Winter Report Academics and Polities: The CRR

BEARS don't do much when it's cold. As the days shorten and the temperature drops, they retreat into their caves. It's almost as though they'd disappeared; if you didn't know better, you might think they were dead. But actually, they're quite alive, performing most of their bear-functions, quietly, unobtrusively. And when the warm weather returns, they emerge from underground, healthy and refreshed, ready to start all over again.

During the past six months, the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities has been hearing readmission's cases of students forced to leave the University because they participated in the University Hall occupation two years ago or in militant actions during the Cambodia strike last year. Considering about a dozen cases, the Committee has voted to readmit every student who has applied. Newspapers have not covered these meetings; no reporters are permitted to attend. (All descriptions of CRR meetings in this article are based on accounts by those present.) Many people have forgotten about the CRR, and a whole freshman class has never heard of it. But the CRR has not died. And who knows what will happen when the warm weather returns.

This Tuesday the Faculty will discuss and probably vote on a revised draft of the procedures of the CRR. Most of the important amendments- all were drawn up by Committee members- derive from experiences the CRR has had during the past term. Readmission's cases interest few people. Judging whether to let someone back into Harvard is much less dramatic than deciding whether to kick him out. And while disciplinary hearings usually take place in a political context, right after the event in question has occurred, readmission's cases come up over six months later, when time has faded the incidents and issues into history. But the readmission's cases are important. They do more than discomfort the individuals involved; they also indicate the nature of the CRR and its mode of operation.

Even more than disciplinary hearings, readmission's cases are left to the discretion of the Committee. A student can be thrown out of Harvard in a number of different ways, depending on the severity of the charges against him. Of all students forced to leave, the ones "required to withdraw" have the best chance of being readmitted. According to the Readmission Procedures of the CRR, after a student required to withdraw has been away from Harvard for a minimum period of time, he can apply to come back. In a CRIMSON interview, Donald G. M. Anderson, chairman of the Committee, said, "With requirement to withdraw, the basic criterion in the Procedure is presumption of readmission unless we feel it's not in the best interests of the University to have you come back. We have to find a reason to keep you out."

When a student applies for readmission, he must supply the Committee with a statement describing his activities since he left Harvard ("with particular reference to employment and educational experiences"). The Committee has no guidelines on judging cases of readmission. "The Committee wishes to know all information about the student's activities during the period of his absence from Harvard which may reasonably be deemed germane," the Procedures say. The Committee decides what "may reasonably be deemed germane."

As one of its options, the Committee can request an interview of an applicant for readmission. "In some circumstances, an interview with one or more members of the Committee may be appropriate," the Procedures read. If the Faculty approves one of the suggested amendments, a clause will be added: "Such an interview will normally be required of those wishing to return to the University." Interviews would become the rule rather than the exception.

SOFAR, the Committee has had only two interviews. Both concerned students "required to withdraw": one, Mike Schwartz, a Sociology graduate student, for his part in the University Hall occupation of April 1969; the other, John McKean, a senior thrown out a few days before graduation, for his role in last Spring's Cambodia demonstrations. Both were readmitted. The interviews are interesting because they illustrate the CRR at work and because they demonstrate the different meanings that individuals can ascribe to the word "germane."

After leaving Harvard, Schwartz taught at UCLA. There, he was arrested in a demonstration and, as a result, was not rehired. He obtained a three-year teaching contract at the State University of New York at Stonybrook and decided to apply for readmission to Harvard. Since he had fulfilled all his doctoral degree requirements except for submitting his thesis, Schwartz did not plan to return to Harvard. However, according to University regulations, before he could receive a degree, he had to be readmitted.

After consulting his Harvard adviser, Harrison White, Schwartz decided not to mention the UCLA demonstration and described only his "employment and educational experiences." A letter from the UCLA Chancellor informed Harvard of the incident, however, and at his interview, Schwartz was asked why he had not mentioned it. He replied that he, and White as well, did not consider it "germane."

But most members of the Committee thought it was germane. Predictably, they asked him under what conditions he considers coercive tactics acceptable and whether he believes force should ever be used in a University community. Some interrogators went further.

Because Schwartz plans to teach, Kenneth Deitch, representative of the Senior Tutors, felt that "fitness to teach" was an issue. "I think it's my responsibility to judge on your fitness to get up there and teach kids," Deitch reportedly said. He asked Schwartz how he would address students in his classes if a demonstration was taking place on campus. Would he exhort people to take over buildings? Would he take part himself? If he were a dean and students occupied his office, how would he react?

Other questions swept into the area of Schwartz's personal life. For instance, he was asked how he met his wife and what influence she had on his life. Personal questions are not unusual. McKean was also asked about his social activities. And at another meeting, this one to discuss a case without an interview. Anderson distributed copies he had received of an unsolicited letter describing the applicant's sex life over the past several years.

One of the more surprising questions at the Schwartz interview came from Donald Steele, a graduate student representative. Schwartz is doing his doctoral work on the American Populist movement. "I want to know," Steele asked, "is your interest in Populism related to your interest in radical movements?"

Steele and Deitch will not talk to the CRIMSON. " The central functions of an academic community are learning, teaching, research and scholarship. By accepting membership in the University, an individual joins a community ideally characterized by free expression, free inquiry, intellectual honesty, respect for the dignity of others, and openness to constructive change. "- from the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities, approved by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

Unlike Schwartz, McKean wanted to return to Harvard to attend the Ed School. For that reason, Anderson requested an interview. As in Schwartz's interview, some members of the Committee asked McKean questions about his political views and his opinions on the justification of force.

THE CRR, like the Committee of Fifteen before it, has dealt only with issues arising from political demonstrations. The Resolution permits the CRR to consider many other violations, such as those concerning all sorts of damage to University property. The individual filing charges decides whether he will place them with the CRR or with the Ad Board, a panel of Senior Tutors and other administrators that meets regularly to discuss different types of disciplinary cases. Before the occupation of University Hall in April 1969, the Ad Board considered all disciplinary cases. Now, the CRR is authorized to handle charges of interference with "freedom of speech and academic freedom, freedom from personal force and violence, and freedom of movement"- in short, with "values which are essential to [the University's] nature as an academic community." "Theft or willful destruction of the property of the University" is included in this category.

In an interview, Dean May said there is a "gray area" between the jurisdiction of the Ad Board and that of the CRR. May said that in deciding where he should present his charges, he considers "whether the case is one that needs to be heard by a representative body, as the CRR is," adding, "My guess is that the extent of community interest in the case is an important factor." Making another distinction, May said, "The Ad Board deals with the truth of the facts, the CRR more with the quality of the action."

Q. Dean May, if someone threw snowballs at you, that would be clearly a case for the Ad Board, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And if someone threw snowballs at you and shouted "Promote the Helpers," that would fall into the "gray area" and might very well be brought to the CRR?

A. Yes, I suppose that is correct.

Most Committee members are reticent about discussing the political nature of the CRR. Predictably, the two radical student members of the Committee will readily talk about that issue. But Martin Kilson, a Faculty representative, also discussed the matter candidly. "There is no doubt we are political, because we are in a situation which arose in a political context," Kilson said. "Our findings will also have political implications." At the Schwartz interview, annoyed by complaints of the radical students that Schwartz was being asked questions on his political beliefs and that such questions were irrelevant to his case for readmission, Kilson said, "Come on, don't kid yourself, this is a political tribunal, and it's relevant if he's politically acceptable."

SO THE CRR has few guidelines in readmission's cases. So it frequently asks political questions and some of its members admit its political nature. So it puts applicants it interviews under a grille that is usually both painful and humiliating. So it demonstrates its political nature by taking only political cases away from the Ad Board's jurisdiction. So it makes that all clearer in a proposed amendment, which would specify that only students asked to leave the University by the Committee- and not those disciplined by the Ad Board, for theft, property destruction, or anything else- are forbidden to be present "in any part of the Harvard community without the express written permission of the Committee." So the new voting procedure to elect student CRR delegates is an elaborate lottery system that, as Anderson said, "is guaranteed to produce students," thus avoiding embarrassing situations such as Quincy House's indecision on its authority to send a representative and Dudley House's election of one pledged against the Committee. So what? What is the role of the CRR?

The frequent repetition of the phrase "academic community" in the Resolution is, of course, no accident. The CRR is the ultimate bulwark against the outside world. It keeps out "the coercive arm of the outside community," as Kilson put it. But while supporters of the CRR defend the concept of the separate academic community, they ignore that community's involvement in the outside world. It is this involvement which motivates most of the turmoil the CRR judges. It would be lovely to live in a world where a pure academic community can exist, where scholars needn't think about atrocities outside their gates. It would be lovely to live in a world without atrocities. But while a war wages in Indochina, an unjust war waged with the complicit support of the University, one can't expect peace to prevail within those gates. The University must fight to create a world where an academic community can exist.

It's winter now, and the bear is still sleeping. If you look closely, you can observe most of his features. But why bother to study him? Well, for one thing, warm weather is returning. You never know. The bear may wake up.