A senior Faculty member has denied joining a group that urges the Faculty not to vote on a Vietnam-withdrawal resolution at the formal Faculty meeting tomorrow.

Paul M. Doty. Mallinckrodt Professor of Biochemistry, was listed on Friday as one of seven sponsors of a "Committee for the Expression of Faculty Opinion." The committee, led by Robert Dorfman, professor of Economics, issued a statement saying that the Faculty should vote on the war resolution at an informal, "convocation." and not at the regular Faculty meeting.

Doty said in a letter to the CRIMSON that he was "suprised" to see his name on the committee's membership list. In the letter, which is printed on page two of today's CRIMSON. Doty said that he agreed on Thursday to join a group discussing general questions of the Faculty's vote on the war resolution.

But after that. Doty said he "had no contact with the group or any of its members" until the committee statement appeared in the CRIMSON.

A Mistake

Dorfman said last night that the inclusion of Doty's name was a mistake, based on a second-hand report that Doty wanted to join. Dorfman offered his apologies and said he was disappointed to hear. Doty's announcement.

Others involved in the wrangle over the war vote have offered a different interpretation of the incident. When told of Doty's letter, the sponsor of the Vietnam resolution-Mark Ptashne, lecturer in Biochemistry-said that the use of Doty's name seemed to be part of a "concerted effort by some members of the conservative caucus to make some arrangements that will keep the resolution off the floor."

The dispute centers on the question of how the Faculty should vote on Ptashne's resolution, which would put the Faculty on record as opposing the Vietnam war and saying that immediate withdrawal is "the most reasonable plan for peace."

Sponsors

The sponsors of the resolution-including Ptashne and all 12 members of the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology-want the Faculty to vote on the resolution at its regular meeting, in order to take the strongest formal stand against the war.

At a meeting on Friday, some 60 mem-bers of the Faculty's liberal caucus supported that view. They voted to bring the resolution to the floor of the Faculty meeting so that-in the words of George Wald, Higgins Professor of Biology-the Faculty will "face this issue squarely."

But another segment of the Faculty has worked to keep the resolution off the regular Faculty docket and to vote on it at an informal "convocation" after the Faculty meeting. Led by Dorfman's group, these Faculty members contend that the Faculty should not take official stands on political issues.

Convocation

They claim that the resolution would have a better chance of passing at a convocation, because some Faculty members who support the resolution's theory would feel compelled to vote against it at an official meeting.

Over the past five days-since the Biochemistry Department announced last Wednesday that it would sponsor the resolution-members of the group opposing a formal vote have tried to convince the others to withdraw the resolution.

Dorfman admitted last night that he has been trying to get the resolution moved from the meeting-where it would be "improper and divisive"-to the convocation, where "all of as can agree vociferously."

Some of the resolution's sponsors, however, have complained that Dorfman's tactics have been high-pressure or even deceptive. As an example, they cite the use of Doty's name on Dorfman's committee.

At a meeting last Friday morning between members of the two opposing groups, Dorfman passed around his committee's "Statement of Need." with the names of seven "provisional members." Along with Doty, others were H. Stuart Hughes, professor of History: Martin L. Kilson, professor of Government; and Seymour Martin Lipset, professor of Government and Social Relations.

Only the day before. Doty had announced his support for the withdrawal resolution. He had originally been the only member of the Biochemistry Department to withhold support; he changed only after Ptashne reworded the resolution and included a preamble saying that the vote was not precedent-setting.

When Ptashne saw Dorfman's committee statement on Friday, he was "very much confused to see Doty's name there." He said that Dorfman "clearly expected us to accept his proposal and his document, especially when it bad Doty's name on it."

The next morning supporters of a formal Faculty vote were particularly incensed by a quote attributed to Dorfman in the Boston Globe. He said that their quibbling over the "technicality" of a formal Faculty vote "must be motivated by something other than obhorrence" of the war.

In light of the confusion over Doty's name, Ptashne said he thought Dorfman owed him an apology. "These men argue on extremely high principle, and then we find out that Doty's name shouldn't have been on the statement, and that Dorfman is questioning our motives in the Globe."

Dorfman denied last night that he had intended any deception in the use of Doty's name. Another one of the committee members had called Doty and reported that he wanted to be a member, he said,

"I was not trying to deceive anyone or to convince anyone on the strength of one signature, but only on the grounds of what would be the best action to take to unify the Faculty," Dorfman said last night.

As part of the negotiations over the war resolution, there was another meeting yesterday morning between Dean May and several Faculty members and students. May said he invited the participants-including Robert Wolff, Coolidge Professor of History and chairman of the Faculty's conservative caucus; John T. Dunlop, David A. Wells Professor of Political Economy; Michael Walzer, professor of Government and leader of the liberal caucus; several supporters of the resolution: and three students who are working for the October 15 Moratorium-to "see if there is any way the Faculty can act with unanimity."

Although May told the students that the Faculty's "internal rile" over the war resolution might hurt the Moratorium, the students reportedly told those at the meeting that they wanted the Faculty to hold a formal vote on the resolution.