CHUL Report Asks for CRR Reform

A Committee on Houses and Undergraduate Life subcommittee will recommend tomorrow extensive restructuring of the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities and rewriting of the 1970 Faculty resolution that created the CRR.

The report, written by four undergraduate members of the CHUL, proposes equal faculty-student representation on the CRR, a change from the present faculty majority on the committee.

The report also recommends that defendants have the right to legal counsel in hearings before the committee, and the right of an open hearing in all cases.

The CRR presently allows defendants counsel only with its members' consent, and does not permit open hearings.

The CHUL subcommittee report further recommends that the reformed CRR be allowed to try faculty members and administrators and recommend disciplinary procedure against them.

The CRR now can try only students.

The full CHUL will vote on the recommendations in the report on Wednesday. The CHUL includes student representatives, the masters of all Harvard and Radcliffe Houses and several deans.

The Faculty created the CRR in 1970 as a result of Harvard student disruption in the late '60s. It was formed to hear cases concerning members of the University who engaged in what a Faculty resolution termed "unacceptable obstruction of the University."

Student Opposition

Since its inception, students have opposed the CRR and refused to elect representatives to the committee, often citing the lack of equal student representation and the absence of defendant's judicial safeguards.

In addition to restructuring the CRR, the report advises the rewriting of the 1970 Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities to include a reference to "the responsibility of University officers to be responsive to the needs of the University community."

The report also calls for a redefinition of what the 1970 resolution called punishable violations, and recommends a specific code and guidelines to define punishable violations for the CRR.

John Martin '74, one of the authors of the report, said yesterday that "the report was written with the idea that students should participate fully in cases involving other students."

Martin also said "we want to make everyone subject to certain responsibilities--rights and responsibilities should apply to students and faculty across the board."

"It is the responsibility of the administration to be responsive to certain needs for change, just as students have responsibilities," Martin said.

Donald J. Simon '75, a member of the CHUL, said yesterday that for "a disciplinary body to have legitimacy for students, there must be half-student, half-faculty representation, and there must be a provision for basic legal rights."

Simon said "I think this is an appropriate time to reform an inappropriate body."

Edward L. Keenan, professor of History and co-master of North House, said yesterday, "I support the section concerning the right to counsel and an open hearing. I'm awaiting the debate on the other questions."

Keenan said, "I think now might be a good time to reconsider the 1970 resolution, which was written in the heat of battle."

James Vorenberg '49, professor of Law and master of Dunster House, said yesterday, "I think it's a mistake to have equal student-faculty representation. There should be a majority of faculty."

Vorenberg also said that "the present safeguards could be improved. I would support the right to legal counsel and open hearings," he said