Page 7                                                            March 31, 1972


             COMMENT: I have no substantial objection to this proposal
             provided the Board understands and fully supports its implications.
             I am thinking of the occasional case of an 18-year-old student
             who is in extremely serious difficulty and who refuses to consent
             to informing his parents. The Dean of Students would be required
             not to inform the parents in such a case, and the Board must be
             aware of potential PR implications (particularly with the student's
             parents) under such circumstances.


     1.44    1st sentence (Providing that the Student Government President,
             rather than the President of the University, will make temporary
             appointments to the U. J-Board -- with advice and consent of the
             Vice President for Student Affairs).

             COMMENT: This can create a problem at a time when the Student
             Government President is absent from the campus, perhaps for
             an extended period, or if he simply fails to make such temporary
             appointments.


    1. 51   (Adding the clause, "unless imposed by the U. J-Board", to the
             parenthetical sentence under the sanction of "Warning").

             COMMENT: By definition, the "Warning" is an action which
             may be invoked only by the Dean of Students or his authorized
             representative. Therefore, the reference to imposition of
             this action by the U. J-Board appears to be inappropriate.


    3. 320  (Adding a section on inadmissibility of certain evidence).

            COMMENT: It appears to me that this proposed addition is
            unnecessary and redundant because the provisions of Article III
            accomplish the objectives of this proposal. Further, the phrase,
            "other improper means", is vague and does not provide the criteria
            and procedure for determining that "improper means" have been
            used to secure evidence.


D.   Mr. Wendelsdorf's minority report.

     The first eleven recommendations in Mr. Wendelsdorf's minority report were
     considered and rejected by the Committee; and it is my view that the Board should