To the Editors of The Crimson:

I was distressed to read Michael Nolan's example of one-sided "journalism," "The CRR: Whose Rights, Whose Responsibilities?", in the April 21 issue of The Crimson. By means of the deceptive tactic of selective quotation, Nolan deleted all evidence of the CRR. As a member of the Undergraduate Council committee that studied the CRR, I want to supply the Harvard-Radcliffe community with several facts about the CRR that Nolan left out of his article.

.The jurisdiction of the CRR is arbitrary. It is supposed to deal with all cases arising under the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities (RRR). Historically, the University has only used the CRR to try cases against left-wing, liberal activists who are part of mass protest movements.

.While the RRR is supposed to apply to all members of the Harvard-Radcliffe community, only students can be punished by the CRR. No equivalent disciplinary body exists to hear similar cases against administrators and faculty.

.The faculty has a majority on the CRR. Membership theoretically includes six students and six members of the faculty, plus one faculty chair who breaks ties.

.The selection processes for faculty and students are conspicuously different in kind. Students are randomly selected by means of a complicated, tiered lottery process, whereas, the faculty usually rubber stamps a slate presented to it by the administration.

.Students do not have the right to an open hearing.

.There are no defined charges for students and no defined penalties.

.There is no right to appeal any penalty of the CRR, except that cases of expulsion and dismission are automatically voted on by the full faculty.

.Nolan suggests that the penalties given out last year in the cases of Lowell House and 17 Quincy Street were fair. However, there is considerable evidence to suggest that the decisions were not fair. For example, people who engaged in the same activities received different penalties. There are also many CRR horror stories from the the late '60s and early '70s. Students were suspended or expelled on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

These are just some of the gross problems that exist with the CRR. Students have always been united in their condemnation of this disciplinary body. They have boycotted it since its creation and should continue to do so. The Undergraduate Council has offered a proposal for a Judiciary Board that avoids the illegitimacy and arbitrariness that are inherent in the CRR. The CRR must be abolished and Michael Nolan must learn how to write factual, unbiased articles. Steven Nussbaum '86   Undergraduate Council