At a poorly-attended meeting yesterday, the Faculty approved a string of 26 amendments, including four substantive changes that will strengthen the power of the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (CRR) to judge readmissions cases.

The 26 changes in the CRR's procedures, which were voted almost unanimously, include:

Amendment T, which permits the CRR to prevent a College graduate from registering at a University graduate school if it decides he has previously violated the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities. Before, the CRR could only consider a student's actions between the time he graduates from the College and the time he registers at the graduate school. It also did not have the specified power to bar him from registering.

Amendment V, which allows the CRR to readmit a student "for purposes of obtaining a degree," while refusing him permission to return to the University. Doctoral students who need only submit a thesis to receive a degree, or students thrown out just before they finished their senior year are two groups affected by this change. The CRR considered cases of both types last Fall.

Amendment U, which will increase the number of CRR interviews of readmission applicants. Before, the Procedures stipulated that "in some circumstances" such an interviews "may be appropriate": now, "such an interview will normally be required of those wishing to return to the University."

Amendment W, which clarifies the distinction between the CRR and the Administrative Board, a group of Senior Tutors and other administrators which handles cases of academic failure, theft, vandalism and similar offenses. While in the past, "all students asked to leave the University" were prohibited from returning to Harvard property without the CRR's written consent, now only those students "asked to leave the University by the Committee or its predecessors" are subject to that restriction.

Besides passing these amendments, the Faculty also discussed the possibility of replacing the General Education requirements with non-enforceable guidelines and heard a report from Mary I. Bunting, president of Radcliffe College, on the progress of the "non-merger" plan between Harvard and Radcliffe. It took no action on these issues.

In the most fervent speech of the af-

ternoon, Kenneth M. Deitch, Senjor Tutor of Mather House and a CRR representative, asked the Faculty to provide stricter guidelines on readmissions cases. Deitch was not the CRR's spokesman.

"Any student required to withdraw by the old Committee on Rights and Responsibilities or by the Committee of 15 has indicated by his actions that he was willing to use force as a method of procedure on this campus," Deitch said. "One can say anything in this community, but he can't do anything. People not willing to live by these standards are not suitable for readmission, because they are likely to destroy this community or, to use one of their favorite words, they will smash it."

Deitch said that only those students who renounce the use of force in a university and "show beyond a shadow of a doubt that something important has changed" should be readmitted. "The burden of proof rests exclusively on the student," Deitch said, warning that "failure to take the question of readmissions seriously is by analogy an invitation to bring the Trojan horse back a second time."

After Deitch's speech, Donald G. M. Anderson, McKay Professor of Applied Mathematics and chairman of the CRR, said that Deitch had expressed the views of a minority of the CRR. According to the Procedures, in the least severe - and most common - ways that a student can be thrown out, there is a "presumption in favor of readmission" after the student has completed the minimum period of separation.

In an apparent reference to a CRIMSON story of February 12, Anderson said that "at least one" member of the CRR had revealed privileged information and that such actions "could prevent the Committee from performing its functions."

"The Committee might have to return to the Faculty to be able to take appropriate action to retain its integrity," Anderson said.

In the debate over Gen Ed requirements, two committees - the Committee on Undergraduate Education and the Committee on General Education - disagreed.

Speaking for the CUE, James S. Ackerman, professor of Fine Arts and a Committee member, suggested that Gen Ed requirements be replaced by guidelines that allow students "to make choices in a consistent way." The proposal would eliminate mandatory requirements.

Presenting the report of the Committee on General Education, Edward T. Wilcox, director of the General Education program, opposed these recommendations.

Warning that if these proposals were accepted "general education courses will dwindle and die," Wilcox advised that the "Nat Sci bypass", which permits a student to substitute two departmental full courses in the sciences for the normal Nat Sci full course, be extended to the areas of Humanities and Social Sciences.

The CUE is still working on its proposals, and action on the matter is not expected in the near future.