too, and substituted a phrase calling for a report to the community "reviewing the status of redress" of student grievances.

An observer at the meeting might have thought the Faculty had never heard of the HRPC poll which showed that a large majority of students responding opposed even the Committee's version of the resolution.

It was as if the Faculty had not heard that Quincy House refused to elect a representative to the proposed disciplinary body, or that the Graduate Student Association was considering similar action, or that Dudley's representative has pledged not to participate unless the hearings are open to the public.

The Faculty was obviously fed up with the seemingly interminable series of student complaints about University policy. But if its members had deliberately set out to unite radicals and moderates against University discipline, they could hardly have done a better job.

The fact that the Faculty chose to ignore the advice of members who had worked most closely with students-as well as the advice of its own generally conservative Faculty Council-doesn't seem to leave much hope for better student-faculty relations in the foreseeable future.

But several Faculty members of the Committee of Fifteen indicated last night that they don't think the situation should necessarily be construed so bleakly.

One said the Faculty's action yesterday could simply be the result of "slovenly" wording by the Committee, and that a revision can easily be found which would be acceptable both to the Committee and to those who supported the Hughes amendment.

Committee members were busily exchanging phone calls last night, and will soon get to work on a new version of the Resolution.

Some said they feel that a new version must be written quickly to avoid further discouraging student moderates because pessimism about the Faculty's response could be contagious.

And, after all, another April is coming up.