Kerr's Letter Tells Dudley Demonstrators Why He Fought for 'Equal Responsibility'

(Harry P. Kerr, Allston Burr Senior Tutor of Dudley House, sent the following letter to each of the Dudley men who were placed on probation for their part in the Dow demonstration. The letter, which was cleared by Deans Glimp and Ford before being mailed, explains Kerr's reasons for asking the Administrative Board to punish those Dudley men who signed statements demanding equal responsibility. Similar statements had been ignored by other Senior Tutors.)

DEAR SIR:

For the convenience of Dudley men who were placed on probation on the strength of evidence other than eye-witness identification, and particularly those not present at the meeting in the Junior Common Room on 1 November, I want to report in detail my actions at the Administrative Board meetings of 26, 30 and 31 October insofar as those acts concern Board action affecting you.

On Thursday, 26 October, the Board decided tentatively to accept as evidence in the Mallinckrodt cases only eyewitness testimony of officers of the University. In retrospect, it is clear that this decision, subsequently altered, resulted in considerable confusion.

On Monday, 30 October, you will recall, the Master and I met for about two hours with most of the Dudley men who had submitted identification cards on Wednesday. Among the topics of discussion were the role of self-identification and the right to share responsibility for obstructing Mr. Leavitt whether identified in the corridor or not. I was given a petition signed by those at the meeting which stated that the signers believed they were equally responsible for obstructing Mr. Leavitt. I said I would do my best to see that their wishes were realized even though it put me in an unaccustomed position. It was my understanding then (and it is my understanding now) that the men at the meeting felt they were being denied the right to take responsibility for an act which was of great moral importance to them.

At the Monday afternoon meeting of the Board several members argued that evidence other than eyewitness identification should be accepted. The meeting was devoted chiefly to other matters concerning the incident, however. No cases were considered and no decision was reached on the evidence issue.

By the time Dudley's cases were considered at Tuesday's meeting, a convincing claim of presence had been accepted as satisfactory evidence, and I had no difficulty with the case of a man who had submitted such evidence.

I then argued that the Board should accept my judgment that other men were in fact present in the corridor. I told the Board that my judgment was based on 1) my personal knowledge of the deep concern over the war which many of these men felt and the consequent probability that they had in fact participated in the obstruction; 2) the strong impression to the same effect which the Master and I had received from the meeting Monday morning; and 3) the petition signed by those men which stated their belief that they shared responsibility for obstructing Mr. Leavitt. I also pointed out that one signer of the petition had offered to submit photographic evidence of his presence and that he had claimed access to photographs which others could use to establish presence. On examining the list of names which I had submitted, a member of the Board recalled that he had seen one of the men in the corridor.

The Board examined closely the wording of the petition and found it inadequate of itself to establish presence. After considerable discussion, however, the Board did accept my judgment as establishing a reasonable certainty of presence, and voted to place the men involved on probation.

As I explained at our meeting on Wednesday, I was uncomfortable throughout these proceedings for two reasons: 1) I was in the unaccustomed position of urging disciplinary action for students because they desired it and against my personal wishes; and 2) uncertainty was introduced by the lack of direct statements from the men involved as to their presence in the corridor. If it had been clear prior to Tuesday that such statements would be accepted, I would certainly have attempted to secure them instead of resting on my own judgment.

Because I felt forced to rely on imperfect evidence, it is entirely possible that men have been found to have obstructed Mr. Leavitt who were not present in the corridor and who did not intend to claim presence. The reverse is also possible.

Any student is entitled to appeal any Board decision if new evidence is available. For students found, on the evidence of my judgment alone, to have participated in the obstruction of Mr. Leavitt, a statement that he was not in the corridor while Mr. Leavitt was imprisoned in M-102 would constitute new evidence. Conversely, any student not found to have participated in the obstruction of Mr. Leavitt, who was in fact in the corridor when Mr. Leavitt was in M-102, may, if he so desires, submit a statement to that effect to the Board for the purpose of reopening his case.

This has been a difficult letter--the last, I hope, dealing with the affair at Mallinckrodt. I found the act of obstruction unacceptable, but I share the concerns which prompted it. I hope we can now work together to find efficacious ways to end the war.  VERY TRULY YOURS,  Harry P. Kerr  Allston Burr Senior Tutor