Violations

I was amused and enraged to read, once again, that members of the administration and faculty denied that the CRR existed to discipline students for political activity. It is important that students realize that such discipline is its function, and that the student boycott has been effective. Students have engaged in activity which could be interpreted as a violation of the resolution of rights and responsibilities and they have not been disciplined.

That resolution has been aptly characterized as "their rights and our responsibilities." The resolution was adopted by the faculty after the student protests of the late '60s. It contains a lot of grand language but its key assertion is that "interference with members of the University in performance of their normal duties and activities must be regarded as unacceptable obstruction of the essential processes of the University." Administration is explicitly included among these "essential processes."

The resolution is not even-handed. It essentially ignores student rights. It is enforced by a committee which lacks due process. It contains no reference to students residential rights (for example, the recent case in which University police entered a student room in the guise of repairmen). It does not even suggest there might be anything wrong with the Ad Board, although students may not appear before that body and a student's advocate may be the same person who brings the charges up.

The rights that are asserted for students are inoperative. The resolution contains many references to free speech and the responsibilities of the Administration. None of this prevented the administration from restricting postering. None of it is likely to help the victim of racial discrimination or sexual harassment.

Finally, almost any protest can be punished under the resolution's expansive language. The "right," asserted in the resolution, to "demonstrate...in orderly fashion" means little. For example, a class boycott three years ago clearly disrupted the "central" educational function of the University. The organizers, even the participants, could have been disciplined. Similarly, a "phone-in" of Derek Bok's office was also legal, non-violent, and a violation of the resolution on rights and responsibilities. Even last year's library sit-in was a violation. In fact, the resolution denies students the right to undertake any action the University will listen to.

It is true the CRR is no worse than the Ad Board. The most intelligent student response to this situation is to continue to press for reform of the entire disciplinary system. Ross Boylan '81-4