Whose Rights?

THE DECISION last week by a group of freshmen to break the seven-year boycott of the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities was, at the very least, discouraging. Aside from the specific problems with its composition and procedures, the CRR stands as a symbol of the Faculty's paternalistic, perhaps even repressive attitude toward students. By bowing to the Faculty's desire that the CRR's kangaroo courts attain a veneer of legitimacy through token student participation, the freshmen who voted to end the boycott displayed a sadly misplaced confidence in the good will of the Faculty.

The CRR has found several students guilty of "interfering with normal University processes," and forced them to withdraw from the College. The students were expelled because they demonstrated in support of their political beliefs. The CRR's record does not deserve support, and both Faculty members and students have proposed reforms. Their efforts, however, have been singularly unsuccessful. While students continued to boycott the CRR, Faculty members could point to student dissatisfaction as a reason to reform. Now, even that bargaining point is gone.

The great irony of the freshman debates over the CRR boycott is that all members of the Freshman nominating panel were agreed in their desire to see the CRR changed. In their blind faith in the possibilities of "reform from within," the freshmen overestimated the Faculty's supposed good will, and probably will be frustrated in their attempts to effect any change at all--meaningful or not.

The list of substantive objections to the CRR has become the Greek chorus of the CRR debates, but it is worth repeating, if only as a suggested agenda for the four prospective members of the CRR.

The CRR's charter, the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities, is vaguely worded, specifying only that students can be brought up for discipline if they "obstruct the normal processes of the University." The resolution does not hold University officers to the same standard of conduct as it does students; therefore the origins of the student slogan "You're right and we're responsible."

The CRR until recently held closed hearings, and still has the power to do so. It can deny students the right to have legal counsel present at the hearings, and can admit hearsay evidence. There is no separate appeals board; the CRR rules on any appeals of its decisions and must approve the readmission of any students it has expelled.

If the Faculty fails to make any changes in the CRR's charter by this June, the four freshmen nominated last week should resign. If, after they are formally appointed, any student comes before the CRR for discipline, the student members should resign immediately. Above all, the CRR's newest members should not forget their mandate to effect change in the committee's composition and procedures.