Arbitrary Discipline?

Last Tuesday, three members of the Men's Crew team were disciplined by the Administrative Board for throwing rocks off of the roof of the AD club. After the students were arrested by the Harvard University Police Department (HUPD) on March 28, the Administrative Board took one month to decide that the three would be allowed to finish the semester, but would not be allowed to row with the team. One student, of the Class of 2000, was a member of the club; the other two, who were seniors, were not. The Ad Board ruled to withhold the diplomas of the two seniors for one year, and the sophomore will not be allowed back next year.

This incident raises two important questions. First, it reminds us of the need to be concerned about the conduct of final club members; second, it forces us to reexamine the problems with the way the Ad Board operates.

Let's recreate the night of March 28, 1998. Three individuals are throwing rocks off of the roof of 128 Mass. Ave., endangering the lives of pedestrians passing by the corner of Mass. Ave. and Plympton Street. Harvard police approach the scene of the crime but quickly ascertain they will need to call in the fire department for a ladder to reach the roof of the club.

It would be surprising to learn that rocks were being thrown off the roofs of the Advocate or Harvard Student Agencies buildings. The mere fact that one does not question behavior of this kind from the AD club is alarming.

It seems that there exists a final club culture which creates an environment where such foolish behavior is given a place to flourish. This culture privileges allegiance between members over any other obligation, even to the law.

The treatment of the crime by the Ad Board must also be questioned. There are many things that we don't know about the case, but we do know that the three students were told they would not be allowed to row this semester. This seems like a remarkably lenient punishment for immature and potentially dangerous behavior. Also, unlike the few Ad Board cases that are known, these students have not been immediately removed, and the privilege of staying at Harvard to finish this semester only further clouds the justification of this so-called "punishment."

By the end of their Harvard careers, many (perhaps most) students know horror stories about arbitrary Ad Board decisions--for example, a student accused of plagiarism receiving a harsher punishment than one implicated in a case of sexual assault. Even if student input is not seen as a viable option, a major part of the Ad Board's power lies in the secrecy of its proceedings and the silence imposed on students who appear before it. A reasonable first step would be to shed light on this dark process by publishing a monthly or annual log of Ad Board case decisions, withholding the names of the parties involved.

This case illustrates, yet again, the closed-mouthed and secretive nature of the Administrative Board in dealing with criminal cases. Administrators continue to hide behind a cloak of paternalism. When will the Ad Board attempt to demonstrate some semblance of due process and fairness that characterize legal proceedings in the "real world"? Until it does, students will justifiably remain without confidence in its proceedings and decisions.