The Mail THE CRR

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

In the last few months there have been a host of angry attacks upon the CRR. Since these attacks indicate that several basic facts have been misunderstood, we should like to correct some of the more widespread misconceptions.

1. Why are the CRR hearings completely private? They're not; nor are they completely open. A tape recording is made of each hearing and is automatically available to the defendant for whatever purposes he wishes. Moreover, the student may bring to the hearing an advisor and three observers of his choice-including the press.

2. What grounds are there for permitting the hearing panel to scrutinize "the record" of a student defendant before the hearing begins? No grounds at all: in fact a student's full record is never available to the CRR. In those cases where the hearing panel's finding of fact is against the defendant, then his prior disciplinary record before the CRR or its predecessors (and no other record) becomes available to the full CRR in adjudicating his case.

3. Why is the ratio between faculty and students on the CRR two or three to one in favor of faculty? The actual ratio designated by the Faculty of Art sand Sciences is seven faculty, one senior tutor, and six students.

4. Why is the make-up of hearing panels three faculty to one student? It's not; the expected ratio is two faculty and two students per panel.

5. Why did the CRR try to foist upon the student body the present election procedures for students? It didn't; the CRR neither made up nor sought to "popularize" the present procedures. Instead, they were drawn up by an ad hoc committee (half student, half faculty) under the auspices of the Faculty Council, on student initiative, and accepted by the Faculty.

6. How can the CRR defend its decision to judge only students and not faculty and administrators as well? That decision never belonged to the CRR to make. Last year the Faculty of Arts and Sciences authorized the CRR to deal only with student violations of the Resolution of Rights and Responsibilities. This year, and last, the Faculty has been trying to arrive at an acceptable mechanism for dealing with faculty violations, and will debate this issue at its April meeting.

In discussing the CRR, be sure that it is the CRR, and not a caricature thereof, to which you are responding.