3 Houses Vote For Revisions In CRR Set-Up

North, South and Currier Houses passed overwhelmingly last week a series of resolutions proposing major revisions in the structure of the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities.

The returns, tabulated last night, showed that in each House over 95 per cent of the students that filled out the referendum chose not to maintain the CRR in its present form. Sixty students in South House, 155 in North House, and 107 in Currier House voted on the proposals.

Over 80 per cent in all three Houses approved each of seven specific proposals for restructuring the CRR.

Adams House also passed all the proposals, William L. Eisenhardt '74, a member of the Adams House Committee, said last night. Eisenhart said that the Adams House Committee has not completed final tabulations of the ballotting, and that only a small number of students filled out the referendum.

Elisabeth Jeffrey '73 and Laurie Oliver '73, both of Dudley House, drafted the referendum and are trying to distribute it to all the Houses.

William Paul, McKay Professor of Applied Physics, originally proposed the revisions to the CRR that Jeffrey and Oliver put on the referendum. Paul said last week that he would bring up the revisions at the next Faculty meeting, on February 13.

You Take The High Road

Jeffrey said she hoped the results of the referendum would show that undergraduates are strongly in favor of modifying the CRR, and thereby influence "some of the middle-of-the-road Faculty" to approve Paul's revisions at the Faculty meeting.

The proposals for revision of the CRR include:

*Changing its composition to six students and six Faculty members. The CRR presently consists of six Faculty members. It is supposed to have two student members, but since it was established two years ago, the Houses have refused to elect the student CRR members in protest of CRR procedures.

*Allowing hearings in reading period, exam period, and after the term ends to be postponed until the next semester.

*Creating an Appeals Committee within the CRR to reconsider decisions.

*Allowing hearings to be open or closed at the discretion of the defendant.

*Requiring a majority vote of the CRR to apply sanctions to a defendant found guilty.

The other Houses either had not voted on the proposals, had not tabulated the votes, or could not be contacted by the Crimson yesterday.

Jeffrey said that she and Oliver sponsored an informal meeting last week of about 20 students, many from House Committees, to discuss drafting of the referendum.

She said that members of the Committee on Housing and Undergraduate Life and the Radcliffe Union of Students worked with her and Oliver on the referendum. The RUS paid for the seven reams of paper the referendum was printed on, Jeffrey said