To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The fear of accusation. of being racist and reactionary, has prevented open discussion of decisions handed down this year by the Committee of Fifteen (of Rights and Responsibilities). I write not to cite or pass judgment on what appears the differential treatment of violators according to racial criteria, but rather to suggest a model for the apparent attitude of the disciplinary body.

The majority of students in this community subscribe to the notions of individual freedom characteristic of a liberal society. Where there is considerable disagreement is in the area of mechanism, the way by which these values are instituted and administered. Students have made demands directed at the "decision-making process."

However, in dealing with such issues, a more profound issue has been neglected. A distinction has not been made between that state of existence which is desirable and the means by which that state is protected. It has been hastily assumed that decisions made in a liberal state are made along what, for lack of a better term, may be referred to as "humanistic" lines. The mistake has been made of viewing liberal political institutions as simply the administrators of humanistic values. Though the liberal society does often protect such values, its first commitment is to the preservation of the state. Similarly, the Committee of Fifteen, as a political institution in a liberal community, finds its first obligation in the preservation of the University community.

With such an objective in mind, the Committee makes expedient and utilitarian judgments in cases of discipline. Though concerned with the consistent administration of principle, it is far more concerned with the preservation of peace. Thus, for what appear as lesser violations, graver punishments can be handed out; the action is justified in that it best serves the continued peaceable function of the University. Though OBU might have seized the Faculty Club, broken into University Hall, and mauled policemen, the consequences of their dismissal would have been too damaging to the University to allow the Committee to take such action. It is essential to the preservation of this university that its image be one of whites and blacks in peaceful coexistence. For the future of the University, the OBU demonstrators remain, the WSA-PL demonstrators are dismissed.

At this point, the question becomes obvious: what is the value of a "humanistic" society when it administers justice in a utilitarian fashion? The cynic's-answer, possibly the most relevant, is that we have the best society and best university to be hoped for at this particular moment in time.

The idealist sees the solution to our particular problems in the just and consistent administration of principle. The Committee, if it is to be a viable institution, must punish all violators with the same punishment for the same offense. If this system of justice would cause the community to disintegrate, then it is not a community worthy of preservation.