CRR

To the Editors of The Crimson:

The referendum vote several weeks ago by Mather residents concerning CRR has had at least one positive effect: it has ended, at least momentarily, a period of passive (and often misinformed) acceptance of both the boycott and the existence of CRR, and sparked a new focus of attention on the organization which may have positive results.

In the weeks of debate that have followed the Mather vote, a general agreement seems to have been reached on several points. First, the structure and procedures of the CRR are inequitable, and can lead to a denial of protection of vital rights of students. Few would argue that CRR, as presently structured, provides for due process. Second, nearly all agree that the boycott of CRR has been largely ineffective. It has not caused meaningful change in the CRR, and the organization continues to function and discipline students despite the boycott. Third, change in the CRR might be more plausible today, given the present atmosphere on campus, than during the period of student-faculty/administration antagonism and paranoia which marked the time of the group's formation. There is obviously a need for change.

The major question, then, involves the best mechanism for change. Some would argue, and the Dunster House Council has proposed, that the boycott should continue, but that a committee of members from each House should be formed independent of the CRR, to review its procedures and propose changes to the faculty and administration. The major advantage of this approach is that the students could, through continuing the boycott, maintain a symbolic rejection of the CRR as presently constituted.

I would argue that change would be more effectively accomplished by nominating students to serve on the CRR, who could then work for that same change. Such a group "within the system" would possess several significant advantages over a group "from without." First, the inside group would more adequately be able to assess what actually goes on inside CRR meetings. In the unlikely event that CRR ever did meet, those on the outside are barred from attending the meetings; CRR members are not. More importantly, however, I believe that greater commitment and continuity would be evidenced in a group selected to serve on the CRR. Evaluative committees too often get frustrated and lose interest, while members are constantly reminded of their commitment and show a higher level of involvement. Finally, a cessation of the boycott is important as a sign of a willingness to cooperate by students. The "we don't want to play your game unless it's under our rules" argument cannot help but increase, rather than decrease, student-faculty/administration tensions. If there is a real need for change in CRR, a group of students on the committee will be more effective in accomplishing than an outside board of review; and if I were a student facing discipline by CRR, I'd feel better if students were on the committee, than if they were criticizing CRR from without. Frank J. Kinzie '75