Grant Case May Be Over, But Questions Persist

Supporters and critics of Gina Grant hastened yesterday to respond to new allegations that the 19-year-old Cambridge Rindge and Latin School senior lied to a Harvard alumni interviewer, claiming that her mother, whom she murdered, had died in an car crash.

Harvard has given no indication that it will reconsider its decision to rescind Grant's early admission, and attorneys and child experts say the public revelations about the Grant case have put the juvenile justice system's guarantees of anonymity into doubt.

Still, the uproar which has thrown the University in the center of intense media spotlight--ranging from the New York Times to National Public Radio--may now at last subside.

The Crimson first reported yesterday that two sources had confirmed Grant's attribution of her mother's death to an automobile accident after being asked by an interviewer how she became an orphan.

The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, are members of the Faculty Standing Committee on Admissions and Financial Aid, the group that canceled Grant's early offer of admission.

Grant pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter in the September, 1990 death of her mother, 42-year-old Dorothy Mayfield, in their Lexington, S.C. home. Grant, an honors student, served six months in juvenile detention and then moved to Cambridge, serving probation until she turned 18.

The admissions office launched a probe into Grant's past after receiving anonymous notices about her involvement in her mother's death. The investigation turned up the contents of Grant's alumni interview, two faculty sources told The Crimson.

Grant's attorney, Margaret A. Burnham, did not return repeated messages left at two offices and her home throughout yesterday.

But the attorney told the Associated Press yesterday that Grant did not misrepresent herself during her application process.

The faculty sources' version of events "is patently false," Burnham said. "She never lied to any interviewer."

Burnham said the leaks were "an effort to essentially throw dirt on Gina Grant. After having done the wrong thing by rejecting her, the University is now trying to cover its tracks by throwing dirt in her direction."

On Wednesday, Burnham told The Crimson that she had been told by University administrators that her client's admission was rescinded because of the omission of relevant material, not because Grant allegedly lied in her alumni interview.

Professor of Law Charles J. Ogletree, Jr., who has represented Grant unofficially as an advisor, said he was certain Grant did not lie.

"I have every confidence that Gina Grant told the truth and was forthright in all her discussions with Harvard," Ogletree said yesterday.

Told about the new allegations that surfaced yesterday, Ogletree said, "I don't think they can prove it."

University officials have repeatedly refused to discuss Grant's case specifically, only stating that an admission offer was rescinded.

Vice President and General Counsel Margaret H. Marshall, and Joe Wrinn, acting director of the Harvard news office, refused comment yesterday.

Another Chapter

By all accounts, the events surrounding Grant's application to the College and the controversy that broke last week mark another unfortunate chapter in the life of a diligent student who has struggled to separate herself from her past in South Carolina.

Curtis M. Dickson, the brother of DorothyMayfield and Grant's closest relative, saidyesterday that his niece's alleged deception, iftrue, was "just bad judgment."

"She's still just a child," Dickson said."Given the situation, what else could she do? Ginawas in a predicament and probably just couldn'tfigure any other way to work through it."

Although law-enforcement officials in LexingtonCo., South Carolina, have charged that Grantrepeatedly lied during her 1990 Family Courttrial, her defense attorney as well as thepsychiatrist hired to examine her continue tosupport the teen-ager, even in light of the mostrecent allegations.

"If the judge found she had a pattern of lyingin the past, he would not have sentenced her theway he did," attorney Jack B. Swerling saidyesterday.

"No one knows Gina Grant better than I do, andI know she's remorseful and I know she lives withit daily," Swerling added. "I've seen remorse inthis young lady and I've also seen a recognitionof what happened in her life. She's paid herprice, gone through the system, beenrehabilitated."

Dr. Harold C. Morgan, who treated Grant duringher two-month stay in Baptish Medical Center inColumbia, S.C. following her arrest in September,1990, agreed.

Morgan said if Grant did in fact lie during heradmissions interview, her actions areunderstandable given her past. "There's no excusefor that, but I think it's very understandable,"he said. "After all, where do we learn our moralvalues? At home."

Both of Morgan's parents were alcoholics. Anautopsy report issued after Mayfield's deathindicated a blood alcohol level of .30, threetimes the legal intoxication limit.

"How many of us try to put ourselves in afavorable light? Whose resume is entirelyletter-honest?" Morgan asked. "You have to thinkabout the 19-year-old who went through thisinterview. Understanding it doesn't make it right,but it's understandable that she might havehandled it that way rather than [through] agut-wrenching admission of what happened."

The psychiatrist said Grant may have used anauto-accident response as a "stock answer" toinquiries about her mother's death.

"In one sense it's denial. I can see how beingan orphan, people might say, 'What happened toyour parents?" he said. "This may be her way ofsatisfying people without being rude or going intopersonal details. All of us have convenient whitelies we use to lubricate the wheels of socialinteraction."

Morgan added: "It's extraordinary what sheaccomplished [despite] the chaotic life" of herchildhood.

Attorney Paul A. Mones, author of A ChildKills, has defended several children whokilled their parents. Mones said the motives forGrant's actions should not be oversimplified.

"There's a big difference between people'scognitive abilities," Mones said. "These arecomplicated human events that are not easilypredisposed to simple analysis."

Harvard administrators "should have been morethoughtful and should reconsider their actions,"Mones added.

A Pattern of Deception?

Frankfurter Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitzcriticized both Grant and the admissions process,but said Harvard should give the teen-ager asecond chance.

"She may or may not hurt anybody againphysically, but she may not have beenrehabilitated from what appears to be a pattern ofdeception," Dershowitz said yesterday.

"The classic definition of chutzpah is someonewho kills their parents and pleads for mercy onthe grounds that she is an orphan," the professoradded. "She may have been rejected on the groundsof chutzpah."

Dershowitz said he believed Grant lied on herapplication, and was not surprised by yesterday'snews.

"The first time I spoke about this case, I saidwe should look into whether or not she told thewhole truth about the circumstances surroundingher mother's death," Dershowitz said.

But Dershowitz blamed the College's admissionprocess as well.

"If every student who lied to an interviewerwas thrown out of Harvard, we'd be able to turnthe dormitories into squash courts," he said."People on their applications are encouraged tosay what they think will get them into Harvard."

Dershowitz added: "The system was unfair toher; she, however, did not make the best use ofit. She was in a pickle."

The law professor called on Harvard to re-openthe case and give Grant a second chance to apply.

"Everybody should start from scratch," he said."I don't want to accept as a given that she lied.I want to see the facts."

Dershowitz said the University should now givea "full hearing" to Grant and her attorney.

Dershowitz said the "leaks" made by members ofthe faculty admissions committee wereinappropriate, but added that "the community has aright to know what happens."

"This has become a public case," he said."There's no sense in keeping this confidential."

Media and Students

Nearly all involved in Grant's case agree theevent has become something of a media circus.

On Wednesday afternoon, nearly 80 reporters,camera operators and photographers converged onRadcliffe Yard as a slightly smaller number ofprotesters outside Byerly Hall demanded thatHarvard re-examine its decision.

Hundreds of journalists descended on the Yardand the Houses, interviewing students andemployees.

Dershowitz debated Burnham on ABC's "Nightline"Tuesday night, and Boston University PresidentJohn R. Silber said he would welcome Grant if sheapplied to B.U.

Told of yesterday's new developments, however,B.U. spokesperson Michelle Cooley said theuniversity had no comment.

Undergraduate Council President Joshua D.Liston '95, who organized the student rally onWednesday, appeared on three networks and in theBoston Globe.

Crimson President Andrew L. Wright '96 spoke onNational Public Radio and CBS' "This Morning"yesterday morning. Other students appeared inmedia sources ranging from the Associated Pressnews wire to local radio stations.

The Grant case divided newspaper editorialpages as well.

The Crimson printed a staff editorial Wednesdaysaying Harvard was correct in its decision becauseof the nature of Grant's offense.

The Boston Globe printed a staff editorialTuesday, which also agreed with the rescinding ofGrant's admission. "Sealed juvenile records mayeradicate the paper trail of the murder, but thefact of the crime is not so easily dismissed," theGlobe editorial read.

The New York Times' editorial staff disagreed.In an editorial published yesterday, titled"Harvard's Unseemly Haste," the Times condemnedHarvard's decision in strong terms.

"Harvard has a right to make hasty decisions onincomplete facts, but it has no right to useprimitive public relations techniques to raisesuspicions about offenses that never occurred,"the Times editorial read.

"Even if Ms. Grant was evasive, the universityhas an obligation to follow some academic versionof due process," the editorial continued. "Afterall, fact-finding and intellectual inquiry are atthe heart of the university."

The editorial acknowledged that "some accountsmay have suggested that Ms. Grant was notforthcoming in her interview."

Howell Raines, editorial page editor of theTimes, declined comment yesterday. "Our normalpractice is to have our editorial speak for themselves," Raines said.

As media coverage expanded early this week,students themselves divided over whether Grant'scase should be re-opened.

"My views have only become firmer," saidStephen E. Frank '95, former editorial chair ofThe Crimson. "I've said all along that Gina Grant,simply by the fact that she committed murder sorecently and so brutally, does not deserveadmission to Harvard."

Jenna L. Albert '95, who joined the silentrally on Wednesday, said yesterday her feelingsare now mixed.

"Lying shouldn't be condoned, and I wouldn'tsupport her if she lied," Albert said. But thesenior criticized the admissions process too. "Itdoesn't seem like they looked at all theevidence," she said. "It just looks like they gotall these clippings, panicked and rescinded heradmission."

Derek T. Ho '96, co-managing editor ofPerspective, Harvard's liberal monthly,said the developments reported yesterdaycomplicate the issue.

"It makes it a little tougher to defend heractions, now that it was not simply an omissionbut an act of deception, but I still think theparts about privacy hold, in that HarvardUniversity ought not to have known about theinformation sent to them," Ho said.

Ho said the university should have respectedthe intent of juvenile offense laws and not usedthe anonymous material in considering Grant'sapplication.

Liston, who organized the rally, did not returnphone calls yesterday.

Rindge and Latin students interviewed yesterdayexpressed mixed opinions.

"I support Harvard. Any college should kick astudent out for lying," said Shakirahmed Kolia, ajunior.

"She killed, so she should be in jail," agreedSheila Exilhomme, a senior.

Senior Michaelle St. Germain disagreed. "Eventhough she lied, she did it to get into a goodschool," St. Germain said, adding that studentsare always encouraged to "put yourself up" incollege applications. St. Germain also expressedskepticism over the various media reports, andsaid she was unsure what Grant told herinterviewer.

However, "she should've told the truth," St.Germain said.

Another senior, who asked not to be identified,said Harvard had the right to rescind Grant'sapplication in light of what she said during herinterview, but said Grant's situation wasextremely difficult.

The rescinding "is understandable, but when youwant to get into school very, very much and feelthat that [information] can interfere with yourdreams, you're not sure what to do," the seniorsaid. "It's very tough to make that judgment callin this situation, for Gina and for the public."

Looking Forward

The facts of the Grant case may never becomefully known. Grant has repeatedly shied away frompublic comment, and Harvard has refused to offerany information beyond its first press releaseannouncing the decision to rescind the admissionoffer.

Although Harvard appears to have annulled theoffer because of Grant's alleged misrepresentationin her interview, the case has raised questionsover both the candor a school can fairly requireof applicants and the extent to which juvenileproceedings are truly confidential.

Grant's 1990 trial was covered extensively bythe local media, even though the actual courtpapers were sealed by Family Court Judge MarcWestbrook. Harvard, Rindge and Latin and theBoston Globe found out about Grant's past afterreceiving anonymous packages containing pressclipping from the trial.

The case has also left doubt as to whetherjuvenile offenders can check off "no" on theCommon Application section that asks whether anapplicant has been placed on probation, beensuspended or voluntarily left school. The initialscrutiny of the case focused on Grant's decisionto mark off "no."

Michael C. Behnke, director of admissions atthe Massachusetts Institute of Technology, saidthe Grant case might cause schools to8GRAN

Curtis M. Dickson, the brother of DorothyMayfield and Grant's closest relative, saidyesterday that his niece's alleged deception, iftrue, was "just bad judgment."

"She's still just a child," Dickson said."Given the situation, what else could she do? Ginawas in a predicament and probably just couldn'tfigure any other way to work through it."

Although law-enforcement officials in LexingtonCo., South Carolina, have charged that Grantrepeatedly lied during her 1990 Family Courttrial, her defense attorney as well as thepsychiatrist hired to examine her continue tosupport the teen-ager, even in light of the mostrecent allegations.

"If the judge found she had a pattern of lyingin the past, he would not have sentenced her theway he did," attorney Jack B. Swerling saidyesterday.

"No one knows Gina Grant better than I do, andI know she's remorseful and I know she lives withit daily," Swerling added. "I've seen remorse inthis young lady and I've also seen a recognitionof what happened in her life. She's paid herprice, gone through the system, beenrehabilitated."

Dr. Harold C. Morgan, who treated Grant duringher two-month stay in Baptish Medical Center inColumbia, S.C. following her arrest in September,1990, agreed.

Morgan said if Grant did in fact lie during heradmissions interview, her actions areunderstandable given her past. "There's no excusefor that, but I think it's very understandable,"he said. "After all, where do we learn our moralvalues? At home."

Both of Morgan's parents were alcoholics. Anautopsy report issued after Mayfield's deathindicated a blood alcohol level of .30, threetimes the legal intoxication limit.

"How many of us try to put ourselves in afavorable light? Whose resume is entirelyletter-honest?" Morgan asked. "You have to thinkabout the 19-year-old who went through thisinterview. Understanding it doesn't make it right,but it's understandable that she might havehandled it that way rather than [through] agut-wrenching admission of what happened."

The psychiatrist said Grant may have used anauto-accident response as a "stock answer" toinquiries about her mother's death.

"In one sense it's denial. I can see how beingan orphan, people might say, 'What happened toyour parents?" he said. "This may be her way ofsatisfying people without being rude or going intopersonal details. All of us have convenient whitelies we use to lubricate the wheels of socialinteraction."

Morgan added: "It's extraordinary what sheaccomplished [despite] the chaotic life" of herchildhood.

Attorney Paul A. Mones, author of A ChildKills, has defended several children whokilled their parents. Mones said the motives forGrant's actions should not be oversimplified.

"There's a big difference between people'scognitive abilities," Mones said. "These arecomplicated human events that are not easilypredisposed to simple analysis."

Harvard administrators "should have been morethoughtful and should reconsider their actions,"Mones added.

A Pattern of Deception?

Frankfurter Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitzcriticized both Grant and the admissions process,but said Harvard should give the teen-ager asecond chance.

"She may or may not hurt anybody againphysically, but she may not have beenrehabilitated from what appears to be a pattern ofdeception," Dershowitz said yesterday.

"The classic definition of chutzpah is someonewho kills their parents and pleads for mercy onthe grounds that she is an orphan," the professoradded. "She may have been rejected on the groundsof chutzpah."

Dershowitz said he believed Grant lied on herapplication, and was not surprised by yesterday'snews.

"The first time I spoke about this case, I saidwe should look into whether or not she told thewhole truth about the circumstances surroundingher mother's death," Dershowitz said.

But Dershowitz blamed the College's admissionprocess as well.

"If every student who lied to an interviewerwas thrown out of Harvard, we'd be able to turnthe dormitories into squash courts," he said."People on their applications are encouraged tosay what they think will get them into Harvard."

Dershowitz added: "The system was unfair toher; she, however, did not make the best use ofit. She was in a pickle."

The law professor called on Harvard to re-openthe case and give Grant a second chance to apply.

"Everybody should start from scratch," he said."I don't want to accept as a given that she lied.I want to see the facts."

Dershowitz said the University should now givea "full hearing" to Grant and her attorney.

Dershowitz said the "leaks" made by members ofthe faculty admissions committee wereinappropriate, but added that "the community has aright to know what happens."

"This has become a public case," he said."There's no sense in keeping this confidential."

Media and Students

Nearly all involved in Grant's case agree theevent has become something of a media circus.

On Wednesday afternoon, nearly 80 reporters,camera operators and photographers converged onRadcliffe Yard as a slightly smaller number ofprotesters outside Byerly Hall demanded thatHarvard re-examine its decision.

Hundreds of journalists descended on the Yardand the Houses, interviewing students andemployees.

Dershowitz debated Burnham on ABC's "Nightline"Tuesday night, and Boston University PresidentJohn R. Silber said he would welcome Grant if sheapplied to B.U.

Told of yesterday's new developments, however,B.U. spokesperson Michelle Cooley said theuniversity had no comment.

Undergraduate Council President Joshua D.Liston '95, who organized the student rally onWednesday, appeared on three networks and in theBoston Globe.

Crimson President Andrew L. Wright '96 spoke onNational Public Radio and CBS' "This Morning"yesterday morning. Other students appeared inmedia sources ranging from the Associated Pressnews wire to local radio stations.

The Grant case divided newspaper editorialpages as well.

The Crimson printed a staff editorial Wednesdaysaying Harvard was correct in its decision becauseof the nature of Grant's offense.

The Boston Globe printed a staff editorialTuesday, which also agreed with the rescinding ofGrant's admission. "Sealed juvenile records mayeradicate the paper trail of the murder, but thefact of the crime is not so easily dismissed," theGlobe editorial read.

The New York Times' editorial staff disagreed.In an editorial published yesterday, titled"Harvard's Unseemly Haste," the Times condemnedHarvard's decision in strong terms.

"Harvard has a right to make hasty decisions onincomplete facts, but it has no right to useprimitive public relations techniques to raisesuspicions about offenses that never occurred,"the Times editorial read.

"Even if Ms. Grant was evasive, the universityhas an obligation to follow some academic versionof due process," the editorial continued. "Afterall, fact-finding and intellectual inquiry are atthe heart of the university."

The editorial acknowledged that "some accountsmay have suggested that Ms. Grant was notforthcoming in her interview."

Howell Raines, editorial page editor of theTimes, declined comment yesterday. "Our normalpractice is to have our editorial speak for themselves," Raines said.

As media coverage expanded early this week,students themselves divided over whether Grant'scase should be re-opened.

"My views have only become firmer," saidStephen E. Frank '95, former editorial chair ofThe Crimson. "I've said all along that Gina Grant,simply by the fact that she committed murder sorecently and so brutally, does not deserveadmission to Harvard."

Jenna L. Albert '95, who joined the silentrally on Wednesday, said yesterday her feelingsare now mixed.

"Lying shouldn't be condoned, and I wouldn'tsupport her if she lied," Albert said. But thesenior criticized the admissions process too. "Itdoesn't seem like they looked at all theevidence," she said. "It just looks like they gotall these clippings, panicked and rescinded heradmission."

Derek T. Ho '96, co-managing editor ofPerspective, Harvard's liberal monthly,said the developments reported yesterdaycomplicate the issue.

"It makes it a little tougher to defend heractions, now that it was not simply an omissionbut an act of deception, but I still think theparts about privacy hold, in that HarvardUniversity ought not to have known about theinformation sent to them," Ho said.

Ho said the university should have respectedthe intent of juvenile offense laws and not usedthe anonymous material in considering Grant'sapplication.

Liston, who organized the rally, did not returnphone calls yesterday.

Rindge and Latin students interviewed yesterdayexpressed mixed opinions.

"I support Harvard. Any college should kick astudent out for lying," said Shakirahmed Kolia, ajunior.

"She killed, so she should be in jail," agreedSheila Exilhomme, a senior.

Senior Michaelle St. Germain disagreed. "Eventhough she lied, she did it to get into a goodschool," St. Germain said, adding that studentsare always encouraged to "put yourself up" incollege applications. St. Germain also expressedskepticism over the various media reports, andsaid she was unsure what Grant told herinterviewer.

However, "she should've told the truth," St.Germain said.

Another senior, who asked not to be identified,said Harvard had the right to rescind Grant'sapplication in light of what she said during herinterview, but said Grant's situation wasextremely difficult.

The rescinding "is understandable, but when youwant to get into school very, very much and feelthat that [information] can interfere with yourdreams, you're not sure what to do," the seniorsaid. "It's very tough to make that judgment callin this situation, for Gina and for the public."

Looking Forward

The facts of the Grant case may never becomefully known. Grant has repeatedly shied away frompublic comment, and Harvard has refused to offerany information beyond its first press releaseannouncing the decision to rescind the admissionoffer.

Although Harvard appears to have annulled theoffer because of Grant's alleged misrepresentationin her interview, the case has raised questionsover both the candor a school can fairly requireof applicants and the extent to which juvenileproceedings are truly confidential.

Grant's 1990 trial was covered extensively bythe local media, even though the actual courtpapers were sealed by Family Court Judge MarcWestbrook. Harvard, Rindge and Latin and theBoston Globe found out about Grant's past afterreceiving anonymous packages containing pressclipping from the trial.

The case has also left doubt as to whetherjuvenile offenders can check off "no" on theCommon Application section that asks whether anapplicant has been placed on probation, beensuspended or voluntarily left school. The initialscrutiny of the case focused on Grant's decisionto mark off "no."

Michael C. Behnke, director of admissions atthe Massachusetts Institute of Technology, saidthe Grant case might cause schools to8GRAN