SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION
The Committee found that the students charged did participate in a deceptive and forcible entry and in the disruption of the normal functions of the offices at 17 Quincy Street, and that they refused to leave the building when instructed to do so by officers of the University. All eleven students charged have been formally admonished. Had the protesters not taken responsible efforts to minimize the disruptive character of the sit-in, the violation of the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities would have been more serious. The degree of informal cooperation between the protesters and the University authorities at 17 Quincy Street blurred certain disciplinary issues. However, this cooperation helped to maintain a constructive level of civility in the events of 17 Quincy Street that was to be, unfortunately, absent at the Lowell House incident a week later. Both the administrators and the protesters at 17 Quincy Street exhibited self-restraint, without which the incident might have ended in much sadder fashion.
INCIDENT AT LOWELL HOUSE, MAY 2, 1985
On May 2, 1985, a demonstration during the visit of the South African Consul-General to a meeting in Lowell House of the Harvard--Radcliffe Conservative Club eventuated in obstructive actions that seemed clearly to violate the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities. As a consequence, on May 23, 1985, the Dean of Students brought to the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities charges against thirteen undergraduates and one graduate student (GSAS).
Although the sit-in at 17 Quincy Street had raised questions about whether the protesters would remain within the bounds of the Resolution, the spring's demonstrations at Harvard had generally expressed legitimate dissent on an important issue in a civil fashion. The free exercise of these rights of political protest and debate is expressly protected by the Resolution. Against this background, the Lowell House incident was shocking and disgraceful. Fundamental civil liberties were violated in a most shameful fashion. To be sure, much of the misconduct during this incident may not have been premeditated; many of those who behaved wrongly were improvising in the face of unanticipated developments and in the grip of strong emotions. Nevertheless, their actions at Lowell House constituted grave violations of the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities. Moreover, the mass frenzy that characterized much of the Lowell House protest was the very antithesis of the reasoned discourse that is the defining feature of a university community.
* * * * *
SUMMARY OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION
Fourteen students were charged before the Committee in connection with the Lowell House incident. Charges against four students were dismissed. Ten students were required to withdraw from the University for varying periods of time, with the requirement suspended. In the event of any further misconduct during the period of suspension deemed by the Committee to warrant disciplinary action, the suspension will be nullified and the requirement that the student withdraw will take effect.