Revised CRR Resolution Reflects All Amendments Of Faculty Conservatives

The latest version of the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities-to be presented at the April 14 Faculty meeting-clearly bears the influence of conservative elements within the Faculty, who defeated the old resolution last month through a series of amendments which forced its withdrawal.

In the attempt to answer objections raised at the March 25 meeting-most aimed at keeping separate questions of administrative and student responsibility-the Committee of Fifteen has adopted most of the hostile amendments which led to withdrawal originally.

The old resolution was withdrawn for rewriting by Roger Rosenblatt, assistant professor of English and chief spokesman for the Committee of Fifteen.

The new version is the fourth such document, superseding the June 9 interim proposal, the October 24 revision by the newly-formed Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (CRR), and the "final" resolution of March 25.

As drawn up by the Committee, the March 25 resolution was intended to stress the responsibility to the community of Administration and Faculty members-and it was the paragraph ostensibly doing so that drew most of the opposition from the Faculty.

The original paragraph read: "Lack of responsiveness by officers of administration and instruction, insensitivity to widely perceived needs to change, failure to give full and fair hearing and prompt response to grievances, and failure in a process of decision to consult with those concerned with the results of the decision are incompatible with the existence of an open University community, and are as damaging as some of the more overt violations of rights.

"Therefore, the community has both

the right and the responsibility to establish without prejudice to basic academic freedom, procedures to review, assess, and make accountable the performance of its officers."

One amendment passed-proposed by H. Stuart Hughes. Gurney Professor of History and Political Sciences-objected to the clauses relating to "lack of responsiveness," "as damaging as some of the more overt violations," and "procedures to review, assess, and make accountable."

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

Hughes also charged that the clause providing procedures to review actions of officers "goes far beyond the ombudsman committee actually provided."

Recommendations accompanying the resolution in both versions call for a special student-Faculty committee to serve as a "collective ombudsman" and channel grievances.

The new version of the crucial paragraph accepts all of Hughes' objections. The suggestion that administrative errors may be "as damaging as some of the more overt violations" has been removed; that clause now reads. "Failures to meet these responsibilities may be profoundly damaging to the life of the University."

'Responsiveness' Hughes objected to as "a rather slippery word, and one which in contemporary usage comes closes to meaning giving the answer yes."

That section now reads, "In particular, it is the responsibility of officers of administration and instruction to be alert to the needs of the University community..."

"Procedures to review, assess and make accountable" have become "orderly procedures consistent with imperatives of academic freedom to assess the policies and assure the responsibility of those whose decisions affect the life of the University."

The new version also adds a sentence to the old resolution-stemming from an amendment proposed by Arthur Maass, Thomson Professor of Government-de signed to further separate the issues of Faculty and student culpability.

The sentence reads. "No violation of the rights of members of the University, nor any failure to meet responsibilities, should be interpreted as justifying any violation of the rights of members of the University."

The old version did not mention "personal harrassment" -an issue raised by Dean May during the Dec. 11 occupation of University Hall-as one of the specific violations of rights.

But a motion making this an implicit violation was passed at the March 25 meeting and the docket for the April 14 meeting includes a resolution-to be proposed by Rosenblatt-saying "the Faculty regards it as implicit in the language of the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities 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 of the personal rights on which the University is based."

Finally, this new version returns to the wording of the June 9 proposal-listing the central functions of the University as "learning, teaching, research and scholarship"-wording deliberately eliminated earlier because of what the Committee called "widespread disagreement."