A New Resolution

The Faculty does not seem to want to confront the problem of discipline in the Harvard community. It has already twice postponed discussion on the fate of the often-criticized Committee on Rights and Responsibilities, and is only belatedly taking up the matter today.

The Faculty faces two distinct proposals for revision. It should quickly dispose of a resolution drafted by the Faculty Council, which only promises to exacerbate the problems that have faced the CRR in the past. A proposal advanced by William Paul, McKay Professor of Applied Physics, deserves lengthier consideration, but all of its provisions except one--the amendment intended to revitalize the long-dormant Commission on Inquiry--should also be voted down.

Both motions share one common drawback--they fail to consider a rewriting of the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities that serves as a charter for both the Commission and the CRR. The Resolution was drafted in the stormy aftermath of the 1969 student strike. It was intended to define the rights and responsibilities of all members of the University community. Although indefinite, it at least delineated a reciprocal set of relationships among students, Faculty and Administrators.

The CRR was designed to enforce the Resolution's provisions concerning free speech and freedom of movement, while the Commission was intended to investigate Administrative unresponsiveness. They were expected to function on an even-handed basis, maintaining a community in which violations of the Resolution were unlikely to occur and meting out fair sanctions against those students who committed such violations.

But in 1970, conservative Faculty passed a series of motions which vitiated the reciprocity of the Resolution and caused student trust to evaporate. Several amendments altering crucial language in the original document effectively severed student actions from both their political context and the question of Administration responsibility. The CRR, operating without students, who had resigned in protest of the Faculty's moves, moved into a position of prominence as almost two hundred students were disciplined at its whim. The Commission, given only advisory powers, was relegated to innocuously investigating matters of little importance.

The Faculty Council motion not only fails to take note of this discrepancy: It incredibly asks that a vote of confidence be given the present version of the Resolution, in addition to proposing two amendments to the CRR's procedures that would further circumscribe the rights of students facing trial by the Committee. We urge that it be speedily voted down.

Paul's amendments are far more positive. His first motion is intended to revitalize the long-dormant Commission of Inquiry by re-affirming its original mandate. Although we sympathize with his objectives, we fail to see how matters can be bettered without a revision of the Resolution itself. We support this amendment, if only to further underscore the contradictions within the present Resolution.

Paul's other amendments are aimed at reforming the present CRR, by providing for student representation on the Committee, open hearings if the defendent so desires, and the establishment of a body separate from the original committee to hear appeals. Although these amendments too are well-intended, we fail to see how they can provide the total overhaul the CRR needs. Students left the CRR originally because they objected to the revised Resolution: we fail to see how they can return until its original promise as an even-handed document applicable to all segments of the University community is redeemed. In addition, Paul's amendments hardly exhaust needed reforms in CRR procedures, even though they deal with some of the Committee's more glaring excesses.

Instead of attempting make-shift reforms, the Faculty should strike at the heart of the problem--the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities. Students should have equal voice in the rewriting of the document, after which the question of its implementation can be considered anew. Only in this way can the Faculty substantively back up its professed commitment to the maintenance of a free and open community of scholars with reciprocal rights and responsibilities.