Page 2                                                             March 31, 1972



             be retained.

             RATIONALE: While in some cases the proposed addition would
             provide an ideal solution, the basic impact of the proposal is to
             make the entire section ineffective and unenforceable for many
             situations.

             The proposal would require the University to permit one appre-
             hended in the act of violating this section the opportunity to avoid
             prosecution merely by ceasing the misconduct. For example, a
             student who is found in an office after forceably breaking into it
             would not be in violation of this section if he complied with the
             order to vacate.

             In addition, no charge could result under 1. Zg where apprehension
             takes place at some place and time other than at the place and time
             of commission of the violation, since no opportunity was given to
             comply with the required order to vacate - i. e., a student breaks
             and enters, then leaves unnoticed, but is apprehended at his domi-
             cile a week later as a result of an investigation.


    1.422a  (Limiting the functions of the Hearing Officers for both the U. J-Board
and 1. 436a and the Appeals Board)

             BOARD ACTION RECOMMENDED: That the Committee's proposed
             revision be rejected and that the original wording of 1. 422a and 1. 436a
             be retained.

             RATIONALE: Nothing has occurred during the nearly two years
             since adoption of the Hearing Officer feature to justify the proposed
             change in the Hearing Officers's functions. Furthermore, it appears
             to me that the proposed revision is too heavily weighted in favor of
             formal court tradition (i. e., separation of judge and jury) and that
             it fails to recognize the less formal, less legalistic character of
             hearings in a university setting in which it is desirable to have the
             benefit of judicious interaction between a lay hearing board and a
             legally trained hearing officer.

             Also, I point to what are clearly two direct contradictions within
             this section if revised as proposed. First, there is a conflict between
             the Hearing Officer's role as "a non-voting member of the Board as
             to the issue of guilt or innocence and as to the quantum of punishment"



March 31, 197Z



Page 2