group; and third, those in the surrounding area. It gave different punishments to each group. Fink was in the second group, and the Committee deemed this serious enough to warrant suspension.

I am a patient fellow. I listened to his story and I nodded my head here and there while Anderson explained this to me. "When Anderson finished explaining this I learned back in my chair but I could not suppress a little grin. Slowly, ever so slowly, I began to explain. . . "You see, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Wilson just told me that one of the interesting things about the photo was that it showed people in front of the doors with their arms linked, and this was something that Mr. Wilson said the Committee did not know at the time it punished Fink. So, you see now Mr. Anderson, this little story you have been telling me, this story about three levels of punishments, well, it's a nice thought isn't it, I mean three levels of punishment, it's a very nice idea, but you know, it's, it's. . . well, I don't like to mention such things, but it's a little inexact."

Even the saturnine Mr. Anderson could not suppress a little grin from spreading over his face. Mr. Anderson had made up this three-leveled cake about these levels of punishment, and, well, this cake had just fallen into his lap, and not even the saturnine Mr. Anderson could stop himself from grinning with all this cake in his lap. I then informed the grinning Mr. Anderson that I would file the papers necessary for a formal appeal. And I did.

On July 10th I received the first piece of correspondence from the new CRR. The Committee had new members, but the committee is always the same.

My request for the appeal had briefly stated the relevant issues:

From this photograph, I believe, it can be shown that Mr. Fink was not part of the group which obstructed Mr. Williamson in that he did not stand in front of the doorway and did not link arms with those who did, all of whom have their arms linked.

This struck me as a clear and undeniable reason for an appeal hearing- Mr. Anderson's cakes notwithstanding. The Committee replied:

While the Committee is prepared to waive the deadline for asking for reconsideration, it is prepared to reopen the case only if you submit in writing compelling reasons for doing so.

This criterion proved to be quite a shock. The Committee's grounds for allowing an appeal hearing, "compelling evidence" were outrageous. The Committee had set more stringent grounds for granting an appeal hearing than it had previously stipulated for acquittal. This initial outrageous requirement was exacerbated by more Committee mumbo-jumpo:

Especially under the circumstances, a new Committee not by and large previously associated with the case and without student members as yet, the Committee will be very loathe to consider subtle points of interpretation and evaluation of the significance of facts which have already been considered quite exhaustively by the previous Committee in the context of the whole set of events and cases surrounding this incident.

This was clearly no longer nonsense on stilts, this was nonsense on crutches- but nonsense in any case. The "subtle points of interpretation and evaluation" were really quite simple. Fink was not there. The Committee had not treated anything "quite exhaustively." The Committee had not known where Fink was standing. This amazing letter continued, and even returned to English, to warn Fink that "if the case is reopened . . . it is entirely possible that sanctions would be made more rather than less severe under the circumstances."

I went to see Anderson with the request that I be allowed to argue in person before the Committee and ask simply for a new hearing- not an acquittal, just a new hearing. I realized it was a new Committee, and that it might be "very loathe" to consider old business, but it seemed to me that this should not be held against Fink. I also told Anderson that I thought the Committee's grounds for appeal, "compelling reasons," were absurd. I suggested that I ought to be allowed to argue in person for Fink at the very least. Anderson agreed on both counts but added that he did not have the individual power to allow me to appear before the Committee. He had to ask the Committee's approval for this. This of course was untrue. I went home and soaked a string in a tub of water; it was very hard to push. I also began to read Kafka.

A week later Anderson told me that the Committee would not let me appear in person to argue for the appeal hearing. I said this was outrageous and Anderson agreed.

Let it be clear that the faculty members of the Committee of Rights and Responsibilities which is now sitting denied a defense advisor the right to argue in person for a new hearing based on new evidence without giving any reasons, compelling or otherwise. When you are told to go through channels, this is what is meant.

Anderson told me to write a new appeal. On July 15th I submitted Fink's third request for a new hearing and again requested to be present to argue in its support. On July 31st the Committee "regretted" to inform Fink that his application for an appeal had been denied, and that he could not return to school in September.