CRR Chides Harvard For Lack of Evidence In Disciplinary Cases

The Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (CRR), citing "the fragmentary nature of the evidence" brought before it, has suggested in a report released Friday that the University "consider a greater investment in people and equipment on a continuing basis so that adequate coordination between crisis management, evidence gathering, and prosecution is achieved."

The 13-page report-which contains an explanation of the Committee's actions concerning 32 complaints it received following the disruption and cancellation of the March 26 pro-war "Counter Teach-In" in Sanders Theatre-offers several recommendations on how the University might better protect itself in the future.

Asserting that the central issues involved at the "Counter Teach-In" were free speech and academic freedom, the CRR argues in its report, "To say that a speaker whose opinions are unpopular, even anathema to a vast majority of the University community, will not be allowed to express his opinion when duly invited to do so is simply to make a mockery of any meaningful concept of academic freedom and freedom of speech. The University cannot compromise on this point and survive as a free institution."

Outrage, Frustration, Conscience

The CRR acknowledged the political climate of the meeting, but commented, "The Committee does not doubt that outrage, frustration, or acts of conscience in regard to the Vietnam War were present at the 'Counter Teach-In.' Yet while these elements help to explain what happened, they can in no way justify it."

Indicating that it considered the denial of such freedoms to be a matter of some gravity, the CRR stated that "???ar evidence that a defendant contributed to the disruption in a sustained manner is sufficient reason for requiring him to leave the University for some period of time."

The CRR admitted, however, that it had great difficulty in evaluating "the fragmentary nature of the evidence" which it was presented, and thus had to dismiss ten complaints "on grounds that the preponderance of evidence introduced at the hearings did not support the charge that the defendant had violated the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities."

New Procedural Changes

Under the section titled "Observations and Recommendations," the CRR notes that any procedural changes which it recommends will have to be"dealt with by a new Committee and a new administration during the next academic year."

However, the report comments that "the proceduces of the Committee seem at present adequate to the task, if perhaps evenly protective of student interests as opposed to University interests."

Arguing that the University should invest in more people and equipment so that "adequate coordination" of evidence and prosecution can be achieved. the report notes, "The fact is that an internal disciplinary mechanism will become increasingly internal of protecting the interests of the University community if the evolving nature of events procludes adequate collection of objective and subjective evidence, identification of those responsible, and appropriate disciplinary proceedings."

It adds, "The hope that the problem will simply disappear in the near future seems illusory. Adequate evidence can only be to the advantage of all concerned, including the defendant."

In the Court's Lap

The CRR report also discussed the harassment case of David A. Guberman '71. Gubetman charged that a Radcliffe senior had made eight harassing phone calls between 12:50 a.m. and 2:30 a.m. which the telephone company had traced to the defendant's phone. The report explained that "the Committee was unable to determine responsibility for the phone harassment" because "the CRR has no power to compel testimony under 'cress examination'."

"The Committee strongly recommends that such cases be handled in future by the courts, where compulsory process is available to determine guilt and levy suitable punishment," the report said.

Ed School Case

The Education School's Student-Faculty Committee on Discipline has completed its face-finding report in the case of first-year student John McKean '70, and has submitted its recommendations to Dana Cotton. acting dean of the Ed School. McKean said last night that he expects to be told of the Ed School Committee's findings on Wednesday, when he has an appointment with Cotton.