Fellows Set To Consider GSD Today

Two years of internal dispute at the Graduate School of Design (GSD) come to a head today when a Corporation committee hears grievances brought by three senior professors there against Maurice D. Kilbridge, dean of the GSD.

The one-day hearing before John Morton Blum '43 and Hugh Calkins '43. Fellows of the Corporation, begins at 9 a.m. and will continue until oral testimony is completed. If the afternoon session, which begins at 2 p.m., extends beyond an 8 p.m. deadline, the hearing will resume Saturday morning.

Benjamin Kaplan, Royall Professor of Law, will act as a master of procedure at the hearing.

Kilbridge will be the first principal in the proceedings to testify. He will be followed in order by two of the complainants. Francois C. Vigier, professor of City Planning and Urban Design, and Reginald R. Isaacs, Norton Professor of City and Regional Planning.

It is not clear whether the third complainant. William W. Nash Jr. '50, former professor of City and Regional Planning, will give oral testimony. If so, he would probably be called by the committee, and not by lawyers for the three professors not by Kilbridge's counsel, Detlev F. Vagts '48, professor of Law.

Nash, who resigned his chair at the GSD last spring to become associate professor of the Urban Public Service at Georgia State University, arrived here from Atlanta last night for the hearing.

Isaacs, Nash and Vigier are asking the Corporation to terminate Kilbridge's appointment as dean of the GSD. They contend that he has tried--through discussion and plans with students, faculty, members of the School's Visiting Committee and President Pusey--to place himself in control of the Planning Department since his appointment as dean in 1969.

Also, they maintain that principles of academic freedom and academic due process were violated by the Dean during his first two years at the GSD.

The Corporation decided in a meeting last November that the professor's grievances were serious enough to warrant further inquiry, and it established a two-man committee of Calkins and Blum to hear the case.

President Bok has maintained a silent pose with regard to the grievance proceedings. At a press conference Thursday, he explained his position by saying that "I inherited an ongoing case, cast in a role analogous to a reviewing judge, someone who might ultimately have to evaluate these complaints."

Bok, in conjunction with the Corporation, will make the final decision in the case.

Aside from Kilbridge. Vigier and Isaacs, other key figures likely to appear as witnesses today are: William A. Doebele Jr., professor of Advanced Environmental Studies: Jerome W. Lindsey Jr., associate dean of the GSD: Thomas E. Nutt, a 1970 graduate of the Design School: Mona Serageldin, a research assistant in the Planning Department; and W. Davis Taylor '31, chairman of the Overseers' GSD Visiting Committee.

President Pusey will not appear, nor will University of Pennsylvania President Martin Meyerson, a former member of the GSD Faculty, who has submitted an affidavit outlining his role as a Committee of One in 1970 to investigate the Planning Department.

Calkins said yesterday that the final schedule for post-hearing deliberations will be settled today, emphasizing that "we want to reach a decision as quickly as we can." This will mean that lawyers for both sides will have to meet a tight schedule in submitting final briefs to the Corporation committee, Calkins said.

Blum and Calkins will probably report to the entire Corporation in December, at which time the Corporation will decide how to release its findings, if at all.

Today's hearing will be closed, despite two requests from the Crimson and supportive letters from the three complainants, asking that the proceedings be open to the Harvard community. In denying the second request yesterday. Calkins said that the inquiry is "a private matter within the University."

"Broader questions, such as those involving academic policy, will not be considered (at the hearing),") he wrote in an October 21 letter. "If we should conclude that the grievances have no substance, it would be both unfair to the Dean and damaging to the School of Design for our proceedings to be aired publicly."

Vagts, writing for Kilbridge in response to an inquiry about an open hearing, concurred. "I would only add that, in the course of stating their grievances, complainants have made allegations that, if true, are very much to the discredit of third parties. We hope to disprove them, but reporting them to the public might, in the meantime, do serious harm to several individuals," he said.

Isaacs. Nash and Vigier, while emphasizing that they would abide by the procedural guidelines set by the Corporation, leaned toward an open procedure.

"I personally have no objection to open' hearings if these be limited to attendance by members of the Harvard community only." Isaacs said. "There are no words or deeds of my own which I would hesitate to report or describe in reply to questions in an open hearing: nor do I believe that any of these would reflect upon Harvard."

Vigier wrote. "I have no objections to the hearings being open as I share (the) belief that a fair reporting of the issues we have brought before the committee of the Corporation would do much to dispel the malaise which has, in part, resulted from secretive actions."

Nash at first went along with the Corporation's closed-door policy, but he later changed his stance to "agree to support (the) request for an open hearing.