Faculty Group to Review Disciplinary Plan

Members of the steering committee of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences said yesterday they will not change substantially a proposal to revamp the College's disciplinary apparatus when they review the plan tomorrow.

Professors in the 19-member group said that they support the plan and that most of their discussion will likely concentrate on improving the proposal's wording before it is presented to students for discussion.

"No one is committed to every period and comma in the document, but I think the basic outline is very solid," said Faculty Council member Diana Eck, professor of comparative religion and Indian studies.

The plan, which was first submitted to the group last week by a committee headed by Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57, would eliminate the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (CRR)--a seldom-used body that some students say can quash legitimate political protest.

It would establish in its place a new disciplinary body of students and faculty that would hear cases stemming from political protests, disruptions of College activities and the harassment of groups.

Currently, protest cases are relegated to the CRR and other incidents of disruption are heard by the Administrative Boards of the College and Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, which also hear cases resulting from infractions of academic rules.

Since the CRR's creation in the late 1960s, students have boycotted the body, saying that its jurisdiction is not clearly defined and that the University has called on it to quell activism.

In initial discussion of the new disciplinary plan, students have said that the division of responsibilities between the new body and the Administrative Boards is not clear, creating the potential for similar abuse.

"It's still a little unclear what the criterion would actually be for sending a case to the [new] disciplinary committee or to the Ad Board," said Faculty Council member Harry R. Lewis '68, McKay Professor of Computer Science.

"There would be things that if one person did, then it would be an Ad Board matter, and if 10 people did it, it would be for this new body," Lewis said.

Lewis and several of his colleagues on the Faculty Council said that despite such difficulties with the new plan, it would allow the community to morethoughtfully consider the threat presented byprotests and other actions of importance to thecommunity at large.

They said that the rigid codification of rulesthat would be necessary to eradicate suchambiguity would limit the University's ability torespond flexibly to offenses against it,introducing more hazards than benefits. A heavilylegalistic disciplinary system would compromiseideals of trust and respect that are central tothe Univeristy's mission, members said.

"A university doesn't pass laws, just like afamily doesn't, "Eck said.

Faculty Council member Jeffrey Wolcowitz saidthe rules to which students are held are laid outin the student handbook.

"If our rules are not clear enough, that's adifferent matter," said Wolcowitz, who is anassistant professor of ecconomics. "What we aredoing here is rationalizing the process by whichcases are allocated."

Wolcowitz called the disciplinary proposal astep toward increasing students influence in thedisciplinaary process and said its acceptancecould contribute to more thoroughgoing reformlater. "I don't think we could go much fartherthan this right now," Wolcowitz said.

When discussion of disciplinary reform cameafter students objected to the 1984 revival of theCRR to hear cases related to anti-apartheidprotests, students and some faculty were hopefulthat University employees as well as studentswould be subject to the same disciplinary group.

But Faculty Council members said that such aplan would be unlikely to gain the approval of thefull faculty, which is needed for disciplinaryreform to be accepted.

Because faculty members are employees of theUniversity, changes in the way they aredisciplined would have to clear a variety of legalhurdles, said Council member and HendersonProfessor of the Psychology of Personality BrendanA. Maher