Pusey's decision apparently alarmed members of both caucuses, but according to conservative Faculty the concern stemmed from a misunderstanding of the facts.

The appointments of those involved, they say, had expired before the April crisis, and were waiting for Corporation approval when the occupation occurred. After the occupation, the Freund Committee had only circumstantial evidence that the four had been involved in the incident, but since the Committee had no jurisdiction to subpoena witnesses for a more thorough investigation. The disciplinary board decided it didn't have sufficient evidence to initiate proceedings.

"As I understand it," says Wilson, "the President said, 'there are these cases in which there are derogatory implications. What Faculty group should speak on them?' "Wilson contends that Pusey consulted the Committee of 15 and some Faculty members from both caucuses before he re-submitted the names to the departments. "It wasn't Pusey's decision," says Wilson. "it was the Faculty's decision."

Liberal caucus members agree with this account but argue that it doesn't resolve many questions. Some liberal Faculty are concerned that Pusey could decide the appointments were open to challenge.

"A large number of Faculty didn't think they were," says Walzer. Other Faculty members indicate they believe concern about this issue goes far beyond the ranks of the liberal caucus.

Liberal caucus members feel the Administration has often been indifferent to their concerns and to Faculty concerns in general. Communications with the administration at lower levels, they feel, has improved markedly since the crisis. Some attribute this to the power liberals displayed during the April Faculty votes. "The number of people who can get their opinions to the places where decisions are made is increasing." says Womack. But he adds, "What there is in our caucus is a feeling that higher up there is a lack of sympathy and cooperation."

The other major issue likely to divide the two caucuses concerns Faculty self-government. Liberal Faculty seem determined to make the Faculty a self-governing body and to minimize the role of the administration in Faculty affairs. They consequently favor the election of members to any new governing group, such as the Faculty Council which the Fainsod Report is expected to propose.

Conservative caucus members favor the appointment of any new Faculty groups. The conservative group, according to Wilson, feels "shrewd and sensitive" administrators could ensure that all views were represented on any new governing board whereas an elected board might lean to one side or the other.

Surprisingly, the issue of students on committees no longer seems to divide the groups. Both caucuses have accepted the need to include students on governing committees whose decisions affect the students directly. Some conservatives seem to feel student representation never should have been an issue. "In April." says one, "issues came to a head so fast that nobody was sure of what he thought."