BU'S BENNETT REPLIES

To the Editors of The Crimson:

I am writing in response to Mr. Peter Shane's article, "Harvard and the BU Five" in his column, "All That's Left", in the Harvard Crimson of Wednesday, October 3, 1973. There are a number of errors of fact and interpretation that require correction.

First, Mr. Shane suggests that the disciplinary codes presently in effect at Boston University were "muscled through" by BU President, John Silber, and that Silber has total control over the procedures in the codes. This is simply untrue. The resolution calling for the provisional codes was called for by the BU Faculty Senate Council, a faculty group representing the entire BU Faculty. Further, the committee that drafted the language of the codes was not as Mr. Shane said, "a Silber appointed committee". Of the nine members of the committee, the three administration members were appointed by President Silber, but the other six, three students and three faculty members, were chosen by the Faculty Senate Council. Further, Silber does not, as Shane argues, appoint the hearing examiner for any cases arising under these codes. The hearing examiner is appointed by an Advisory Judicial Council--a committee composed of one administrator, one faculty member, and one student. Here and elsewhere, Shane's arguments about President Silber's alleged dictatorial powers are simply no supported by the facts.

Later in his column, Shane says that president Silber had a secret poll on R.O.T.C. when, in fact, it was a highly publicized poll but undertaken with the well known procedure called a secret ballot. A secret ballot does not make a secret poll. Finally in regard to this question of administration--faculty relations, Shane writes, "BU's faculty lacks the power and cohesiveness necessary to determine the fate of a BU president". Whatever this phrase means, it is not the case that President Silber and the Faculty at BU are in disagreement over the issues of military recruitment, R.O.T.C., and the need for a provisional code of conduct for students and faculty. On all these issues, rather than opposing or dictating to the faculty, President Silber has taken that direction urged and recommended by the faculty.

Mr. Shane's reporting about the character of certain demonstrations at Boston University last spring is completely off base. There was never a situation in which tactical police were in full riot gear on campus waiting for demonstrators to arrive. The Boston Tactical Police were called to the campus last May 1, 1973, by an official of the Boston police who was on campus at the invitation of the University. This Boston Police official did not call the tactical police until it was necessary to do so. Mr. Shane does not point out that despite the nastiness of the crowd of demonstrators, there was not one injury to anyone in the crowd as a result of the action of any member of the tactical force. William J. Bennett   Assistant to the President   Boston University

Shane's Response: Silber does not appoint the hearing examiner directly; he does appoint the Advisory Judicial Council which, in turn, appoints the hearing examiner. The ROTC poll was "highly publicized" only after it had taken place. Neither faculty nor students knew of the poll in advance. There was no public discussion beforehand of the poll or Silber's arguments in favor of ROTC. The Faculty Senate Council, which, as Bennett says, represents "the entire BU faculty" resolved in April to table any discussion of ROTC until this Fall. Mr. Bennett is correct about the drafting committee, but he is wrong in saying that I charged Silber with complete control over all proceedings. I stand by my description of Silber's other actions, his relation to the faculty of the College of Liberal Arts, and the Spring demonstrations. Mr. Bennett is also wrong about the number of injuries May 1; several witness testified that several students were "beaten badly" by the police though the students may not have been hospitalized.