Law School Ad Board Absolves Protesters

The Law School Administration Board last week dropped all disciplinary action against 70-odd students who refused to cooperate with an official inquiry into an anti-apartheid demonstration last spring.

The protesters, most of whom had demonstrated outside the 17 Quincy St. headquarters of Harvard's governing boards during an April 24 sit-in, requested the same punishment as 10 students disciplined last spring for participating in the sit-in.

The Ad Board had asked the 70-odd students to describe their involvement in the incident, but many of the students refused in a show of solidarity with the sit-in participants.

Some students, however, did agree to cooperate with the inquiry by detailing their involvement in the protest, according to Ad Board Chairman Frank E.A. Sander '48. They too have been absolved of all charges.

Lowell House Protest

In separate deliberations, the Ad Board is currently considering discipline against three students for their participation in the May 2 blockade of a South African diplomat speaking at Lowell House.

Law School students Jamin B. Raskin '83, Michael T. Anderson '83, and Douglas M. Hagerman '82 have all been implicated in the protest by the Ad Board. Discipline is currently pending.

Sit-in History

The Ad Board began action on the 17 Quincy St. incident last spring when it issued official warnings to 10 students who were in the building during the April 24 sit-in.

Shortly thereafter, 119 law students, many of whom had demonstrated outside the building during the sit-in, requested the same punishment.

The Ad Board took the petitioners up on their offer, asking them to describe their involvement in the protest. Many of the original 119 graduated before the Ad Board could respond to the petition, and were therefore no longer under the jurisdiction of the Ad Board.

Sander said that about 30 students agreed to describe their participation. However, a group of about 50 students last month told administrators they would not cooperate with the inquiry and called on the school's faculty to "monitor the Ad Board's proceedings."

It is unclear how closely, if at all, the faculty oversaw the Ad Board's decision-making process.

No Further Action

In a letter dated September 27, Dean of Students Mary Upton told students who did not cooperate with the inquiry that "it now appears that those who signed the petiton [asking for identical punishment as the sit-in demonstrators] did so as an expression of support for those who actually took part in the sit-in. On this view, there is no basis for further action."

Many students have maintained that there is no distinction between those who staged the sit-in and those who protested outside.

Sander, however, yesterday said, "There is a difference between watching from the sidewalk or holding a sign saying 'Harvard disinvest' and going into a building and refusing to leave when asked. We don't consider them the same, even though the students would like us to."

Hagerman, a third-year student who refused to cooperate with the Ad Board's inquiry on the 17 Quincy St. incident, said he was disappointed that protesters inside and outside the building were treated differently.

"The discipline is insignificant to the expression of common action," he said.

Sander said that several different letters are being sent to the 70-odd students involved. However, a number of these students said yesterday they had not received letters from Upton