CRR Boycott Cracks

The Freshman Council and the Adams and South House Committees voted this week to break a ten-year student boycott of the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (CRR), touching off a heated debate on possible reform and rejuvenation of the controversial disciplinary committee, which has neither heard a case since 1975 nor met since 1978.

While members of the Council and the two House Committees say they want to "work from within" the committee for reforms, many students in the other ten upperclass Houses--all of which decided this week or last to continue the boycott--say CRR is dangerous or useless, and in either case should be abolished.

The current debate appears almost identical to events in 1973-74 and 1977-78, when undergraduates considered joining CRR (and in 1978, when freshmen briefly did) before resuming the annual boycott.

CRR has evoked a considerable amount of student venom since the Faculty created it in 1969 to hear the cases of large numbers of students involved in the takeover of University Hall and other political demonstrations.

Students began boycotting the committee only a few weeks after its inception, charging that its charter--the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities passed by the Faculty in 1969--was vague enough to allow the committee to punish students for their political beliefs using hearsay evidence and without right of appeal.

Marvin L. Appel. '84, a member of the Freshman Council, said yesterday defining the jurisdiction of the committee more narrowly is one of the major reforms the council hopes to accomplish this year, along with establishing an appeals board, equalizing the numbers of students and Faculty on the committee, and, eliminating hearsay testimony.

"CRR is the only disciplinary body we have where students can participate, and once it's been reformed, students as well as Faculty will be able to use it to protect their rights," Appel added.

But Andrew B. Herrmann '82, a member of the Student Assembly, which endorsed the boycott last week, said yesterday CRR is "an archaic and dangerous institution."

"I'm distrubed that students only see the surface of the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities and don't realize the dangers that the vagueness of the resolution entails," he added.

The Currier House Committee voted unanimously last week to continue the boycott because "the CRR has completely outlived its usefulness," William A. Titus '81, a member, said.

Even if students do join the committee, it is unlikely to meet at all this year, Jerome H. Buckley, Gurney Professor of English Literature and a CRR member, said yesterday.

"I don't think the committee has ever been involved in anything except the protests in the late sixties." Buckley said, adding that "it's been dormant so long I don't even know what it means to serve as a member."