The Committee has given and will continue to give to each student appearing before it the right to have a tape recording made of the procedings to which he and his adviser (as well as the Committee) can later freely refer in reconsidering any disciplinary action. We only stipulate that the recording not be for public release.

The Committee believes it is in the best interests of most of the students charged before it that the hearing not be public. We believe that many of the students who have appeared before the Committee would not have done so if the hearing had been public: if the option to make them public had been available to the student, we believe many would have found themselves under considerable pressure from their fellow students to exercise that option and open the hearings to a gallery Furthermore, the Committee of Fifteen last April and May was the object of a serious effort, in which threats of force were made, by a large number of students to disrupt the hearings then in progress. We took seriously those threats then and we take seriously the possibility of disruption today. We hope we are wrong on the present prospects, but in the highly-charged atmosphere surrounding these events we believe it unwise to offer an opportunity for renewed efforts at disruption. However, we hope that the use of security measures will in the near future prove unnecessary.

Most importantly, we think the hearings ought to be private because a private exchange between the student (and his adviser) and the Committee offers the best opportunity for learning about the motives, purposes, and opinions of those who are charged with violating the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities and for enabling the Committee to form some judgment about the quality and significance of the student's actions. It also offers an opportunity for the student to question the Committee and the complainant and to discuss informally with both a wide range of matters, some only indirectly related to the specific charge. A public hearing-or a hearing made public by means of a verbatim transcript or tape recording-would inhibit many if not all parties to these discussions and lead the Committee (or its hearing panel) to play the role of silent judge, presiding over an adversary contest between complainant and student. In criminal trials, such detachment may be necessary and desirable, but in the affairs of a University, concerned with somehow reconciling political activity with the rules of reasoned discourse and elenientary standards of civility, a court-like atmosphere would be an obstacle, not an asset. And greater formality might well lead to less attention being given to mitigating circumstances.

Finally, we agree that essential fairness and basic standards of justice ought to prevail in these proceedings however they are conducted. The Committee believes it must and does provide a fair hearing to the students involved; our published procedures, considerably more elaborate than those followed by the Administrative Board, are designed to insure this. Every student is given an opportunity to face his accuser, to have an adviser, to know all the evidence against him, to offer any evidence he wishes, to have a recording made, and to ask for reconsideration. The Committee before which he ?s called is composed of persons most of?? ?hom were initially selected by elections field among students and faculty and its ?omposition was approved by a vote of th?? Faculty on September 30, 1969. Thought dismissing charges or granting requeste for reconsideration does not prove the Committee's fairness, the fact that charge have been dismissed and reconsideration have been granted (leading, on occasion to a reduction in disciplinary action should be borne in mind.

The students disciplined for their participation in the November 19, ?? incident have received an opportunity ?or a fair hearing and for reconsideration of the disciplinary decision. No convin??ug argument has been made as to why those decisions should now be reversed Furthermore, no student requested to have the University has ever been per??tted to remain in his House, whether th?? House is on-campus or a Harvard-spon??red cooperative house. One of the pur??ses of severance is to insure that the student leaves the University for some p??iod of time to rethink his relationship to it. Living in a Harvard House, a??nding classes, or using the library facili??s are privileges reserved for members ?? good standing of the University. That a s??ered student may not remain in Harvard on the other hand, does not prevent him rom expressing his political views or from associating with whomever he choose, including University members. We d?? insist, however, that such association s??uld not involve the sustained and signif??ant use of University facilities unless the student has received the permission of the Committee.