a suspended requirement to withdraw to one student on the edge of the crowd who had a prior record of warning the later identified himself as Joshua Freeman '70?:
three suspended requirements to withdraw until February 1971, to students with no prior record who "were photographed on the stairs" leading to the seminar room, and who were shown by testimony to be there "for the purpose of joining in the demonstration":
five suspended requirements to withdraw until September 1971, to students "shown to be entering or to have been in the seminar room itself." None had prior records or were proven to have engaged in "additional unacceptable activity while in the room."
Kazin was required to withdraw immediately until at least February 1971. He had a prior record of admonition and probation and "was in the seminar room and there in shouted loudly." He was also punished for subjecting Bowie and Williamson to "intense personal harassment."
Kazin must submit an application for readmission to the committee if he wishes to re-enter the University.
A one-year separation to a student who was in the seminar room, "shouted loudly," grabbed the statement which Bowie read to the demonstrators informing them of a rights violation, tore it up, and spilled a glass of water on a member of the meeting.
A majority of the committee and of the Faculty must approve his readmission.
Many who testified for Bowie acknowledged during the hearings that warnings made by CFIA staff members were inaudible, and some students claimed ignorance of any rights violation.
But to stipulate a warning "would be to license any unacceptable activity that could be carried out by stealth or surprise or in such large or noisy numbers as to make warnings impossible to hear." the rights committee stated.
The CRR also decided that personal views on the nature of the CFIA or the "essential nature," of its Visiting Committee were irrelevant to an individual's guilt in breaking a University regulation.
Pointing out that the CFIA has been approved by the University's governing boards, the committee denied that "those who disapprove of some of the work of the Center have the right to disrupt an official meeting of that Center."