Point of Order

ONE OF THE most disturbing developments of the last few weeks has been President Pusey's appointment of a special committee to investigate "possible misconduct" by Faculty members during the April crisis. In a calmer emotional climate than the one Harvard now faces, it might be possible for the Faculty to consider objectively some standards of acceptable and unacceptable conduct. But the particular context in which this new committee has started to work makes its purpose seems repugnant.

Although the committee will not formally impose any punishment, its "factual report" to the Corporation will serve as a de facto indictment. The committee's task in preparing that report will not be as easy as investigating professor guilty of simple criminal offenses. Like everyone else in the University, Faculty members acted to implement their own political beliefs during the political crisis that gripped Harvard. None of those acts clearly crossed the line that separates extended dissent from criminal action. To now single out a few Faculty members because their credoes led them to "unacceptable" conduct would be unjust. Any punishment the committee might recommend would certainly look like--and probably would be--suppression of political dissent.

Even if the committee ultimately decides not to recommend any punishment, its mere existence poses a widespread threat. "Possible misconduct" is a hideously vague term, and unless it is quickly clarified, a large segment of the Faculty may feel threatened. If the committee has any idea of where it will curb its investigations, it should explain the limits immediately. And if it decides to go ahead with the hearings, it should be sure that those hearings are open, so that the members of the University will know what kind of witches the committee is hunting and what evidence it will use to burn them.

As it has done many times in the last two months, the Administration has remained silent about the committee's task. This taciturnity has only confirmed the worst suspicions about the committee. Paul Freund and the other committee members could at least help ease the communications problem by stating candidly what they are going to do.