Committee Revived to Try Anti-Apartheid Protesters

After 10 years of inactivity, a controversial committee charged with upholding the individual liberties of members of the Harvard community will convene next week to pursue possible disciplinary action against students involved in two recent anti-apartheid protests.

The Faculty Council, the Faculty's elected steering committee, voted Wednesday to call upon the 15-member student-faculty Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (CRR) to investigate the cases of students who took part in an April 24 sit-in at the headquarters of Harvard's Governing Boards and the May 2 blockade of a South African diplomat inside Lowell House.

Created in 1969

Created by the Faculty in 1969 to discipline students in the wake of a violent takeover of

University Hall, the CRR last assembled in 1978, but has not heard a case since 1975, when it admonished six students for a Massachusetts Hall takeover.

Since its establishment, students have perennially boycotted the committee, claiming that its powers are so vague that it can punish students for their political beliefs without appeal (see story page one).

Other students elected to the committee in its early years boycotted the CRR because they said their lives had been made impossible by pressure from fellow students.

House Committee chairmen from all 13 Houses will meet today with Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III to discuss whether they will accept the dean's invitation to nominate student representatives to the CRR.

Secretary to the Faculty John R. Marquand said that if students do not boycott the CRR this year, he hopes that the entire committee could be seated by the end of next week.

But he said that even if students do decide to continue the boycott, the committee is empowered to proceed and will still attempt to meet next week.

The seven Faculty members of the CRR were chosen at the beginning of the school year. The Faculty Council expects to choose a replacement for one of the seven. Gurney Professor of English Literature Jerome H. Buckley--on leave this semester--at next Wednesday's Faculty Council meeting.

Ideally, four undergraduates, two students in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, six Faculty members and one non-voting Faculty chairman compose the CRR making it the only disciplinary body in which students may actively participate.

The CRR is vested with the authority to enforce the University's 1970 Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities (RRR), which outlines the University's policies on individual freedoms and obligations.

Crr decisions are binding and cannot be appealed, nor can they be overruled by either the Faculty or University administrators.

The Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities, which condemns disruption of University business and violations of freedom and speech and movement about Harvard, is considered the relevant Faculty regulation for pursuing punitive action against students violating these and other freedoms. (see text, page 3)

Dean of the College John B. Fox Jr., '59 said that the two protests were presented to the CRR rather than the Administrative Board-Harvard's traditional disciplinary body-because "they were in clear violation of the RRR."

The Faculty Council's decision to call upon the CRR marks the first time in more than a decade that the Faculty has officially acted to expedite punitive procedures against student protesters.

The move comes in response to the recent escalation in student activism protesting apartheid and the University's $580 million in South Africa-related investments.

Three weeks ago, 45 students engaged in a peaceful eight-hour sit-in inside the 17 Quincy St. offices of Harvard's seven-man governing Corporation, which has ultimate control over the University's investment policies.

One week later, nearly 200 students protesting a visit by a South African consul general forcibly blocked the exit to the room in which he was speaking. Police burst through the blockade and escorted the diplomat, New York City Consul General Abe S. Hoppenstein, through the crowd, allegedly injuring several students and police.

More than 100 students, who were involved in or have pledged solidarity with last month's sit-in, will come forward with a statement describing their account of the event, said sit-in participants Anthony A. Ball '86 and Evan O. Grossman '87 of the Southern Africa Solidarity Committee.

Ball said all the signatories asked for the same treatment.

"I think it's a wonderful statement about the attitude in the community," said Fox upon learning of this decision.

Fox expressed doubt that action will be taken against students who signed the statement but did not participate in the sit-in.

The statement, which includes the names and bursar card numbers of the activists, comes in response to last Friday's mandate by the Faculty Council that the sit-in participants identify themselves and their participation to the deans of the College and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.

Because the Lowell House incident was not planned by any one organization, no such unified group statement will be presented, said Ball.

The CRR is expected to decide how it will go about identifying and contacting students who do not come forward.

Nineteen students have filed complaints with Epps about police handling of the Lowell House incident. All of the statements have been turned over to the Commission on Inquiry, an independent Faculty committee created with the CRR to investigate student complaints against the University.

While the CRR is not authorized to begin investigating any of the cases until a complaint against a specific person is lodged. Marquand said that it can begin investigations into the incident. The nature of the investigations remains unclear.

Epps said students who do not come forward to deans with their identity may still face the CRR. He explained that photographs taken by Harvard Police during the sit-in could be used as evidence of students' participation, as could testimonials from Harvard administrators present at the events.

I think we have enough of an idea of what went on at both places [17] Quincy St. and Lowell House to give the CRR a full (but not utterly comprehensive) report of what took place," Fox said yesterday. He added that it would be up to the committee to determine what evidence it felt was valid and relevant to each case it pursues.

No Reliance

Although Fox said that he hopes students would not rely on the decisions of earlier generations in abandon the CRR, some students said they still favor a boycott.

Undergraduate Council Chairman Brian R. Melendez '86 said yesterday he will attend today's meeting between Epps and House Committee chairmen to speak in favor of a continued student boycott of the CRR.

"While the Undergraduate Council has never explicitly supported the boycott, I will try to encourage House Committee to discourage members from seeking the CRR nomination," Melendez said.

He said that he felt the CRR "singles out for punishment a type of conduct that is a fundamental right," and that the committee should be abolished.

Grossman agreed, saying, "I have no ways of improving the CRR expect by abolishing it."

In the Dark

CRR Faculty members interviewed yesterday seemed to know much less about the task they face. They too will be meeting today, but Professor of Philosophy Warren D. Goldfarb '69 said he was not told what will be discussed, nor the names of his fellow committee members.

"I literally know nothing about it [what the committee will face of how it will proceed]," said CRR member Richard E. Kionauer, McKay Professor of mechanical engineering. Kionauer, who has never served on a CRR that has convened, said yesterday that he did not know that the Lowell House and Quincy St. incidents had been presented to the CRR for consideration.

Marquand said except for a copy of the committee's written guidelines, there will be no briefing for the CRR members as to the procedures they are to follow. "It will be a slow start," said Fox, who added that he hoped a decision will be reached by the end of lung, when Faculty member's terms on the CRR conclude.

Past investigations of alleged violations of the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities have taken from 16 days more than a wear to complete.

Marquand said the Faculty and the University may be prepared to grant make up exams and accommodations for students it CRR duties last through the summer.

Lottery

Under the current Faculty regulations, student election to the CRR is almost entirely by lottery. AN arbitrary panel of 11 House Committee members is responsible for designating two representatives from the House to a larger pool of candidates--which includes five freshmen. From this pool of 31 students, 4 names are chosen by lot to serve as that year's student delegates to the CRR.

The choice of Faculty delegates to the committee is not so random, however. Every year, the dean of the Faculty and the Faculty Council propose a slate of CRR nominees to the full Faculty which must approve the list before committee members are seated.

There remains some discrepancy over whether the two GSAS representatives were properly nominated, Marquand added, GSAS Dean Peter S. McKinney, who has been out of town, is reportedly looking into the matter.

Optimism

Although some students have begun expressing their desire for a campuswide student boycott of the CRR, administrators contacted yesterday seemed optimistic about a "new beginning" for the committee."

Fox said that while he did not know whether students would boycott the CRR, he expressed hope that the committee could make a fresh start.

Epps added, "It's entirely possible that we can start again with the CRR and that the community might be able to give it the benefit of the doubt.