The CRR Hands Down Its Decisions

Following are excerpts from the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities report issued yesterday, detailing disciplinary action against students implicated in two anti-apartheid protests last spring.

INTRODUCTION

Large-scale student activism had been rare on American campuses for more than a decade when, in the spring of 1985, growing numbers of students at Harvard and elsewhere became increasingly concerned about issues connected with South Africa. Many demonstrations during that spring, including a mass rally in Harvard Yard, expressed dissent on this issue in a legitimate fashion. The free exercise of the rights of dissent is explicitly protected by the Faculty's Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities. Unhappily, two incidents in the late spring, at 17 Quincy Street on April 24 and at Lowell House on May 2, involved actions that apparently went beyond those protected rights, and violated rights of others. In connection with the two incidents, therefore, charges of violations of the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities were lodged against 18 students by the Dean of Students.

The Committee on Rights and Responsibilities is mandated by Faculty legislation to adjudicate charges of such violations and to impose disciplinary sanctions if warranted by its findings on those charges. (The Committee does not itself lodge charges. Nor does the Committee treat charges of misconduct against officers or employees of the University. Charges of this nature were made by several students in connection with the Lowell House incident; they are currently being addressed by the Commission of Inquiry, as mandated by Faculty Legislation.)

Along with its adjudications, the Dean of the Faculty asked the Committee also "to investigate thoroughly, openly, and fairly the specific circumstances of these two incidents to ensure that there is widespread and accurate knowledge of what happened." Indeed, the facts of these incidents are not widely known--even University officers who were on the scene may still be unaware of some features of events--and erroneous characterizations of the incidents have been numerous. Consequently, the Committee is issuing the detailed report below, which contains its findings both as to the course and nature of the incidents and as to the charges against the students.

The Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities

The rights and responsibilities of members of a university community are essential elements in that community's ability to function. Violation of those rights strikes at the very heart of the University's life and character. Failure to observe those responsibilities weakens the fabric binding disparate elements within the University into one community.

The Faculty's Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities makes explicit those essential principles underlying our community. The incidents of last spring at 17 Quincy Street and Lowell House raise, for the first time in many years, questions of application: what specific kinds of behavior fall within and without the bounds enshrined in the Resolution. The crux of the matter, of course, is that different rights and different responsibilities sometimes come into conflict. Such conflict is inevitable in any setting in which discourse involving differing opinions on issues of great importance is a significant part of ongoing activity. It is expecially so in a university community, for here reasoned discourse is the fundamental rationale for the community's existence.

The Resolution ... states, "the University places special emphasis ... upon certain values which are essential to its nature as an academic community. Among these are freedom of speech ..., freedom from personal force and violence, and freedom of movement." Especially in the incident at Lowell House there can be no doubt that serious violations of these freedoms occurred.

Work of the Committee

The Committee's hearings on each of the two incidents were divided into two sessions. In the first session, we sought testimony regarding the incident as a whole, without identification of the actions of particular students charged with violations of the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities. In the second session, the charges against specific individuals were considered. Of course, each student charged was entitled to participate in the entirety of; the first session, as well as the second session specifically devoted to his or her case.

With regard to the 17 Quincy Street incident, testimony was taken from the Dean of Students (as complainant), some students charged, three other University and College administrators, two police officers, and three staff personnel. With regard to the Lowell House incident, testimony was taken from the Dean of Students (as complainant), some students charged, five other administrators, seven police officers, and six other student eyewitnesses. Hearings were begun in mid-June, but, in the interest of fairness, were continued in the week of September 9, to facilitate the participation of additional students. Altogether, the Committee heard about sixty hours of testimony.

SIT--IN AT 17 QUINCY STREET, APRIL 24, 1985

At 9:15 a.m. on April 24, 1985, approximately forty students entered the 17 Quincy Street offices of the Harvard Governing Boards and, despite being asked to leave by responsible officers of the University, remained until 5 p.m. that day. As a consequence, on May 22, 1985, the Dean of Students brought charges against eleven undergraduates to the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities.

* * * * *

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION

The Committee found that the students charged did participate in a deceptive and forcible entry and in the disruption of the normal functions of the offices at 17 Quincy Street, and that they refused to leave the building when instructed to do so by officers of the University. All eleven students charged have been formally admonished. Had the protesters not taken responsible efforts to minimize the disruptive character of the sit-in, the violation of the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities would have been more serious. The degree of informal cooperation between the protesters and the University authorities at 17 Quincy Street blurred certain disciplinary issues. However, this cooperation helped to maintain a constructive level of civility in the events of 17 Quincy Street that was to be, unfortunately, absent at the Lowell House incident a week later. Both the administrators and the protesters at 17 Quincy Street exhibited self-restraint, without which the incident might have ended in much sadder fashion.

INCIDENT AT LOWELL HOUSE, MAY 2, 1985

On May 2, 1985, a demonstration during the visit of the South African Consul-General to a meeting in Lowell House of the Harvard--Radcliffe Conservative Club eventuated in obstructive actions that seemed clearly to violate the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities. As a consequence, on May 23, 1985, the Dean of Students brought to the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities charges against thirteen undergraduates and one graduate student (GSAS).

Although the sit-in at 17 Quincy Street had raised questions about whether the protesters would remain within the bounds of the Resolution, the spring's demonstrations at Harvard had generally expressed legitimate dissent on an important issue in a civil fashion. The free exercise of these rights of political protest and debate is expressly protected by the Resolution. Against this background, the Lowell House incident was shocking and disgraceful. Fundamental civil liberties were violated in a most shameful fashion. To be sure, much of the misconduct during this incident may not have been premeditated; many of those who behaved wrongly were improvising in the face of unanticipated developments and in the grip of strong emotions. Nevertheless, their actions at Lowell House constituted grave violations of the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities. Moreover, the mass frenzy that characterized much of the Lowell House protest was the very antithesis of the reasoned discourse that is the defining feature of a university community.

* * * * *

SUMMARY OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION

Fourteen students were charged before the Committee in connection with the Lowell House incident. Charges against four students were dismissed. Ten students were required to withdraw from the University for varying periods of time, with the requirement suspended. In the event of any further misconduct during the period of suspension deemed by the Committee to warrant disciplinary action, the suspension will be nullified and the requirement that the student withdraw will take effect.