Erratum?

To the Editors of The Crimson:

I am writing to clarify The Crimson's article on the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (November 20). It represents a high degree of negligence on the part of the reporter. To present factual information that had obviously not been investigated must be regarded as a lack of journalistic professionalism.

The Committee on Rights and Responsibilities was not formed in 1969; it was created on May 12, 1970 by a vote of the faculty. The committee was not formed "to consider cases of students who were charged with disrupting the University during the April 1969 campus." Such a statement implies that the committee was set up solely for that purpose.

The Committee on Rights and Responsibilities was set up by a joint faculty/student committee to deal with cases arising from a violation of the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities. Interpretation of the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities is a personal matter for every member of the Harvard community. The implications that can be drawn from the Resolution should not be translated into fact as presented in the November 20 article.

I would also like to clarify one point that seems to have been neglected in both newspaper reports and discussions on CRR. Both the Resolution and the formation of the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities were a result of work involving both faculty and students. The student body could, if it wanted, become informed about the CRR. Until it does, any discussion or resolution highlights a problem of the late '70s...the uninformed student body. Yours Sincerely,   David E. Randall