Disciplinary Plan to be Rewritten

The Faculty's steering committee yesterday called for substantial rewriting of a plan that would reform the College's disciplinary machinery, the committee's spokesman said.

The powerful steering group objected to the portion of the plan that outlines how cases would be divided between the Administrative Boards of the College and Graduate School of Arts and Sciences--the regular disciplinary bodies of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences--and a new committee of students and faculty members, the spokesman said.

Many Faculty Council members feared that the new disciplinary system appeared to treat actions of a political nature in a way fundamentally different from other violations of University rules.

The Faculty Council sent the plan back to a drafting committee, headeed by Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57, to outline more clearly the jurisdiction of each disciplinary group, said the spokesman, John R. Marquand, who is secretary to the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

The reworking of the plan probably will be completed in time for the Council to discuss at its next meeting, scheduled for the middle of November, said drafting committee member and former Undergraduate Council Chairman Brian C. Offutt '87, who was present at yesterday's discusion.

The initial public draft of the plan stated in part that, "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 group decided that the wording conveyed theimpression that cases stemming from public actionssuch as political protests would go to the newcommittee while disruptions of a non-politicalnature would remain under the jurisdiction of theAd Boards, Marquand said.

"There are things that if one person did, thenit would be an Ad Board matter, and if 10 peopledid it, it would be for this new body," FacultyCouncil member Harry R. Lewis '68, who is McKayProfessor of Computer Science, said before themeeting.

The Committee on Rights and Responsibilities, aseldom-used disciplinary body that would bedisbanded under the new plan, has consistentlydrawn criticism from students as a body convenedonly during periods of poliltical protest to quellactivism.

Marquand said there was "considerableagreement" among members of the group that the newcommittee should have a broader mandate, handlinga broad range of complicated cases, not only thosearising from protests.

"There is, I think, considerable agreement onhow [the new group] would actually work inpractice," Marquand said. "It's a problem ofclarity of expression."

Offutt described the discussion of jurisdictionin the current version of the plan as relying on adistinction between "the public and the private"nature of offenses.

Offutt said that both he and currentUndergraduate Council Chairman Richard S. Eisert'88 would favor basing the jurisdiction of eachbody on the clarity of the facts in a case.

Basing jurisdiction on that criterion wouldallow cases stemming from plagiarism or relativelymundane infractions of academic rules to go beforethe Ad Boards while sending cases such as thoseinvolving harassment to the new group, FacultyCouncil members said.

Under another option discussed by the Council,cases that require developed expertise--likeplagiarism--would be sent to the Ad Board, whileothers would be handled by the new disciplinarybody. Yet another option advocated sending to thenew committee all cases in which the safety orwelfare of the community might be at stake,Marquand said.

Marquand said the Council discussed how todivide the purview of the two bodies for nearly anhour and a half but failed to develop a clearconsensus.

The group instructed the drafting committee toconsider all the options discussed yesterday indeveloping clearer wording, Offutt said