Procedures for Discipline Approved by Law Faculty

The Law School Faculty yesterday became the third faculty to approve a proposal by the University Governance Committee for University-wide procedures for disciplining faculty members.

The Business and Medicine Faculties approved the proposal last week and the Faculty of Arts and Sciences is presently conducting a mail ballot of its members.

The Law Faculty passed the proposal with only one dissenting vote-that by Alan M. Dershowitz, professor of Law.

Dershowitz originally voted for the proposal, but changed his vote after a motion he introduced questioning the present grounds on which officers of the University are disciplined was defeated, 18-13.

Dershowitz's motion said, "In accepting in principle the tentative recommendations of the University Governance Committee... the Law Faculty recommends that consideration be given to whether or not further efforts should be made to define the grounds for disciplining, and the rights of, officers of the University."

Officers of the University are presently subject to disciplinary procedures if they violate the third paragraph of the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities-which forbids any infringement of academic freedom, freedom of speech and movement, and freedom from force and violence-or the Third Statute of the University, which forbids "gross misconduct or neglect of duty."

Dershowitz said after the meeting yesterday that he changed his vote because "you cannot consider a procedur-al scheme in isolation from substantive standards. This proposal could be used as an excuse for not doing the hard work which more specificity requires."

Dershowitz also said the Governance Committee has made no attempt "to define a bill of rights concerning free speech or freedom of assembly."

"There is simply no fair warning for faculty or students as to what circumstances will result in disciplinary procedures," he said.

James Vorenberg, professor of Law, said at the Faculty meeting that the University Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (UCRR) is presently making efforts to expand and define the basis for disciplining officers. Vorenberg is the Law School's representative on the UCRR.

The Governance Committee's proposal provides for a two-part procedure to judge faculty members accused of violating the third paragraph of the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities or the Third Statute of the University.

Complaints against any member of any faculty-which may be brought by any member of the University-will be investigated by a screening committee set up by his faculty.

If the screening committee upholds the complaint, the faculty member will be judged by a seven-member hearing panel, consisting of four members of his faculty and three other faculty members in the University.

In addition, the measure approved yesterday would allow two members of the Corporation to participate in the hearing without voting.

The hearing commission will make its recommendation to the President. If he decides to overrule the recommendation, he will submit his reasons to the hearing committee, which will then rehear the case.

Final power rests with the President and the Corporation, however.

Paul M. Bator, professor of Law and one of the Law School's three representatives on the Governance Committee, introduced the proposal at yesterday's meeting.