* Students with unsatisfactory academic records should not be allowed to become HSA managers or assistant managers;

* The position of the president should be eliminated, with those duties to be assumed by HSA's board of directors;

* Students on scholarships "should constitute a fixed minimum percentage of all HSA employees;"

* HSA should make a full financial disclosure, including distribution of wages and profit shares "to scholarship students, loan students, and other students;"

* The student employment office should maintain a list of all student businesses that meet University regulations for such types of entrepreneurial activity (in the interest of providing alternatives for student jobs and "eliminating undue favoritism of HSA by the University)."

A-House discrimination: In 1974, three students complained to the Commission that Professor of English Robert J. Kiely gave Adams House students and students who attended his office hours an unfair advantage in preparation for the final exam in his English 166 course.

The students said that neither Kiely nor section leaders scheduled review sections. But during reading period, Kiely was persuaded by an Adams House resident to hold a review session in the house dining hall. The review session was advertised only within the House. Thirty people attended.

The complainants said that Kiely gave away important information--such as the exam format and examples of questions--and said those who didn't go were discriminated against

Although Kiely told students in attendance at the review session to spread the word, students said this could not be done in time. Many didn't receive the information until just prior to the examination, if at all.

In its investigation, the COI compared grades of those with the additional information to the grades of those without for the final exam, midterm, and paper. It found that the midterm and paper grades of those with the information at the final were slightly lower than those without. The final exam grades of the students with the additional information, however, were nearly one-third of a grade higher (i.e., B to B-plus).

The commission made no recommendations for correction of the incident, other than to urge professors to prevent such a stiuation from happening again. The COI publicly acknowledged, however, that "a mistake was made when information concerning the forthcoming examination in English 166 was provided to less than the full class."

The commission said that the incident was regrettable, but that there were few avenues for grade modification. The COI determined that while the grade differential was significant, it represented less than one-third of the overall grade because of the weighting of the final exam. In the end, no grade modification was proposed.