Fair Punishments?

To the Editors of The Crimson:

It was deeply dismaying to read of the University's latest attempt to stifle campus activism ("Ad Board Reprimands Law Student," Oct. 25). The Law School Administrative Board reprimanded Michael Anderson for his role in the May 2 Lowell House incident--an action that can severly affect a future lawyer's career. Similar actions are being considered against two other students, Jennifer Granholme and Doug Hargerman, for their alleged roles in the same incident.

In the two months that I have personally known Mike and Jennifer and Doug, one thing has become clear--that they are among the most decent people I have known. Were it not for their compassion and empathy, they would not be in the position they are in now, and it deeply disturbs me that this should be so.

It is especially troubling, because the Administrative Board was not without alternatives. Instead of a reprimand, it could have issued a warning--a lighter sanction that would as readily have registered the Board's displeasure over the Lowell House incident, while not putting a student's career on the line. The severe, punitive nature of a reprimand seems to me completely unjustified under the circumstances, which must take into account the character and motivation of the student being disciplined.

If it were the Board's intent to "quieten" the campus by their actions, they should seriously reconsider. So long as the stark, moral issues of apartheid and Harvard's investment policy remain, there will be protest--and it will be as unremitting, vocal and publicized as ever. Furthermore, if it is perceived that the Board was deliberately and unjustly heavy-handed in their treatment of students-if it is felt that they seek not only to curtail "improper" conduct but also to chill ligitimate dissent, few students, I believe, will stand for it.

Whatever else may happen, the Administration should not be surprised to find itself increasingly isolated. It is a revelation--and not a pleasant one--to suddenly see the "other" face of Harvard. Whatever understanding or trust may have existed between the Administration and the student body will be seriously eroded by the recent actions, and by the general course the Administration has chosen to follow.

In the end, all of these hearings, and all of these sanctions, will be so much misplaced zeal and effort. If the Administration were as quick to value the moral argument against apartheid as they are the "smooth" functioning of their University, we might all be able to attend to the real issues at hand--whether this University stands for something higher that profit, whether the truth in "Veritas" really means anything. (and incidentally, truth is never "neutral.")

In the meantime, what really hurts in all of this misplaced activity is the very real harms to the University that it inflicts--in the chilling of rightful and desirable student dissent, in the ever-widening rift between the Administration and the student body it purports to administer to, and in the injustices done to some of the most deserving and selfless members of our community. Jinku Lee 1L   Law School