Disciplinary Review Takes Step Forward

A plan to revamp the disciplinary apparatus that punishes students won support from the Faculty of Arts and Sciences steering committee this week, the group's spokesman said.

The plan would eliminate the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (CRR), a seldom-used body that some students say can be used to quash legitimate political protest.

It also calls for the creation of a new disciplinary body of students and faculty that would work in concert with the Administrative Boards of the College and Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, which routinely adjudicate infractions of University regulations.

Under the plan, the new disciplinary group, called the Student-Faculty Committee on Discipline, would include six students, six faculty members and a chairman who would vote only to break ties, said the spokesman, John R. Marquand, who is secretary to the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

Vietnam-Era Group

The review of the faculty's disciplinary apparatus came after students objected to the 1984 revival of the long-dormant CRR to hear cases stemming from anti-apartheid protests. The CRR enforces a Vietnam-era code that outlines the rights of community members to freely express their opinions.

Students allege that because the group has jurisdiction over disputes construed to arise from the conflicting rights of community members it can be called on to supress political activities that the faculty considers disruptive.

The faculty steering group will continue to discuss the plan in the weeks to come and it will circulate copies of the plan to students begining next week, Marquand said. He said that if the plan is well received, it could be submitted for the approval of the full faculty as early as December.

"If students feel by and large that this is not a useful change and would not improve things, my feeling is that it will not go through," said Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57, who headed the group that developed the plan.

"The new committee would have a broader jurisdiction than the CRR and would certainly meet on a more regular basis," stated the proposal debated by the faculty group.

"The basis for allocating disciplinary cases either to the existing Administrative Boards or to the new committee will be the degree to which the infraction represents a public matter with broad implications for the community," the plan said.

The Ad Board currently hears cases ranging from a failure by students to observe academic rules to altercations between members of the community.

"Matters such as disruption of college activities, harassment of groups and organizations and actions that seriously endanger the safety and welfare of the community would ordinarily come to the new committee," the plan said.

"The idea is that this group would have a much heavier workload [than the CRR] and consequently a sense of continuity," Marquand said.

Undergraduate Council Chairman Richard S. Eisert '88 said that he opposed the phrasing of parts of the plan because they cause the new disciplinary body to resemble a renamed CRR with an expanded mission. "It has nothing to do with the CRR," Eisert, who helped draft the plan, said of the proposed group.

He said that students whose cases are relegated to the Ad Board would be able to request a hearing before the new group instead. No similar option is permitted currently.

Initially, the Ad Boards would decide what group should have jurisdiction over a case. When there is disagreement with the students involved, the proposed disciplinary committee itself would make the final decision as to which cases it will accept, the report said.