Resolution

man" to deal with student grievances.

However, the February 20 progress report of the CRR made it clear that none of this was intended "as a specification of activities for which an officer of the University may be disciplined."

One of the amendments passed-proposed by H. Stuart Hughes, Gurney Professor of History and Political Sciences, and already defeated by the Faculty Council-changed the wording of that paragraph to delete the clauses relating to "lack of responsiveness," "as damaging as some of the more overt violations," and "procedures to review, assess and make accountable..."

Instead, the paragraph would read: "It is expected of officers of administration and instruction that they will show themselves sensitive to broadly felt dissatisfaction in the University community and to widely perceived needs for change. In particular they should give full and fair hearings and prompt answers to grievances and should consult with those concerned...

"Therefore, channels should be established through which such grievances may be brought to the alternation of appropriate members or agencies within the University and through which an account may be given to the University community at large reviewing the status of redress of such grievances."

The paragraph in question is "ambiguous and misleading," Hughes said. "'Responsiveness' is a rather slippery word, and in contemporary usage comes close to meaning giving the answer yes,"

Hughes called the clause equating student and administrative responsibility an "overstatement." and said. "named delinquent action cannot be equated with missteps in office."

The clause providing "procedures to assess, review, and make accountable" the actions of officers of the University "goes far beyond the ombudsman committee actually provided," Hughes said. "It seems better not to raise future expectations."

The Hughes amendment passed by a vote of 81-73.

The Faculty also passed an amendment proposed by Arthur Maass, Thomson Professor of Government, adding a sentence to that same paragraph designed to further separate the issues of Faculty and student culpability.

The sentence reads. "But nothing in this paragraph should be interpreted as justifying any violation of the right of members of the academic community given in the third paragraph of this resolution."

The third paragraph enumerates such rights as freedom of speech and academic freedom, freedom from personal force and violence, and freedom of movement, and adds that "interference with members of the University in performance of their normal duties and activities must be regarded as unaceptable obstruction of the essential processes of the University."

The Maass amendment-defeated 17-1 in the Faculty Council-passed after two recounts by an 84-79 vote.

A motion made on behalf of the Faculty Council by Rogers G. Albritton, professor of Philosophy-making it implicit in the Resolution that "intense personal harassment of such a character as to amount to grave disrespect for the dignity of others be regarded as an unacceptable violation"-was passed by voice vote.

A similar resolution by Arthur Smithies, Ropes Professor of Political Economy and Master of Kirkland House, was withdrawn in favor of the Albritton motion.

The Faculty also agreed to return to the wording of the June 9 interim resolution, which listed the central functions of the University as "learning, teaching, research, and scholarship"-mention of which were deliberately left out of the present resolution by the CRR because of widespread disagreement."

Attacking the resolution, Abram Bergson, professor of Economics, said, "If these platitudes are endorsed by the Faculty, currents already in motion which make it difficult for officers of the University to make decisions in accordance with their best judgement will be increased."

Bergson called the question of responsibility to widely felt needs for change "essentially a political question." and accused the creators of the resolution of "trying to achieve essentially political aims in the guise of trying to formulate a code of conduct,"

Bergson's amendment-also rewriting that same paragraph-was not voted on, as Rosenblatt withdrew the resolution as soon as the Hughes amendment passed.

"Every word is a rubberband that can be expanded and contracted at will," charged Alexander Gerschenkron, Barker Professor of Economics.

Gerschenkron called the resolution "a piece of pernicious journalese." and said. "I am and must remain the sole judge of my opinions."

Most of the attack came from the right, but Hilary W. Putnam, professor of Philosophy, urged defeat of the resolution for radical reasons.

"Passage of this resolution would be an extremely reactionary step." Putnam said. "It's a law and order document on its face, and will serve the same forces."

"To pretend that the Administration or Faculty is responsive is absurd." he added. "To pass this resolution is to say that the status quo must be maintained, even if it destroys surrounding communities, and even if it is racist."