This is the official notice issued by the University at the conclusion of the Board of Discipline hearings.
THE UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL
BOARD OF DISCIPLINE
The Board of Discipline met on 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th April,1970, to consider charges preferred by the Registrar and referred to it by the Advisory Board against ten students arising out of the occupation of the Senate House by students on 9th March and succeeding days.
The basic charge against all the students was of ”conduct detrimental to the discharge of the duties of the University” in that on 9th March and succeeding days the students concerned ”occupied the Senate House and excluded the staff of the University with the intention of hampering the discharge of those duties”. In addition, in the case of two students the charge also referred to specific occasions on which they had themselves been instrumental in excluding named individuals.
The Board found all ten of the students guilty of the charges brought against them and imposed the following penalties:
- One student who, personally, forcibly prevented a senior officer of the University from reaching his office, was cxpelled from the University;
- two students were suspended from the University with effect from noon on Saturdey, 11th April, 1970, until the beginning of the Summer Term, 1971;
- seven students were suspended from the University with effect from noon on Saturday, 11th April, 1970, until the beginning of the Summer Term, 1972.
In announcing the penalties to the students concerned, the Chairman of the Board of Discipline said:
”In coming to its decision and determining the appropriate penalties the Board of Discipline took the view that the students who came before it had made the cardinal error of deciding that because they felt keenly on certain matters, they were entitled to take forcible action and place themselves above the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations of the University.
The Board has not attempted to act as an arbiter on any social or political views held by these students but to judge them solely in relation to those of their actions which were detrimental to the discharge of the duties of the University.
The Board of Discipline does not accept the submission that responsibility for the action of individual students rested necessarily on the occupying group as a whole. The Board is of the opinion that each individual student is a free agent and must accept responsibility for his own actions.”
Chairman, Board of Discipline