing with the subject of personal harassment-will go before the Faculty this Spring.

"I personally favor the Administrative Board for such cases," Wilson said. "In the short run the Ad Board is generally responsible for maintaining the good order of the University."

Wilson added that whatever was decided the cases of these four students would not be brought before the Ad Board. "It was our feeling that nobody should deal with the first instance of such behavior when the Resolution was unclear," he said.