Today's hearing will be closed, despite two requests from the Crimson and supportive letters from the three complainants, asking that the proceedings be open to the Harvard community. In denying the second request yesterday. Calkins said that the inquiry is "a private matter within the University."

"Broader questions, such as those involving academic policy, will not be considered (at the hearing),") he wrote in an October 21 letter. "If we should conclude that the grievances have no substance, it would be both unfair to the Dean and damaging to the School of Design for our proceedings to be aired publicly."

Vagts, writing for Kilbridge in response to an inquiry about an open hearing, concurred. "I would only add that, in the course of stating their grievances, complainants have made allegations that, if true, are very much to the discredit of third parties. We hope to disprove them, but reporting them to the public might, in the meantime, do serious harm to several individuals," he said.

Isaacs. Nash and Vigier, while emphasizing that they would abide by the procedural guidelines set by the Corporation, leaned toward an open procedure.

"I personally have no objection to open' hearings if these be limited to attendance by members of the Harvard community only." Isaacs said. "There are no words or deeds of my own which I would hesitate to report or describe in reply to questions in an open hearing: nor do I believe that any of these would reflect upon Harvard."

Vigier wrote. "I have no objections to the hearings being open as I share (the) belief that a fair reporting of the issues we have brought before the committee of the Corporation would do much to dispel the malaise which has, in part, resulted from secretive actions."

Nash at first went along with the Corporation's closed-door policy, but he later changed his stance to "agree to support (the) request for an open hearing.