The cleavages between liberal and conservative Faculty members were also different this year. Confronted by such issues as curriculum reform, women's rights, and the implementation of the Rights and Responsibilities resolution, the liberal caucus was no longer united by its anti-war leftism. The issues this year were distinctly internal issues.

This Fall, the liberals had to face the dichotomy which the hurried events of the Spring had obscured: how liberal unity on national issues could be translated into unity on internal political issues.

The Fainsod Committee Report on Faculty Restructuring was a natural battle ground. The committee was established to study the same problems that had led to the caucus's formation: the autocratic power of Faculty deans, student representation, the breakdown of the old committee structure.

The Fainsod Committee was also the last prestigious Faculty committee appointed under the old system and was headed by the most eminent of the "Grey Eminences."

The committee reported finally in late October, after circulating three drafts of its proposals around in Faculty circles (another unprecedented move). And the liberals proceeded to carve up the report until little was left of the original proposals.

By creating the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities, liberals had established the principles of student representation and election of Faculty members. In the Faculty debate, Fainsod proposals were expanded to solidly entrench these. The Faculty Council-a combination House Rules Committee and Dean's Cabinet-was to be elected on an elaborate Proportional Representation plan which not only recognized democratic Faculty voting, but representation according to fields and departments.

After fighting so hard for a liberal Faculty restructuring, the liberals lost the December and May elections. "We won the war, but lost the battle." one liberal commented. "Had we allowed the Dean to appoint the Council we would have done better because he would have had to guess at our strength." another said.

The results of the Fall Faculty meetings gave rise to what is now known as the Womack Rule of Faculty ulty politics. (The rule, named after John Womack Jr., professor of History, is an informal measure of the predictability of Faculty votes.) In small Faculty meetings (less than 200 members), conservatives usually win because only the mildly-interested Faculty show up. In medium-sized Faculty meetings (250-350), liberals generally win because the junior Faculty show up. And in large meetings or on mailed ballots which go out to all 700 Faculty members, conservatives win overwhelmingly because the real "back-bench" traditionalists are voting.

(This rule points up another obscure, but actual Faculty corollary, passed last January, called the Bergson Rule. The Bergson Rule, named after Abram Bergson, professor of Economics, says that if any proposal is passed at a Faculty meeting attended by less than a third of the Faculty, the next meeting has a right to over-rule the motion. This tidbit is mentioned only to show how absurdly formalistic the Faculty has now become.)

THE activities of the caucus in the Fainsod debate never approached the feverish pitch of the previous Spring. The liberals met only a few times this year to organize their slate of candidates. The conservatives met once, then circulated a list of their candidates to certain Faculty members and lobbied for their acceptance.

Changes of the mood of the Faculty made more political activity impossible. As student demands this year became more radical. the Faculty members were settling in to consolidate their gains. There was a sense of deja ?? to the "non-negotiability" of the radical demands, and a more broad-based resentment to the increasing number of demands which the students were making.

"There is a growing sense that the University as an intellectual enterprise is under attack from both the right and the left, from both inside the University and out." Hughes explained. "and hence people have begun to unify to defend the institution."

The Vietnam Moratorium in October was the first indication of a change in Faculty attitude. After a strong stand against ROTC in the Spring, students expected the Faculty to over-whelmingly endorse the single day of symbolic pretest this Fall. This was a moderate issue, and surely the liberals, who had been holding sway over the Faculty decisions would solidly support it, they believed.

The liberals did not, however, great as their outrage at the war was. A group of active independent Faculty members drafted a proposal for the Faculty to vote against the war in convocation, but not as a formal body.

Many liberals agreed that it was not the function of the Harvard Faculty to express its formal opinion. When the vote came, however, in a medium-sized Faculty meeting, the remaining liberals and a large number of non-caucus Faculty members combined to defeat the convocation proposal by a single vote. The resolution against the war was passed, but was insignificant compared to the implications of the convocation vote.