Faculty Passes CRR Resolution, Discusses Curriculum Question

The Faculty yesterday passed-with virtually no opposition-the latest version of the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities.

The new resolution incorporates all of the amendments-most aimed at separating questions of administrative and student responsibility-which forced withdrawal of the earlier resolution at the March 25 Faculty meeting.

That resolution was withdrawn for rewriting by Roger Rosenblatt, assistant professor of English and chief spokesman for the Committee of Fifteen.

The new version-passed yesterday by a vote of 154-9, with 18 abstentions-is the fourth such document, superseding the June 9 interim proposal, the October 24 revision by the newly-formed Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (CRR), and the "final" resolution of March 25.

The Faculty yesterday also discussed three questions of curriculum reform, concerning possible revisions of the Rules Relating to College Studies.

The questions, posed by Dean May, centered around concentration requirements, the traditional rate of four courses per year, and the possibility of granting credit for field work or work in the performing arts.

A full report will be in tomorrow's CRIMSON.

Proposing the new resolution, Rosenblatt said that students should not consider the Faculty's rejection of the March 25 proposal "a statement of mistrust."

"The Faculty simply wanted to make the language as clear as possible," he said. "I trust the resolution has not changed in any fundamental sense."

A Tour de Force

The sponsor of the amendment most significant in causing withdrawal of the earlier version-H. Stuart Hughes, Gurney Professor of History and Political Science-called the new version "an extraordinary tour de force of compromise."

"It conforms to nobody's exact wishes," Hughes said, but urged approval of the resolution, saying "the tone should be one of conciliation and consensus."

Hughes last month attacked the fourth paragraph of the earlier resolution-a paragraph designed to stress the responsibility to the community of administration and Faculty members-as "ambiguous and misleading," and said, "named delinquent actions cannot be equated with missteps in office."

That paragraph has been rewritten, with the clauses Hughes objected to omitted.

"Personal Harassment"

The old version did not mention "personal harassment" -an issue raised by Dean May during the Dec. 11 occupation of University Hall-as one of the specific violations of rights.

But a motion making this an implicit violation of the resolution was passed by an almost unanimous voice vote yesterday.

The new version also includes a sentence-stemming from an amendment by Arthur A. Maass, Thomson Professor of Government-designed to further separate the issues of Faculty and student culpability.

The sentence reads, "No violation of the rights of members of the University,

nor any failure to meet responsibilities, should be interpreted as justifying any violation of rights of members of the University."

Abram Bergson, professor of Economics, proposed an amendment to the new version of the resolution, aimed at a sentence reading, "In making decisions which concern the community as a whole or any part of the community, officers are expected to consult with those affected by the decision."

Bergson proposed the addition of the words "whenever circumstances permit" after the phrase "officers are expected."

The amendment was defeated by a voice vote.