Dirty Dealings

THE LAW SCHOOL AD BOARD is up to its old tricks again. Last week, taking on the events at Lowell House, it gave second-year law student Michael T. Anderson '83-'84 an "official reprimand," a disciplinary sanction that has no immediate consequences at the Law School, but is referred to state bar associations. The board is also now investigating the actions of Jennifer Granholm, another second-year law student who testified at Anderson's hearing. Members of the ad board, as well as those of the law school administration, did not know Granholm was present at the Lowell House protest. But after Granholm's testimony, in which she, as an eyewitness to the incident, defended Anderson, the ad board has begun disciplinary procedures against her as well.

These decisions on the Lowell House incident are particularly abhorent. By possibly damaging a student's future job prospects, the ad board is merely sidestepping responsibility for handing out discipline. In notifying bar associations of the reprimand but not recommending it be disqualifying, the ad board is holding a threat over Anderson's head but avoiding responsibility for actually punishing him.

Most shocking of all, however, was the ad board's decision to prosecute Granholm after hearing her testimony. The board seems to have completely ignored customary protections against self-incrimination. How are students to call witnesses on their behalf and have any hope of a fair hearing, if anyone who testifies can in turn be prosecuted merely by virtue of their knowledge of an event?

The ad board's recent actions seem to be symptomatic of the general tenor of its activities this past summer and fall. After slapping 10 students on the wrist for their participation in the sit-in at 17 Quincy Street last fall, the ad board undertook to prosecute students who signed a letter of solidarity with the 10 who were inside the building. It also placed a warning in a weekly law school publication threatening more severe discipline for future illegalities.

Eventually, the ad board withdrew the request that students who requested similar punishments detail their participation at the event. However, the board's actions simply have not reflected the sort of respect for individual rights that law schools are expected to teach. Rather, they were obviously intended to intimidate students and discourage them from taking part in political demonstrations.

The Crimson has already stated its belief that the College's disciplining of protesters involved in these incidents--via the long-dormant Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (CRR)--is abhorrent because the CRR is used only to prosecute political activists. Unfortunately, the law school's handling of the same two incidents seems even more outrageous. The Law School Ad Board has acted as prosecutor, judge and jury for its students; it has selectively prosecuted those it believes to be political activists; it has unfairly penalized a student's future job prospects instead of the student himself; and it has unfairly forced another student to incriminate herself. Comparisons between the two bodies once made the CRR pale in the shadow of the Law School ad board. Though once obviously superior, the ad board's actions now seem at least as objectionable as the CRR's.