Discipline Reform Plan Passes

After less than 30 minutes of one-sided discussion, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences yesterday approved without dissent a plan to replace the controversial Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (CRR) with a new disciplinary body.

This final approval comes more than a year and a half after various student and faculty bodies began drafting the proposal to abolish the 17-year-old CRR and establish the Student-Faculty Judicial Board.

The Faculty executive steering committee last month approved the proposal, and the Undergraduate Council also endorsed the new disciplinary body, which will hear cases "on which there is no clear precedent or consensus in the community about the impermissibility of the actions or the appropriate response."

At the Faculty meeting yesterday, six people spoke in favor of the new body, and no one spoke in opposition. After the vote, in which not a single "nay" was heard, President Bok said, "I would think this was some routine correction to the minutes."

The closest thing to an objection was two "suggestions" made by Graduate Student Council President Gregory D. Crowe '86. Crowe said the Judicial Board should handle cases involving faculty, administrators, and staff, as well as disciplinary infractions by students.

"The overriding sentiment among graduate students is that the body should hold jurisdiction over the entire Harvard community," Crowe said, adding the University has no justification to "single out students."

Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57, who has been the main force behind the proposal, said after the meeting that he would be "very surprised" if the Faculty would ever approve a disciplinary body with jurisdiction over both students and faculty.

Crowe also suggested a procedural change allowing students to request term-time hearings to avoid dragging proceedings into the summer, as was the case in 1985, when the CRR last met.

But when asked by Bok if these ideas were offered as amendments Crowe said they were merely suggestions. "The majority of graduate students feel this proposal is an improvement over the CRR."

Students have almost continuously boycotted the CRR, which the Faculty created in 1970 to hear infractions of its Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities (RRR). When the CRR was convened in the spring of 1985, after lying dormant for 10 years, students renewed their calls for disciplinary reform.

Dean of the Faculty A. Michael Spence, who asked Jewett in the fall of 1985 to draft a plan for a new disciplinary body, urged its passage at yesterday's meeting.

"It is the result of a long, careful, thoughtful process that has involved faculty, students, and administrators," he said.

Spence and others who supported the plan at the Faculty meeting said the new body was needed to lend the disciplinary system legitimacy in the eyes of students.

"Students will have a significant role" in determining rules and standards. Spence said.

"It will probably have greater legitimacy and support, at least among students, than does the CRR," said Jewett.

Professor of Government Robert D. Putnam, who served on the last active CRR, spoke at the Faculty meeting and said the CRR's procedures wereadequate with the exception that students refusedto serve. He said he favored approval of theJudicial Board to "enhance its legitimacy."

He also said, "The more fundamental reason isthat students can make important, substantivecontributions to the deliberations."

In interviews in the past two days, studentspraised the University for heeding studentsdemands to reform the CRR.

"It's a concession against 17 years of protestby students," said Dorothee E. Benz '87, a memberof the Southern Africa Solidarity Committee.

Supporters also hailed the Judicial Board as acompromise among students, faculty, andadministrators.

"The Undergraduate Council and nearly all thestudents I have come in contact with in the pastweeks endorse this proposal as a workablecompromise," said Undergraduate Council ChairmanRichard S. Eisert '88, one of two undergraduateson the plan's drafting committee.

He said that although the Judicial Board doesnot encompass all of the desired characteristicsasked for by the student government, it offersseveral improvements over the CRR, includingregular meetings, more input for studentdefendants and delegates, and a wider jurisdictionthan actions resulting from political protest.

But students have criticized the body for notunifying the University's judicial system in whichthe Administrative Boards still retain much oftheir power.

Spence addressed this concern at the meetingand said that a unified judiciary of onedisciplinary body would not be realistic becausethe Administrative Boards deal with a broad rangeof cases.

The dean said it is desirable to have theJudicial Board handle cases involving,"fundamental issues of conflicting values andprinciples."

Jewett said the method of assigning cases toeither the Judicial Board or the appropriate AdBoard is clearly defined and will not result incharges of administrator manipulation, as the CRRoften did.

The College's Ad Board, which handles the bulkof student discipline cases, earlier this yearreformed its procedures, allowing students accusedof serious disciplinary infractions to appear inperson before the board. Jewett, who chairs the AdBoard, said he would be open to future suggestionsfor reform to that body.

Although it took 17 years to replace the CRR,faculty members yesterday left open thepossibility for future change.

"Students do not always want to live with theactions of their predecessors," Professor ofGovernment Roderick Macfarquhar said at themeeting. "Future generations participating in thisbody may have fresh ideas."Former Dean of the College JOHN B. FOX '59negotiates with students staging a sit-in at 17Quincy Street two years ago.