TWO WEEKS AGO, Dean Epps sent letters to House committees and the Freshman Council seeking nominations to the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (CRR), a committee formed in 1970 to consider cases of students who were charged with disrupting the University by participating in political demonstrations. Just as the letters were mailed, students who have been attempting for two years to reform the CRR announced that their efforts may fail because the Faculty Council refused to accept two crucial reforms that would create an autonomous appeals board to the CRR and bar the use of hearsay evidence. In light of the Faculty Council's position, former student CRR members who have been instrumental in the reform efforts urged House committees and the Freshman Council to refuse to nominate students for the CRR at least until the full Faculty agrees to make fundamental changes in the nature of the committee.

Although the Faculty Council has cooperated with students on several important reforms--including equalizing the number of students and faculty members on the CRR and prohibiting lawyers in hearings--the council has made no concessions on the remaining points of reform. This intransigence is surprising considering the fact that the CRR itself--composed of a majority of Faculty members--last year voted overwhelmingly to endorse the entire set of student-advocated reform proposals.

Since the CRR's inception, students have continually protested the existence of a committee designed as an administrational tool to control political protest at Harvard. The history of student objection to the CRR spans nine years, and the boycott was perhaps the last vestige of the protest movements that produced the forerunners of the CRR.

With the renewed presence of strong student dissatisfaction over Harvard's investment policies, the issue of CRR reform is more pressing now than it has been for many years.

Clearly, boycotting the CRR now has a practical rather than a purely symbolic rationale. Over the past week, several House committees and the Student Assembly have already made their stand clear by voting overwhelmingly to boycott the CRR. Although the freshman class has voted not to boycott the CRR, most Houses have decided to continue the upperclass boycott. We applaud the Houses' action, and urge the remaining House to follow suit, sending a message to the Faculty that it must accept the entire set of reform proposals before students can begin to acknowledge the legitimacy of the CRR.