A new and final version of the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities will be presented to the Faculty on March 3.

The new Resolution is the third such document, superseding the Committee of Fifteen's June 9 interim resolution and the October 24 revision proposed by the newly-formed Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (CRR).

"Many members of the community, including members of the Committee . . . felt that for the future a Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities ought to be just that, and ought not to be combined, as was the June 9 resolution, with a description of disciplinary machinery or by scenarios of disciplinary responses," reads a CRR statement released yesterday.

"They also felt that the June 9 resolution stressed specific prohibitions over both rights and responsibilities, and furthermore, that the weight of its prohibitions leaned disproportionately on student behavior," the statement continues.

Discipline

The new Resolution provides for a separate disciplinary body composed of five tenured and two non-tenured Faculty members, one senior tutor, and six students-two from Harvard, one from Radcliffe, and two from the GSAS.

The new Resolution also stresses the responsibility of members of the Administration and Faculty to the community.

"Lack of responsiveness by officers of administration and instruction, insensitivity to widely perceived needs for change, failure to give full and fair hearing and prompt response to grievances, and failure in a process of decision to consult with those concerned with the results of the decision are incompatible with the existence of an open University community, and are as damaging as some of the more overt violations of rights," the Resolution reads.

'Crimes'

"Basically the list of 'crimes' is very little different from before, but we spell out the belief that administrators are people too," Alan Heimert 49, Master of Eliot House and CRR Spokesman, said last night.

However, "such an enumeration is not intended as a specification of activities for which officers of the University may be disciplined." the CRR statement reads. "No single element of the description makes complete sense outside the context and spirit of the full Resolution."

Freedom of speech, academic freedom, freedom from personal force and violence, and freedom of movement are cited by the Resolution as inviolable.

Further, "interference with members of the University in performance of their normal duties and activities must be regarded as unacceptable obstruction of the normal processes of the University."

The question of "harassment"-raised by Dean May in the cases of four students who shouted at him outside University Hall during the December 11 OBU occupation-is not dealt with in the new Resolution.

Rights

Rights cited include the right "to organize and join political associations, to convene and conduct public meetings, to publicly demonstrate and picket in orderly fashion, and to advocate and publicize opinion by print, sign, and voice."

"The University has a special autonomy, and reasoned dissent plays a particularly vital part in its existence," reads the Resolution.

Besides the Resolution itself, the CRR will recommend to the March 3 Faculty meeting:

that the special disciplinary committee for students be approved (see above).

that in the discipline of persons holding research, teaching, or administrative appointments, the seven Faculty members on the CRR shall constitute a fact-finding body. If the body recommends further action, a joint committee composed of two Fellows and two tenured and one non-tenured member elected by the Faculty will conduct a hearing and make recommendations to the Corporation.

that if a student warned by the CRR to stop certain activities persists, he may be temporarily suspended pending completion of a regular disciplinary hearing. The power of temporary suspension shall be exercised jointly by the dean of the Faculty and a special sub-committee consisting of equal numbers of students and Faculty members.

that the Faculty appoint a commission of three Faculty members and two students, "to serve as a clearinghouse for inquiries, suggestions. or complaints channeled through it." "This is sort of a collective ombudsman." Heimert said, "to put complaints into proper channels."