BEARS don't do much when it's cold. As the days shorten and the temperature drops, they retreat into their caves. It's almost as though they'd disappeared; if you didn't know better, you might think they were dead. But actually, they're quite alive, performing most of their bear-functions, quietly, unobtrusively. And when the warm weather returns, they emerge from underground, healthy and refreshed, ready to start all over again.

During the past six months, the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities has been hearing readmission's cases of students forced to leave the University because they participated in the University Hall occupation two years ago or in militant actions during the Cambodia strike last year. Considering about a dozen cases, the Committee has voted to readmit every student who has applied. Newspapers have not covered these meetings; no reporters are permitted to attend. (All descriptions of CRR meetings in this article are based on accounts by those present.) Many people have forgotten about the CRR, and a whole freshman class has never heard of it. But the CRR has not died. And who knows what will happen when the warm weather returns.

This Tuesday the Faculty will discuss and probably vote on a revised draft of the procedures of the CRR. Most of the important amendments- all were drawn up by Committee members- derive from experiences the CRR has had during the past term. Readmission's cases interest few people. Judging whether to let someone back into Harvard is much less dramatic than deciding whether to kick him out. And while disciplinary hearings usually take place in a political context, right after the event in question has occurred, readmission's cases come up over six months later, when time has faded the incidents and issues into history. But the readmission's cases are important. They do more than discomfort the individuals involved; they also indicate the nature of the CRR and its mode of operation.

Even more than disciplinary hearings, readmission's cases are left to the discretion of the Committee. A student can be thrown out of Harvard in a number of different ways, depending on the severity of the charges against him. Of all students forced to leave, the ones "required to withdraw" have the best chance of being readmitted. According to the Readmission Procedures of the CRR, after a student required to withdraw has been away from Harvard for a minimum period of time, he can apply to come back. In a CRIMSON interview, Donald G. M. Anderson, chairman of the Committee, said, "With requirement to withdraw, the basic criterion in the Procedure is presumption of readmission unless we feel it's not in the best interests of the University to have you come back. We have to find a reason to keep you out."

When a student applies for readmission, he must supply the Committee with a statement describing his activities since he left Harvard ("with particular reference to employment and educational experiences"). The Committee has no guidelines on judging cases of readmission. "The Committee wishes to know all information about the student's activities during the period of his absence from Harvard which may reasonably be deemed germane," the Procedures say. The Committee decides what "may reasonably be deemed germane."

As one of its options, the Committee can request an interview of an applicant for readmission. "In some circumstances, an interview with one or more members of the Committee may be appropriate," the Procedures read. If the Faculty approves one of the suggested amendments, a clause will be added: "Such an interview will normally be required of those wishing to return to the University." Interviews would become the rule rather than the exception.

SOFAR, the Committee has had only two interviews. Both concerned students "required to withdraw": one, Mike Schwartz, a Sociology graduate student, for his part in the University Hall occupation of April 1969; the other, John McKean, a senior thrown out a few days before graduation, for his role in last Spring's Cambodia demonstrations. Both were readmitted. The interviews are interesting because they illustrate the CRR at work and because they demonstrate the different meanings that individuals can ascribe to the word "germane."

After leaving Harvard, Schwartz taught at UCLA. There, he was arrested in a demonstration and, as a result, was not rehired. He obtained a three-year teaching contract at the State University of New York at Stonybrook and decided to apply for readmission to Harvard. Since he had fulfilled all his doctoral degree requirements except for submitting his thesis, Schwartz did not plan to return to Harvard. However, according to University regulations, before he could receive a degree, he had to be readmitted.

After consulting his Harvard adviser, Harrison White, Schwartz decided not to mention the UCLA demonstration and described only his "employment and educational experiences." A letter from the UCLA Chancellor informed Harvard of the incident, however, and at his interview, Schwartz was asked why he had not mentioned it. He replied that he, and White as well, did not consider it "germane."

But most members of the Committee thought it was germane. Predictably, they asked him under what conditions he considers coercive tactics acceptable and whether he believes force should ever be used in a University community. Some interrogators went further.

Because Schwartz plans to teach, Kenneth Deitch, representative of the Senior Tutors, felt that "fitness to teach" was an issue. "I think it's my responsibility to judge on your fitness to get up there and teach kids," Deitch reportedly said. He asked Schwartz how he would address students in his classes if a demonstration was taking place on campus. Would he exhort people to take over buildings? Would he take part himself? If he were a dean and students occupied his office, how would he react?

Other questions swept into the area of Schwartz's personal life. For instance, he was asked how he met his wife and what influence she had on his life. Personal questions are not unusual. McKean was also asked about his social activities. And at another meeting, this one to discuss a case without an interview. Anderson distributed copies he had received of an unsolicited letter describing the applicant's sex life over the past several years.

One of the more surprising questions at the Schwartz interview came from Donald Steele, a graduate student representative. Schwartz is doing his doctoral work on the American Populist movement. "I want to know," Steele asked, "is your interest in Populism related to your interest in radical movements?"

Steele and Deitch will not talk to the CRIMSON. " The central functions of an academic community are learning, teaching, research and scholarship. By accepting membership in the University, an individual joins a community ideally characterized by free expression, free inquiry, intellectual honesty, respect for the dignity of others, and openness to constructive change. "- from the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities, approved by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

Unlike Schwartz, McKean wanted to return to Harvard to attend the Ed School. For that reason, Anderson requested an interview. As in Schwartz's interview, some members of the Committee asked McKean questions about his political views and his opinions on the justification of force.