Your March 8 editorial about the Faculty Senate's "obstructionism" in its response to the Regents' proposal (UWS 7) for handling cases of serious criminal misconduct by faculty was disconcerting. The Herald is rightly celebrated for the knowledge and courage it has always exhibited in defending its own and others' First Amendment rights. But the editors should learn something about other amendments, in particular the Fifth, before they weigh in on such important matters.

You claim that the Regents' proposal does not violate the right against self-incrimination because individuals may invoke this right only when they are testifying in criminal trials. Think again. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the right applies to testimony or comments in any context in which a state body seeks information, including grand juries, legislative hearings, administrative contexts, or when someone is interrogated by the police.

You also claim that "an overdose" of due process is a "deficiency," and that the faculty should accede to political pressures. While it may be possible to have an excess of due process, the Regents' current proposal poses serious problems, for many of the required determinations simply cannot be made responsibly in the time frame the Regents propose. The present version of UWS 7 is precisely the type of poorly thought through symbolic gesture that makes for bad policy and law.

Finally, a primary justification for constitutionalism is to engage strong political pressures with what citizens believe are considered judgments. The Faculty Senate will accept a proposal that respects the Fifth Amendment and that attempts to seriously weigh the competing principles and concerns at stake. We expected the Herald to appreciate these concerns rather than jumping on the political bandwagon.

Donald Downs is a professor of political science and Larry Kahan is a professor of biomolecular chemistry.