But the Committee is also of the view that its function-applying basic rules of conduct in student affairs-cannot and must not be a part of any procedures designed to identify or hear complaints about University policies or official behavior. (Emphases are mine.)

What follows this must be given careful attention because it is such a distortion of logic and reason, such a grand fallacy, that we almost assent to the argument in a brief, but heady, moment of romantic absurdism:

To suggest that there should be such a connection [i. e. between the CRR's job of punishing students and hearing complaints about the administration] is to argue that disciplinary decisions should be influenced by the political objectives of those who engage in the misconduct.

Their argument runs as follows: the CRR is supposed to punish students and students only; therefore, the request that the CRR should also consider complaints against administrators is denied because it would force the CRR to rule on "political" questions.

The only problem with this definition, of course, is that those "causes" which the CRR considers "political"-and therefore avoids like death-are frequently cases of administrative duplicity. This was the case both times Cox was punished.

Asking the CRR to consider violations of the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities by the Administration is asking it to become "political." Of course, by not taking into account the Administration's guilt the CRR remains neutral. Quite simply the CRR has told Cox that since it can only punish students, only students can be guilty. This is their idea of judicial neutrality.

Let me give you one other of the countless examples of the CRR's intentional double talk and bad faith. In January, the Committee received a petition requesting among other things that CRR hearings be open. Here is the Committee's response:

The Committee believes it is in the best interests of most of the students charged before it that the hearings not be public. We believe that many of the students who have appeared before the Committee would not have done so if the hearings had been public; [note: 25 people appeared before the Committee, 22 signed the petition asking that the hearings be open] if the option to make the hearings public had been available to the student, we believe many would have found themselves under considerable pressure from their fellow students to exercise that option and open hearings to a gallery.

The CRR argues that opening the hearings might put "considerable pressure" on those students who might have preferred closed hearings. Their novel solution to this patently unlikely problem is to close everyone's hearing. No options, no problems. This solution, after all, will make all the hearings consistent and expedient. The Committee's memo continues, bringing more of this same fairness and logic to bear on the point:

Most importantly, we think the hearings ought to be private because a private exchange between the student and his adviser and the Committee offers the best opportunity for learning about the motives, purposes, and opinions of those who are charged with violating the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities and for enabling the Committee to form some judgment about the quality and significance of the student's actions. It also offers an opportunity for the student to question the Committee and the complainant and to discuss informally with both a wide range of matters, some only indirectly related to the specific charge. (C. F. Cox's appeal) A public hearing . . . would inhibit many if not all parties to these discussions and lead the Committee to play the role of silent judge.

This almost beggars belief. The CRR refuses to open its hearings so students can discuss a wide range of matters. It neglects to state that in most cases the party bringing the complaint is not present at the hearing but is represented by a lawyer. It also neglects to point out that students are often told to shut-up at hearings when they try to discuss this "wide-range" of matters. Their last reason, which still puzzles me a year later, is that the CRR will not open the hearings because this would force it to become a "silent judge." Evidently, closed hearings allow the CRR to make more noise and less judgment.