Ad Board Wrong in the Leverett Case

To the Editors of the Crimson:

Through my involvement with the fire prank incident at Leverett House and its subsequent presentation to the Ad Board, I have come to be seriously disillusioned with the disciplinary system at Harvard. The Ad Board appears to be a mockery of justice in a number of ways, and its findings tend to be extremely harsh and arbitrary, much more so than at other schools.

To recap the story for those who don't know it, the incident occured as a result of a series of friendly pranks between my room and three friends upstairs. They came down with squirt-guns, we fought back with shaving cream. They locked us into our room by "pennying" our door, and spilled water and baking soda on my roommate as he attempted to undo the door, (after getting out the window) and we responded by pouring cologne under their door. Finally, two of my roommates decided a better joke would be to put incense under their door and smell up their room. This led to the accidental fire, and thus, a hearing with the Administrative Board.

The whole process of disciplinary action spells "injustice" all over, The Administrative Board, composed of about twenty-five administrators and faculty members, makes all disciplinary decisions. A student writes a statement of his invoovlement to be read at the hearing, and from there, can only cross his fingers and pray. His "advocate," who will present the case "objectively" to the Board, is a member of the Board himself, and must recommend a punishment for the student. The Ad Board is accountable to no one. There is no student representation on the board. An accused student is not allowed to represent himself or argue his case. He cannot even appear at the hearing in order to ensure that his case is properly argued and that all of the facts are understood. There is no defense attorney figure--no one who can play devil's advocate on behalf of the accused. On the other side, there are over 20 administrators considering all of the angles for the prosecution. A student can only hope that his advocate takes a favorable position to his case and will do a good job of making sure that all lines of defense are covered. The end result of this disciplinary structure is strikingly similar to a "hanging judge," on a plane of its own in the Harvard community. Ironically, one gets a fairer trial in the criminal system itself than at this institution.

It also appears that one receives more reasonable sentence from the state than one does from the Adminstrative Board. Two of my roommates were required to withdraw for a full year. In addition, three of my friends from the other room involved now face disciplinary probation, unable to participate in extracurriculars and compelled to attend every one of their classes. Although I recognize that the incident was very serious, something about the sentencing just doesn't seem to be right.

The incident occurred amidst an atmosphere of joking and playfulness. Intentions on all sides were purely benign. The fire was an accident. And although it was potentially very dangerous, nobody was hurt and there was no substantial property damage. Yet in terms of my roommates, one instance of poor judgement has led to an entire year of punishment.

What good does this do? Are these two a threat to the university community? I think not. Have they learned their lesson, to act more responsibly in the future? How could anyone possibly go through the trauma of being arrested on charges of arson and prosecuted and not learn? Is the Ad Board making an example of these two, so that this type of occurrence never happens again? Given the fact that it didn't publicize the suspensions, very few people will have been made aware of what happened to my roommates. So let's think about it--no threat, no example, and they've learned their lesson. What's the only remaining motivation for the mandatory withdrawal? Simple punishment.

This one year required withdrawal is counter-productive from all perspectives. It prevents these two from contributing in any way to the Harvard community. It prevents them from facing their mistake; rather it forces them to escape it. They lose direction and purpose. Essentially, they get to spend 12 months thinking about this one night. In my mind, I cannot reconcile how a total accident could result in a full year's punishment. Had it been intentional, or had someone been hurt, or had their been serious damage, the case would have been quite different. But it wasn't.

Shortly after the decision was reached, I talked with a friend of mine who had chaired his school's Judiciary Board (100 percent students) in his freshman year at Connecticut College. He told me that had my roommates done what they did at Conn, they would have probably received social probation for a semester and required to do community service work for a semester. Whereas the sentence at Connecticut College is appropriate and productive, where is the justice at Harvard?

The case of my three friends upstairs, although their sentences were less harsh, is even more disturbing to me. They were all put on disciplinary probation, placing a permanent mar on their record. For what? They "pennied" out our door so that we could not open it, and stood by ready to dump water on us when we managed to get out. Friendly and fun, as before. Yet the Ad Board found that this action was sufficiently dangerous to deserve probation for all involved. Had we urgently needed to get out, they were right there, ready to open the door. They didn't leave the scene. We were by no means permanently locked in out room. What was the possibility for danger here? If all of my roommates suddenly suffered coronaries at the same time, and were all unable to knock on our door and ask our friends to let us out, then maybe there would have been serious trouble. Barring this, though, there is little way to argue that the door prank was dangerous--certainly not enough to justify the disciplinary probation that they received.

It is clear to me, as it should be to all students at this university, that disciplinary reform is an absolute necessity. The Ad Board as it is currently structured is inconsistent with all of the principle of justice that this state and this country are built on. If the government can give us a fair shake, can't Harvard do the same? Students fear the Ad Board-they see it as more of am execitioner than as a disciplinary body. Is this really what we want at a supposedly liberal and "enlightened" university like Harvard? In addition to structural reform, sentences ought to be examined in terms of proportionality. When three students receive permanent blots on their records and have their extracurriculars taken away from them merely for locking friends in their room, one has to wonder if "the punishment fits the crime." The Ad Board seems to have no tolerance at all for boisterous "college-like" behavior; it appears that the basic expectation is that students conduct themselves like miniature professors. This expectation is not fair, and the structure of the Ad Board is unfair as well. It is high time that students, the victims of this injustice, start to complain so that future classes won't have to go through tomorrow what we are regrettably forced to today.