Law Ad Board

To the Editors of The Crimson:

My letter to the Crimson (Oct. 29, "Law School Stifling Activism") was a deeply personal one. I was upset over what I believed were gross injustices to people I knew and respected highly, and I wanted some means of expressing my anger and dismay.

At the time that I wrote the letter, I believed that the consequences to a reprimanded law student's career would be certain and severe, and this belief contributed greatly to my outrage, and to some of the thoughts that I expressed.

After talking to the individuals involved following an article in the Harvard Law Record, I believe that I overjudged the severity of a reprimand. To the extent that this changes some of my pre-assumptions, I felt compelled to write again.

What I know now of a reprimand makes it easier for me to believe that the Ad Board made some attempt to be "reasonable" and "fair." I still do not and cannot agree with its decisions, which I still consider very much unwarranted. I tried very hard in my first letter to convey my sense of the motivation of the students involved--that were it not for their extraordinary compassion and empathy, they would not be in their present position. This is especially true in Jennifer Granholme's case. Jennifer voluntarily involved herself in the hearings in order that Mike Anderson not suffer a heavier punishment. Such an act of friendship is rare and should be applauded, and that the Ad Board appears to have given it no consideration in its decision is very disheartening to me. Hard as I try, I cannot understand the Board's decision, and absoulutely fail to see the justice in Jennifer's punishment.

A word has to be offered to those who may feel disappointed in my toning down my letter. Whatever conviction existed in my first letter arose from my belief in the truth of what I was saying; where that belief changes, however slightly or significantly, I have to correct myself. Like many others, I would like to see certain things changed, and, like many others, I harbor suspicions whenever I think injustice is being done--but I cannot subserve my sense of fairness (as best I can judge it) to any cause.

I withdraw my references to the "severe" nature of a reprimand, and my implication that the Ad Board may be seeking to chill legitimate dissent as well as curtail improper conduct. I still maintain that the punishments handed out were undeserved, and in Jennifer's case, clearly unjust. Jinku Lee   Harvard Law School