The Committee of Fifteen's discipline recommendations-to be considered by a special Faculty meeting Tuesday-will face at least seven attempted amendments from the right and left. Meanwhile, the Committee of Fifteen continues to revise its own proposals. It has considered and vetoed all but one of the proposed amendments.

On the agenda released yesterday, five Faculty members have proposed amendments to the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities, and two to the procedures and other recommendations that go along with it.

Four of the amendments concern the paragraph on the responsibilities of Faculty members and administrators. One concerns procedures for discipline of Faculty members. These procedures allegedly violate recommendations of the American Association of University Professors.

Because of these controversies, the Docket Committee has scheduled a second special Faculty meeting April 7 to consider everything else but the resolution itself.

The Committee of Fifteen has made no changes in its second revision of the Resolution, released last month. Alan Heimert '49, Master of Eliot House and Committee spokesman, said any changes before Tuesday in their version of the Resolation will be "strictly semantic." Other Faculty members, however, will proposed the following amendments:

Arthur Smithies, Nathaniel Ropes Professor of Political Economy and Master of Kirkland House, will move to add the words "and from other forms of intense personal harassment" to the passage insisting on "freedom from personal force and violence."

Smithies said last night that the harassing of Dean May last November, and the statements released by the Interim Committee on Rights and Responsibilities when it disciplined the students involved, suggested that such an explicit provision is needed. "I wouldn't put it in if I didn't think there are a lot of professors concerned about this sort of thing." Smithies said.

Arthur Maass. Frank G. Thomas Professor of Government, wants to add to the fourth paragraph-on the responsibilities of officers of the University to be responsive to "widely perceived needs for change" -the specification "but nothing in this paragraph should be interpreted as condoning any violation of rights of members of the academic community given-in the third paragraph of this resolution."

Freedom of Speech

The third paragraph concerns itself with "freedom of speech and academic freedom, freedom from personal force and violence, and freedom of movement."

Maass said, "Students could read the fourth paragraph and accuse Faculty members of insensitivity to widely feltneeds for change, using this as a justification for violating parts of the previous paragraph. I feel this is a needed clarification, and so do several of my colleagues."

Albram Bergson, professor of Economics, will move to replace the entire fourth paragraph with one that proscribes "arbitrariness, partiality, negligence, or similarly impermissible personal lapses" on the part of University officers. Bergson said he felt wonds such as "insensitivity" and "widely perceived" could be subject to misunderstaning.

Hitler and McCarthy

"History has shown us," Bergson said, "in the cases of Hitler and Joe McCarthy, for example, that 'widely perceived needs' are not always infallible guides for decision. I've tried to get to more reliable standards."

H. Stuart Hughes, chairman of the History Department, will move to replace the fourth paragraph of the Resolution with a similar one which, however, deletes the recommendation for "procedures to review, assess, and make accountable the performance of [University] officers."

In the case of discipline of Faculty members, the Committee of Fifteen urged a three-step process. Any complaint would be examined by a fact-finding body composed of Faculty members of the CRR. which would pass the case to an ad hoc committee composed of two Corporation members and three Faculty members. That committee would in turn hold hearing and make a recommendation to the Corporation, which makes the final decision.

Violated Recommendations

Everett I. Mendelsohn, professor of the History of Science, said this procedure violates the recommendations of the American Association of University Professors. He will move that the hearing committee be composed entirely of Faculty members-three tenured, two non-tenured.

"The right of a University professor to a disciplinary hearing by a committee of his peers is firmly established," Mendelsohn said. He said all Ivy League schools which have established faculty discipline procedures have followed the AAU? guidelines.

Kenneth J. Arrow, professor of Economics, will move that the proposed "ombudsman" committee be given explicit authority to "investigate and make public reports" on complaints against the University administration. He said he has been discussing his proposal with members of the Committee of Fifteen, and may withdraw it before Tuesday.

Prenatal Blow

Meanwhile, the permanent Committee on Rights and Responsibilities-to be voted on by the Faculty on April 7-was struck another prenatal blow yesterday when a Radcliffe poll revealed that the overwhelming majority of Cliffies who filled out a Radcliffe Union of Students questionnaire "question its legitimacy." Previously Quincy House voted not to send a CRR representative, and Dudley House voted to send one only if disciplinary hearings were made open at the student's request.