The CRR Rediscovered

To the Editors of the Crimson:

I was disappointed when I read that Adams House had reversed its decision to send representatives to the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (CRR). My own feeling is that the failure to send student representatives to CRR is a strategic error on the part of the FAS student body. My reason for writing is not to argue that position, as I do not feel this is the appropriate place to do so. I am writing rather to ask that the Crimson be more careful in its coverage of the issue, as misstatements by Crimson writers decrease the likelihood of reasonable discussion.

CRR was not "formed by the Faculty to discipline students involved in political demonstrations," as Sandra E. Cavazos stated (February 26). CRR is empowered only to enforce the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities, which explicitly recognizes the right of students to engage in political activity, including demonstrations. Cavazos continues, "The CRR...has been boycotted by students since its inception after the 1969 takeover of University Hall." This is misleading both because it fails to recognize the difference between the Committee of Fifteen and CRR, and because it gives the impression that the action by Adams and South Houses and the Freshman Council last fall was unprecedented.

The article by Susan C. Faludi (December 18) was welcome in that it attempted to remedy the almost total lack of knowledge among students concerning the origin, structure, and purpose of CRR. Unfortunately, it was most notable for what it did not say.

Faludi says students "have forgotten that students and faculty were not equally represented on the committee panel," but fails to mention that, largely through the efforts of students selected to sit on CRR, the composition of CRR is now set at seven faculty members and six students.

Faludi also says students have forgotten that faculty or administrators "could not be prosecuted for breaking the same rules as students." It is not clear what she had in mind, nor why it is relevant to the question of student participation on CRR. While it is true that the Faculty's CRR has jurisdiction only over complaints of students violations of the Resolution, officers of the University are not exempt from its provisions.

As for the complaint that CRR or the Committee of Fifteen did not allow "appeal outside of itself," it is not clear where such an appeal would reasonably be directed within the University. CRR is indeed a faculty-student, rather than administrative, committee. It is not clear to me what body would be better suited to hear cases.

My own dissatisfaction with CRR stems not from its "tainted" origin, but from its shadowy nature. CRR appears to give students some voice in handling of a subset of disciplinary cases, but CRR has in reality no clear jurisdiction and could be easily circumvented. The method of selection of student representatives is haphazard.

The recent release of the Dowling Committee report will undoubtably engender widespread discussion of student participation in many facets of University life and governance. This is an excellent time to re-examine the role of students in discipline, including participation on CRR. The decision whether to send representatives to CRR will be faced by whatever governing body emerges, and the decision should not be based on emotional reactions to or symbolic protests of actions that predate the existence of CRR. The Crimson will play an important role in the dissemination of information during the discussions of this issue in the months ahead. The staff must take care to separate reporting from commentary, and truth from half-truth. Michael R. Moynlhan