What's in a name?

Ask the administrators who crafted the Student-Faculty Judiciary Board and they will say that a name is the only real difference between this new body and the one it replaced--the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (CRR).

News Analysis

"Had in fact there been a CRR as a real student-faculty body, and enough cases and jurisdiction to have it meet often" there would be no need to develop the alternative, said Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57, who has been the chief architect of the new Judicial Board since he assumed office two years ago.

So why all the fuss?

Because for the last 17 years the University has been hampered in its attempt to develop a consensus on controversial issues as students have rejected the body designed to do just that--the CRR. students have traditionally refused to serve onor appear before the CRR, calling it a politicaltribunal. No student has served on an active CRR.

Student protest abated when the CRR practicallyfaded out of sight during the late 1970s aftertrying 369 cases and requiring 63 students towithdraw in the first half of the decade. But assoon as then Dean of the College John B. Fox Jr.'59 revived the judicial body in the spring of1985 undergraduates strengthened theircondemnation of the body.

While the CRR eventually handed down relativelylenient sentences to the 25 students being chargedfor participation in two separate divestmentprotests, undergraduates continued to boycott thebody and push for disciplinary from. The 1985hearings were the beginning of the end for theCRR.

"The CRR was no longer functioning in the wayits architects had intended and thereby had lostlegitimacy in the eyes of the community," says Fox who isnow administrative dean of the Graduate School ofArts and Sciences. The next fall--soon after theCRR announced its decisions--Dean of the FacultyA. Michael Spence asked the newly appointed deanJewett to investigate reforming or replacing theCRR.

"I really felt the right thing to do was toengage in discussion the purpose of which was tocome out the other end with something with a widerdegree of support," Spence says.

Many students and administrators whoparticipated in the reform process say thatwithout Jewett the CRR might still be here today."In Dean Jewett you have someone coming fresh tothe problem who has been creative and flexible ashe dealt with the topic," says Fox, who servedwith Jewett on the committee that drafted one ofthe earlier versions of the Judicial Board.

Jewett says he made the reform process a toppriority. But he was not the only one interestedin reworking Harvard's disciplinary channels.

The Undergraduate Council, who in 1984 calledfor the abolishment of the CRR, took furtheraction after the dormant CRR was called intoaction to try the cases stemming from the twodivestment protests in the spring of 1985. Lastyear the council issued a report calling on theUniversity to replace both the AdministrativeBoard--which currently hears most disciplinarycases--and the CRR with a single unified judiciarybody.

And the failure of the CRR to garner studentapproval over the past 15 years had begun to takeits toll on the Faculty's perception of theviability of the body.

The comparative calm on campus today, asopposed to the turbulent Vietnam war years,provided the right climate for disciplinaryreform, faculty members say. "The atmosphere oncampus has changed," says Professor of McKayProfessor of Applied Mathematics Donald G.Anderson, who chaired the committee which draftedthe legislation creating the CRR. "It was verydifficult for the student body to perceive such abody as legitimate in times of such tension [asexisted in the early 1970s."

"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.