Law School Protesters Deny Charges at Hearing

In a public Administrative Board hearing peppered with in-jokes about law, eight Harvard Law School students defended themselves against charges of violating portions of the Rules and Regulations during their participation in a 25 hour sit-in in Dean Robert C. Clark's office.

The Dean, represented by Bemis Professor of International Law Detlev F. Vagts '49, accused the six women and two men of interfering with normal work-day proceedings, of obstructing freedom of movement and of refusing to leave when requested to do so.

But Professor of Law William F. Fisher Ill, the students' lawyer, argued that the students did not interfere with normal workings of the office since engaging in discriminatory hiring practices is not "normal," nor is it in accordance with the Rules and Regulations.

The eight Law School students being charged are third-year Charisse A. Carney; second-years Jill R. Newman, Marie-Louise A. Ramsdale, William Anspach, Jodie I. Grant, Lucy H. Koh and Derek J. Honore; and first-year Julie A. Su.

The nine-hour hearing before more than 400 people included testimony from numerous secretaries in Clark's office, Harvard police officers called in the handle the situation, students, administrators and faculty members as well as each of the eight students.

Clark did not testify, nor did he attend the hearing, which was restricted by the Ad Board to members of the Law School community and The Crimson.

The Ad Board, chaired by Cromwell Professor ofLaw David L. Shapiro, will decide the outcome ofthe case this Friday, according to Dean ofStudents Sarah Wald. The decision, which couldresult in a warning, reprimand or suspension, willbe made by majority vote.

Both sides had different views about whatconstituted the crucial issues.

Third-year Peter M. Cicchino, cocouncil for thedefendants, said he thought "the crucial issue isthe way in which the Law School would respond to acompletely non-violent expressive act of dissentmotivated solely by legitimate concern for thisinstitution's treatment of women and minorities."

But Vagts said he thought the issue centeredaround whether the students had, in fact, violatedthe specific parts of the Rules and Regulations.

"Obstructing access was a problem. If DeanClark had really tried it might have escalated,"Vagts said. He added the students admitted theyhad refused to leave when asked to do so.

Several hours were devoted to the treatment ofthe secretarial staff and the relationship betweenseated students and administrators trying to enterthe offices, who included Clark and Vice DeanDavid N. Smith. A diagram of the Griswold Hallarea was used throughout the proceeding.

The relationship between police and studentswas mixed, although the students said theyattempted to establish friendly relations.Sergeant John M. Francis said he chatted withstudents about his ethnic name. But Officer RoccoE. Forgione appeared angry and did not offer tospeak with the students, according to students'testimony.

A brief cross examination of Forgione by Fisherrevealed that Forgione had "reasonably closerelations" with one of the protesters, leadingFisher to suggest the officer had reasons for hisreticence.

Officer Frank Laminate also testified at thehearings.

Blocked Access?

The main dispute throughout the hearing waswhether the students blocked access to Smith orClark.

The Vice Dean testified that although he passedthrough the area by stepping over students, therewas a specific instance in which he decided not toenter the corridor for fear of engaging in bodilycontact with the students.

The students testified that they made noeffort to block either dean from entering thearea, but they conceded that they may have made itmore difficult.

Clark made no effort to step over them despitesuggestions to that effect, students said.

Secretaries Testified

Four secretaries testified on whether theirfreedom of movement was affected on April 6 and 7,the days of the sit-in.

Sissi Amato, Smith's secretary, said "I didn'tthink it was a big deal." She said she had beenallowed to move freely with the exception of oneincident, when a male student's shoulder hadblocked her as she was entering the office.

But her difficulty in stepping over thestudents was due to her being pulled in oppositedirections by two police officers and not due tothe student blockade, the students said. Accordingto Newman and Ramsdale, the students attempted tomove out of the way and create a path for Amato toenter the secretarial area.

Other secretaries who testified, both to theunpleasant nature of the protesters and to theirpeaceful atmosphere, were Brandi Walker, SuzanneRichardson and Warren Sheridan.

Professors of Law Frank I. Michelman,Christopher F. Edley, Jr., Duncan M. Kennedy andDavid A. Charny all testified that the studentsasked to speak with them about various aspects ofthe sit-in, such as Clark's decision to allow thestudents access to their lawyer Lee Goldstein.

Fisher spent considerable time attempting todemonstrate the exemplary characters of each ofthe students, citing past community serviceactivities and providing impressive characterreferences.

In addition, each of the students gave his orher reasons for engaging in the sit-in. Most saidthey had not planned to engage in a sit-in andnone had planned to stay, but said that aconversation with Clark persuaded them the protestwas necessary.

In a conversation with Carney and Honore, Clarkreaffirmed his statements from a March Wall StreetJournal article, where he stated that protestswere a result of affirmative action and minoritystudents' lack of self-confidence.

Each of the students said that after numerousdiscussions and forums they were convinced theadministration was not concerned about the lack offaculty diversity.

Fisher also pointed out that the Mary Joe Frugparody in the Law Review spoof edition had causedfar more pain than had the sit-in and thereforepleaded for a light punishment.

End of Hearing

As the trial drew to a close, Vagts apologizedfor having prosecuted the students, stating he hadattempted to make the trial easier on everyone.After the hearing, a number of students approachedhim to say they understood he was simply being alawyer.

But some students were less forgiving about thepress ban. "I think it's horrible no press wasallowed," said Newman. "The only due processguaranteed is the right to a public hearing andthat is not limited to the Law School community."

Shapiro said, however, he thought the Ad Boardhearing was of interest only to the Law Schoolcommunity and the press ban was not designed tokeep news from getting out. "We did not feel as ifwe were closing it off to the outside world; we'requite aware The Crimson has ties to the outsideworld.

The Ad Board, chaired by Cromwell Professor ofLaw David L. Shapiro, will decide the outcome ofthe case this Friday, according to Dean ofStudents Sarah Wald. The decision, which couldresult in a warning, reprimand or suspension, willbe made by majority vote.

Both sides had different views about whatconstituted the crucial issues.

Third-year Peter M. Cicchino, cocouncil for thedefendants, said he thought "the crucial issue isthe way in which the Law School would respond to acompletely non-violent expressive act of dissentmotivated solely by legitimate concern for thisinstitution's treatment of women and minorities."

But Vagts said he thought the issue centeredaround whether the students had, in fact, violatedthe specific parts of the Rules and Regulations.

"Obstructing access was a problem. If DeanClark had really tried it might have escalated,"Vagts said. He added the students admitted theyhad refused to leave when asked to do so.

Several hours were devoted to the treatment ofthe secretarial staff and the relationship betweenseated students and administrators trying to enterthe offices, who included Clark and Vice DeanDavid N. Smith. A diagram of the Griswold Hallarea was used throughout the proceeding.

The relationship between police and studentswas mixed, although the students said theyattempted to establish friendly relations.Sergeant John M. Francis said he chatted withstudents about his ethnic name. But Officer RoccoE. Forgione appeared angry and did not offer tospeak with the students, according to students'testimony.

A brief cross examination of Forgione by Fisherrevealed that Forgione had "reasonably closerelations" with one of the protesters, leadingFisher to suggest the officer had reasons for hisreticence.

Officer Frank Laminate also testified at thehearings.

Blocked Access?

The main dispute throughout the hearing waswhether the students blocked access to Smith orClark.

The Vice Dean testified that although he passedthrough the area by stepping over students, therewas a specific instance in which he decided not toenter the corridor for fear of engaging in bodilycontact with the students.

The students testified that they made noeffort to block either dean from entering thearea, but they conceded that they may have made itmore difficult.

Clark made no effort to step over them despitesuggestions to that effect, students said.

Secretaries Testified

Four secretaries testified on whether theirfreedom of movement was affected on April 6 and 7,the days of the sit-in.

Sissi Amato, Smith's secretary, said "I didn'tthink it was a big deal." She said she had beenallowed to move freely with the exception of oneincident, when a male student's shoulder hadblocked her as she was entering the office.

But her difficulty in stepping over thestudents was due to her being pulled in oppositedirections by two police officers and not due tothe student blockade, the students said. Accordingto Newman and Ramsdale, the students attempted tomove out of the way and create a path for Amato toenter the secretarial area.

Other secretaries who testified, both to theunpleasant nature of the protesters and to theirpeaceful atmosphere, were Brandi Walker, SuzanneRichardson and Warren Sheridan.

Professors of Law Frank I. Michelman,Christopher F. Edley, Jr., Duncan M. Kennedy andDavid A. Charny all testified that the studentsasked to speak with them about various aspects ofthe sit-in, such as Clark's decision to allow thestudents access to their lawyer Lee Goldstein.

Fisher spent considerable time attempting todemonstrate the exemplary characters of each ofthe students, citing past community serviceactivities and providing impressive characterreferences.

In addition, each of the students gave his orher reasons for engaging in the sit-in. Most saidthey had not planned to engage in a sit-in andnone had planned to stay, but said that aconversation with Clark persuaded them the protestwas necessary.

In a conversation with Carney and Honore, Clarkreaffirmed his statements from a March Wall StreetJournal article, where he stated that protestswere a result of affirmative action and minoritystudents' lack of self-confidence.

Each of the students said that after numerousdiscussions and forums they were convinced theadministration was not concerned about the lack offaculty diversity.

Fisher also pointed out that the Mary Joe Frugparody in the Law Review spoof edition had causedfar more pain than had the sit-in and thereforepleaded for a light punishment.

End of Hearing

As the trial drew to a close, Vagts apologizedfor having prosecuted the students, stating he hadattempted to make the trial easier on everyone.After the hearing, a number of students approachedhim to say they understood he was simply being alawyer.

But some students were less forgiving about thepress ban. "I think it's horrible no press wasallowed," said Newman. "The only due processguaranteed is the right to a public hearing andthat is not limited to the Law School community."

Shapiro said, however, he thought the Ad Boardhearing was of interest only to the Law Schoolcommunity and the press ban was not designed tokeep news from getting out. "We did not feel as ifwe were closing it off to the outside world; we'requite aware The Crimson has ties to the outsideworld.