The Committee on Rights and Responsibilities has been a repeated target of student criticism for its closed hearings and for alleged selectivity resulting in "political repression." The following is the complete text of a petition sent to the Committee during exam period which states the objections of some members of the Cooperative House. The Committee's reply is printed in full below.

January 22, 1970

Dear Sirs:

It is the sentiment of the undersigned majority of the Harvard Cooperative House that the disciplinary actions of Committee on Rights and Responsibilities directed against sixteen students for political activity on November 19, 1969 were an unwarranted exercise of selective punishment, giving an appearance of political repression, whatever the Committee's intention may have been.

That is to say, by selectively eliminating a large segment of the active leadership of SDS the Committee appears to have given students a warning against future involvement in radical politics.

Further, the undersigned abhor the medieval atmosphere and procedures of the hearings conducted by the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities. That Committee's disclaimer does not decrease the repugnance of closed, heavily-guarded trials of which there is no public transcript made available and from which there is no appeal to any higher body. The simple fact that Harvard is a private institution does not exempt it from employing the most rudimentary standards of justice in disciplinary relationships with its students.

Finally, as members of the Harvard community we resent the Committee's order prohibiting the suspended and separated students from appearing in the University community. We believe this prohibition severely limits our rights to free association and our freedom of entry into political dialogue. It is essential to the reputation of the University that its actions can never be construed to limit the free exchange of ideas, however antithetical those ideas may be to its collective political philosophy.

For these reasons, as the majority membership of the Harvard Cooperative House, we petition the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities to reinstate all the students required to withdraw as a result of their political activity until such time as all of the students involved in the November 19 demonstration receive a fair and open trial.

Further, in good conscience, we feel we must invite the three members of our house who are under suspension to remain with us until they are reinstated or until they receive an open hearing that convinces us of the justness of their expulsion.

Sincerely,

signed by 22 students

CRR Replies

January 30, 1970

A number of questions have been raised about the procedures of the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities and especially about issues connected with its decisions affecting students involved in the incident of November 19, 1969. Recently the Committee received a petition signed by 22 students putting several of these questions in written form. The Committee feels it would be useful to make public the substance of its reply, sent to the students on February 1:

The Committee has made every effort to discover on what basis charges were brought against the students participating in the obstructive demonstration on Dean May's office on November 19, 1969, and specifically whether there was any evidence of "selectivity" in making those charges. The Committee satisfied itself that there was no prejudicial selectivity. It examined all the photographic evidence and questioned all witnesses and concluded that charges were brought against everyone whom the Dean's office could identify as having been in the room during the demonstration and as having been an active participant in that demonstration. Those standing closest to the Dean were, obviously, both those most easily identified and those (in most cases) most actively involved in impeding his freedom of movement. In some instances, the Dean was in error and accordingly the Committee dismissed or modified the complaints. Not only did the Committee not single out SDS leaders, the majority of Committee members were unaware, in most cases, at the time of their deliberations, who was and who was not an SDS leader.