CRR

have a right to expect to hear the program as scheduled. Those wishing to raise issues other than those scheduled to be discussed are free to request an opportunity to do so in a nondisruptive manner. But, if such opportunity is denied by those conducting the meeting, subsequent actions by those making such a request abridging the rights of others may be held in violation of the Resolution for interfering with academic freedom and freedom of speech. No hard and fast rules can be laid down in this connection, and each situation must be judged according to the circumstances involved.

To yield to coercion would in the long run destroy the spirit of the Resolution. In the face of personal harassment or the strong likelihood of serious violations, however, a prudent man may chose to avoid confrontation without forfeiting his opportunities for redress. While it may be generally preferable to put the issue to the test so that there can be a resolution of the ambiguities involved, one cannot insist upon this as a threshold for disciplinary action if a case can be made on its merits that a violation has occurred.

If a participant in a group associates himself with actions of that group that cannot be carried out except in concert with other participants, then he must bear some responsibility for these actions. Allegations of incitement must, however, establish a clear and proximate connection between actions of individuals and those of the group, since freedom of expression must be protected. Of the three issues raised here in response to the case at hand, this is perhaps the least susceptible of resolution in the abstract, and one must procede on a case by case basis.