The Faculty also agreed to return to the wording of the June 9 interim resolution, which listed the central functions of the University as "learning, teaching, research, and scholarship"-mention of which were deliberately left out of the present resolution by the CRR because of widespread disagreement."

Attacking the resolution, Abram Bergson, professor of Economics, said, "If these platitudes are endorsed by the Faculty, currents already in motion which make it difficult for officers of the University to make decisions in accordance with their best judgement will be increased."

Bergson called the question of responsibility to widely felt needs for change "essentially a political question." and accused the creators of the resolution of "trying to achieve essentially political aims in the guise of trying to formulate a code of conduct,"

Bergson's amendment-also rewriting that same paragraph-was not voted on, as Rosenblatt withdrew the resolution as soon as the Hughes amendment passed.

"Every word is a rubberband that can be expanded and contracted at will," charged Alexander Gerschenkron, Barker Professor of Economics.

Gerschenkron called the resolution "a piece of pernicious journalese." and said. "I am and must remain the sole judge of my opinions."

Most of the attack came from the right, but Hilary W. Putnam, professor of Philosophy, urged defeat of the resolution for radical reasons.

"Passage of this resolution would be an extremely reactionary step." Putnam said. "It's a law and order document on its face, and will serve the same forces."

"To pretend that the Administration or Faculty is responsive is absurd." he added. "To pass this resolution is to say that the status quo must be maintained, even if it destroys surrounding communities, and even if it is racist."