Faculty Council Proposes Discipline Plan for Faculty

The Faculty Council voted yesterday to send its plan for Faculty discipline to the Faculty at its December 14 meeting.

The Council's plan recommends that the seven members of the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (CRR) serve as the members of the Faculty's disciplinary screening committee.

The Council voted down an amendment by Everett I. Mendelsohn, professor of the History of Science, that the Faculty's instead elect three tenured and one non-tenured Faculty members to sit on the screening committee.

Mendelsohn said the CRR serves a function separate from that of the screening committee--one that is punitive as well as investigative. He said that to associate the two would transfer controversy over the CRR to the screening committee.

James S. Ackerman, professor of Fine Arts and a Council member who voted in favor of Mendelsohn's amendment said yesterday the Council felt its own plan was fair, since it eliminates the appearances of a double standard of justice, one for students, another for faculty. The amendment will be voted on at December's Faculty meeting.

Under the new general procedures for faculty discipline, each faculty determines the composition and operation of its own screening committee. The screening committee will hear complaints against members of that faculty, and determine whether further action is warranted.

Hearing Committees

The University Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (UCRR) proposed Monday a set of procedures for the operations of "hearing committees", which hear cases referred by screening committees. The hearing committee would recommend to the Corporation what action should be taken in the case. Members would be chosen from a pool of representatives selected by each faculty.

James Vorenberg, professor of Law and chairman of the UCCR, circulated copies of the proposals Monday to the deans of the faculties. The UCCR will consider comments from the faculties when it meets again in February.

The proposals permit both the complainant and the accused faculty member:

*to challenge the selection of up to two committee members

*to have counsel present at the hearings

*to cross-examine witnesses.

Committee members are to be chosen from the pool by lottery