The new report, by the Academic Policy Committee, a copy of which The Crimson has obtained, appears to take a less critical view than the Hartman Review Committee of the GSD's decision not to reappoint Hartman and the limited cooperation received by the Hartman Review Committee.

For example, the first panel reserved its strongest criticism for the GSD professors whom the committee accused of failing to respond to calls for testimony, stating that "they must bear a major part of the responsibility for any inaccuracies or misinterpretations which might have been corrected by further discussion."

And later in its study, the panel wrote: "The review committee takes a very serious view of the failure of members, and former members, of the Faculty of Design to cooperate with a committee established by that Faculty, and hopes that the members of that Faculty will take due note of this fact, and take such action as they deem appropriate."

While the Academic Policy Committee concludes that failure to cooperate fully in investigations is "basically unacceptable" to the faculty, it says it "cannot recommend" that the faculty consider the issue of censure "in the absence of known standards and accepted procedures in this area."

'Incumbent to Come Forward'

However, the report of the Hartman Review Committee stated that "in normal academic practice, as embodied in policy statements of the American Association of University Professors [AAUP], past practice at Harvard, and the legislation establishing the review committee, there is a presumption that, upon the showing of a prima facie case by the aggrieved party, before a duly constituted body, it is incumbent upon those responsible for the decision in question to come forward with a statement of reasons."

The Academic Policy Committee also concludes in its April 27 report that the limited cooperation of GSD officials did not constitute a denial of due process to Hartman. It cites three factors for this statement:

* The "substantial amount" of cooperation and evidence available to the Hartman Review Committee;

* The review panel's "conscientious effort" to collect all relevant evidence although it lacked the ability to compel testimony; and

* A belief on the part of Academic Policy Committee members that "it does not seem that the potentially missing testimony would result in different conclusions."

Similarily, the policy committee labels the actions of President Pusey and Kilbridge after March 1969 as "immaterial" to the decision not to rehire and states that it is "ambiguous" whether or not either of the two tried to influence the decision afterwards.

The new report only touches briefly on Pusey's role, which was one of the most controversial aspects of the Hartman case. The then-University president reportedly viewed Hartman as an "unfortunate example of faculty participation" in the student demonstrations of spring 1969, the review panel's report said, and Hartman became a "symbol of the faculty's distaste" for the protests.

'Troublesome' Pusey Role

While the Hartman Review Committee did not find "credible" Hartman's allegations that Pusey and the Corporation "took action to secure" his release, the panel said it found Pusey's role "troublesome."

The policy committee also does not discuss the first panel's sharp criticism of Kilbridge's review and eventual acceptance in 1969 of the departmental recommendation against rehiring.