THE COMMITTEE ON RIGHTS and Responsibilities (CRR) has finally issued its report on student protests at 17 Quincy Street and Lowell House last April, and it is no surprise that student activists are calling the report "a whitewash." The committee was ill-conceived and illegitimate to begin with. Moreover, the committee simply has not fufilled the mission it was charged with by Dean of the Faculty A. Michael Spence when he asked it last spring "to investigate thoroughly, openly, and fairly the specific circumstances of these two incidents to ensure that there is widespread and accurate knowledge of what happened."

The CRR report gives a blanket endorsement to the activities of Harvard administrators and police, and comments only on student actions. Moreover, there are indications that in addition to being one-sided, the CRR's report may actually have ignored or covered up testimony about improprieties committed by Harvard officials at last spring's events. Some students have even charged that there are factual innacuracies in the report regarding their activities as well as those of administrators and police. Others have alleged that the grounds on which they were convicted are vague and inappropriate. Unfortunately, because the CRR hearings--comprising 60 hours of testimony--took place behind closed doors, there is little chance that anyone who was not at the protests in question will ever know what actually happened or whether the CRR is indeed engaged in a cover-up.

There is little that can be done about the secrecy in which the CRR's recent hearings were conducted; it is too late to call for public-access transcripts only because testimony before the committee was given with the understanding that it would remain confidential. However, the committee could certainly demonstrate good faith and avoidance of whitewash by requesting the permission of those who testified to release their testimony. Making the transcripts public with the names of the principles deleted would not compromise anyone's right to privacy and would certainly help lift the pall of doubt and uncertainty that hangs over last spring's events.

IN THE FUTURE, students charged with violating the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities (RRR) ought to have the right to an open hearing and to have legal counsel present at hearings. Under current procedures, whether or not hearings are held fairly or with repect for due process, there is no way to guarantee that they will be, because they take place behind closed doors. By holding hearings in secret, the CRR invites charges of impropriety or unfairness and gives the Harvard community little reason to have faith in the fairness of its proceedings.

In order to earn such faith, the University ought to take steps to ensure fair hearings and the discernment of the facts of events resulting in disciplinary action. In the future, it should allow all students the option of open hearings regarding violations of the RRR. Giving students such a choice without requiring public hearings would at once respect students' rights to privacy under the Buckley Amendment and guarantee them a fair hearing. Moreover, it would demonstrate the University's interest in fairness to the community as a whole and would give the public an opportunity to learn the circumstances surrounding controversial events. Such was the admirable but unrealized intent of Dean Spence's original directive to the CRR.

The Law School Administrative Board already gives students charged with disciplinary violations the right to an open hearing. While such events are rare, their mere possibility gives law students an assurance of fairness that students in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences simply do not have. It is time to guarantee students a fair hearing with substantive rights. Open hearings would be an important step in that direction.