"Previous attempts to reform the CRR were a lotcloser to the time. It's ancient history now, butit wasn't then," says Fox who presided over tworeform attempts as dean of the college. "The bigthing to do was not to reform the CRR but to chuckit out and it was possible to do that at thistime."

Chuck it out the College did, almostimmediately after Jewett and the student-facultycommittee sat down this summer to come up with aconcrete proposal over the summer. The five-personcommittee also quickly rejected the council's ideaof a single judiciary body.

In October, the group offered the steering bodyof the Faculty a proposal to replace the CRR witha board that would handle cases of a "public"nature and leave "private" cases under thejurisdiction of the Ad Board. While the Faculty'sexecutive steering body agreed to the idea ofmaintaining two boards, it rejected the method ofdividing the jurisdiction and sent the plan backto the planning committee.

The faculty steering group released theirversion of the plan in February. The new proposalprovided for the Judicial Board to hear cases"with broad implications for the community and onwhich there is no clear precedent or consensus,"and included more detailed procedural rules.

At the time Spence said that if the proposalwas not accepted, he would scrap his plans toreform the disciplinary process altogether.

Again, the council became involved, endorsingthe plan with eight amendments later that monthalthough it scarcely ressembled their earliersuggestions. "It's not ideal, but it issatisfactory," says Council Chairman Richard S.Eisert '88. "It's a compromise."

"I think the changes are significant," saysJeffrey A. Camp '89, who chaired the council's adhoc committee on discipline. "There's no questionthat [one disciplinary body] was just a dream thatcould never come true in the foreseeable future."

The council amendments asked that accusedstudents be allowed to request that the new bodyhear their case, unless two-thirds of the JudicialBoard objected, and that precendent alone not beused as a basis for decisions where conflictingarguments existed.

The Faculty steering body encorporated thecouncil's suggestions into the final version ofthe plan which was voted into law yesterday.

Although yesterday's vote signalled the formaldemise of the CRR, students, as always, still saythere is more to be done to perfect Harvard'sdisciplinary reform system.

"It was a necessary first step and anattractive one," says Brian C. Offutt '87, whoserved on the University's disciplinary reformcommittee. "But I am optimistic that if the newbody does a great a job for four or five years, Iwouldn't be surprised to see the Ad Board disolved10 years down the road."

"Anyone who says that this is enough and thatwe ought to stop here is wrong," says Jay I. Hodos'89, who served on the council's ad hoc disciplinecommittee.