Student Drop Diploma Lawsuit

Two students suing the College for their diplomas have dropped their suit and may have lost their last chance to stay in the country, a lawyer for one of the students said this week.

The students simply don't have the resources to continue fighting, so the legal challenge to the administrative board proceedings is going to be withdrawn," said David E. Kelston, who represents one of the former members of the Class of 1999, Valentin Dinu.

"We're sorry that we can't take this further, but time and money simply make it impossible," he added.

Kelston said the decision to drop the case leaves the two students' ability to remain in the U.S. in jeopardy. Abraham Tsoukalidis is a Greek citizen, and Dinu is a Romanian citizen. Neither could be reached for comment.

Since they have been suspended from the College, the two are not eligible for student visas. And without College diplomas, Kelston said, they are not eligible for permanent work visas, either.

As a result, Tsoukalidis has already returned to Greece, and Dinu may be forced to return to Romania in March, Mr. Dinu has work authorization through mid-March of 2000," Kelston said, "He has nine months from the time of graduation in which he can stay in this country and receive practical training."

After that, however, Dinu would need a college degree to stay in the country.

And although Dinu petitioned the College to shorten his withdrawal period to six months so that he could get a work visa, Kelston said the College "flatly refused."

Kelston said that Dinu has already received notice from the Romanian army, and that if he returns home, he will likely be forced to enlist.

So Dinu is fighting to remain in the country at least for the time-being. He has a job with a Texas software company, and is trying to maintain his job through March.

"Right now the question is going to be whether he's able to maintain his current employment or not," Kelston said. He had been offered a job contingent on receiving his college degree.

The plaintiffs--who were both roommates and vice presidents of the Euro Clubwhile at Harvard--decided to drop their suit afterU.S. District Court Judge Richard G. Stearns ruledagainst their claim that the College did not havea right to suspend students who had completed alltheir graduation requirements.

The University's attorney in the case, RobertW. Iuliano, said the suit had been founded on anunsound critique of the administrative board fromthe very beginning.

"It's easy for lawyers who represent studentsto criticize the administrative board as hashappened in this case," he said. "It's quite acommon ploy for lawyers because it distractsattention from the conduct of their clients."

"In reality the administrative process, atleast in my view, is quite fair," added luliano."It's important to recognize that it consists of30 members of the university who deal mostregularly with students and to try quite hard tounderstand the facts as they are, not the facts asstudents' lawyers would like them to be," lulianosaid.

In his opinion, Stearns--who referred to thecase as "somewhat unusual"--said the fundamentalflaw in the plaintiffs' case was their claim thatbecause they had completed their academicrequirements, they were no longer really studentssubject to the College's rules.

"A reasonable Harvard College student wouldrecognize the fact...that a school has aninherent, if circumscribed, right to regulatestudent conduct," Stearns wrote in his decision.

"While it is not difficult to imagine cases inwhich a school might improperly withhold a degreefor impermissible reasons...this case ismanifestly not one of them," he added.

If the students had persisted with theirchallenge, the court would have proceeded to thesecond claim of the suit, which argued that thecollege's administrative board proceedings were sounjust that they exceeded the wide area ofdiscretion the government usually gives to collegedisciplinary processes.

The plaintiffs had maintained their innocenceall along, but the college had filed forpreemptive "summary judgement" on the secondclaim, arguing that the administrative board hadsufficient reason to believe the students hadaccepted money for work they had not performed.

Harvey A. Silverglate, who represents AbrahamTsoukalidis, was on vacation this week and couldnot be reached for comment

The University's attorney in the case, RobertW. Iuliano, said the suit had been founded on anunsound critique of the administrative board fromthe very beginning.

"It's easy for lawyers who represent studentsto criticize the administrative board as hashappened in this case," he said. "It's quite acommon ploy for lawyers because it distractsattention from the conduct of their clients."

"In reality the administrative process, atleast in my view, is quite fair," added luliano."It's important to recognize that it consists of30 members of the university who deal mostregularly with students and to try quite hard tounderstand the facts as they are, not the facts asstudents' lawyers would like them to be," lulianosaid.

In his opinion, Stearns--who referred to thecase as "somewhat unusual"--said the fundamentalflaw in the plaintiffs' case was their claim thatbecause they had completed their academicrequirements, they were no longer really studentssubject to the College's rules.

"A reasonable Harvard College student wouldrecognize the fact...that a school has aninherent, if circumscribed, right to regulatestudent conduct," Stearns wrote in his decision.

"While it is not difficult to imagine cases inwhich a school might improperly withhold a degreefor impermissible reasons...this case ismanifestly not one of them," he added.

If the students had persisted with theirchallenge, the court would have proceeded to thesecond claim of the suit, which argued that thecollege's administrative board proceedings were sounjust that they exceeded the wide area ofdiscretion the government usually gives to collegedisciplinary processes.

The plaintiffs had maintained their innocenceall along, but the college had filed forpreemptive "summary judgement" on the secondclaim, arguing that the administrative board hadsufficient reason to believe the students hadaccepted money for work they had not performed.

Harvey A. Silverglate, who represents AbrahamTsoukalidis, was on vacation this week and couldnot be reached for comment