But things run in cycles, and soon war will visit us here again; southern Africa has compelled just a skirmish. War will come because the old roles don't change; the University cares only for learning. Harvard grudgingly permits political activity only so long as there is no interference with the educational process. But let one class be delayed, one dean distracted, one tax exemption threatened. Then the heavens fall, and the Faculty huddles: learning has been attacked!

Could there be a cause more important than Learning, a goal more pressing than the military discipline of a smoothly running college? The Faculty answered this question with a resounding "No!" The Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities states, "The central functions of an academic community are learning, teaching, research and scholarship...interference with members of the University in performance of their duties and activities must be regarded as unacceptable obstruction of the essential processes of the University."

Chem 20 before napalm! Physics 143 before the H-bomb! Gov 30 before racism! Hurrah for learning and the things that it produces!

So when we turn our attention to the suffering world outside, to the structure of our intransigent school, or to the University's complicity in war and racism--when we turn to politics--the University, afflicted with learning paranoia, fights us. They did so with stalling, and ultimately with clubs, in 1969. They do so in a mild way now, by making conciliatory gestures, but not acting, over southern Africa (no moral imperative may influence investment, which serves learning). And they will do so anew when once again student interests broaden.

***

Inherent conflict between the goals of students and the University, and the obvious danger of political repression, lie at the heart of the problems with the reform proposals.

To see these problems, we must first closely examine the proposed composition of the CRR (seven faculty, six students). Faculty members will still command a majority. The reform proposals triumphantly note that the faculty chairman "will vote only to break a tie." This is meaningless propaganda: the faculty chairman will vote only when his vote counts. The CRR is small, and a tie is not at all unlikely. Also, students might have to be disqualified, as they were after the 1969 strike, from the CRR, if they participated in the events under judgment, thus increasing the faculty majority. Indeed, 46 per cent students may not be enough to ensure justice.

Perhaps we should take a more radical stand by invoking the philosophy of the U.S. judicial system and demanding trial by our peers.

In addition, current regulations direct the House Committees to choose 11 people at random to form a selection board, which decides whether to pick candidates by ballot, lot, or an "alternative procedure." Then, CRR representatives are selected from the Houses' candidates by lot. Similar procedures apply to the freshman class and GSAS. If such a selection procedure provides us with a fairminded, competent, interested representatives, we will have only Lady Luck to thank. The reform proposals make no change in this procedure.

There are problems with the secrecy provision. CRR hearings should be public (perhaps broadcast on WHRB); to publish minutes only at the conclusion of a hearing is to inform the community only when it is too late to influence a possibly unjust decision.

Of course, one can imagine situations in which publicity would be undesirable, but clearly open hearings should be the rule, not the exception. Equally clearly, the CRR should not itself hold unregulated power to seal proceedings in cases where the University desires secrecy. Such a policy invites the CRR to hide its own abuses, as well as those of the University. Only in the most exceptional cases are the public and the press barred from criminal trials in this country.

During the Faculty's debate on the original Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities, Hilary W. Putnam, Professor of Modern Mathematics and Mathematical Logic, said, "What [the resolution] says, I would say, is that in the future ineffective protest is allowed, but effective protest means suspension and dismissal." We can only support the resolution if we believe that the greatest moral cause must bow to the smallest University rule. The current resolution states, "The Faculty regards it as implicit in the language of the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities that intense personal harassment of such a character as to amount to grave disrespect for the dignity of others be regarded as an unacceptable violation of the personal rights on which the University is based."

What is "harassment"? What is "grave disrespect for the dignity of others"? Is a phone campaign to inform Dean Rosovsky of student opinion concerning Dean Fox's housing plan any of the above? This provision is sufficiently vague and broad as to represent a serious threat to political protest. It could be interpreted to apply to almost any political action. No similarly broad provision can be found in the U.S. Constitution.

The CRR can unilaterally alter its procedure and structure if the Faculty Council decides not to send the changes to the full Faculty for consideration. Need we discuss the abuse of a self-regulating body? If the CRR and Faculty Council wish, at some time, to take an action outside of Harvard law, they will be able to rewrite the rules to suit them. There is room here for reform.

Disciplinary authority is distributed in a rather confusing, possibly contradictory, way in the University. As we have seen, the CRR is explicitly empowered to discipline "interference with members of the University in performance of their nomal duties and activities..." Yet, according to the current edition of "Undergraduate Regulations and Services," "...offenses against law and order, or failure to behave with the maturity and responsibility expected of Harvard and Radcliffe students, will be dealt with as the Faculty and the Administrative Board shall determine." In addition, students may suffer immediate, temporary suspension ordered "...jointly by the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and a Committee consisting of an equal number of student and faculty members." (This committee is not the CRR.)