Ad Board Will Try Student Protestors

The nine students who staged a protest in the office of Law School Dean Robert C. Clark on April 7 will probably be tried in an unprecedented open hearing of the Law School Administrative Board, officials confirmed yesterday.

The hearing, which is almost certain to be open to all members of the law school community, is scheduled for next Monday at 4:15 p.m.

In an unrelated development, graduating third-year law students will vote today, tomorrow and probably Friday in a non-binding referendum on whether Clark should be prohibited from participating in graduation ceremonies.

Both events come amidst turbulent times at the Law School, where students, faculty and administrators have been battling over faculty diversity, administrative leadership and a controversial parody of the Harvard Law Review.

Much of controversy has centered on the actions of Clark. And students are voting this week on two non-binding referenda asking Clark not to hand students diplomas and not to speak to the class at graduation ceremonies on June 4.

The referenda come in response to petition signed by 70 to 80 third-year lawstudents calling for a classwide vote on theissue.

The likely date and time of the meeting wereset in negotiations involving and Ad Boardsubcommittee and both sides in the hearing,according to Peter Cicchino, a third-year lawstudent who, along with Law Professor William W.Fisher III, is representing the nine students.

The Ad Board hearing will mark the first timein recent memory that students facing disciplinaryaction have opted to make public their hearing,which is legal under Ad Board rules.

Because of this lack of precedent, a conflictremains over what constitutes "public" Cicchinosaid that while the Law School community and somereporters will be allowed to attend, it has notyet been decided who else will be eligible. Amember of the board, who asked to remainanonymous, confirmed this, as well as the time andplace of the hearing.

Cicchino said some members of the Ad Board arereluctant to make the hearing completely open.

"It strikes me as singularly unfair thatHarvard, so obsessed with its own position in thepublic eye, suddenly becomes so shy when a matterlike this, that will bring it intenseembarrassment, comes up," Cicchino said.

One member of the Ad Board said theLawSchool Record would be allowed to attend themeeting, but that it was unclear which if anyother member of the press would admitted.

Cicchino claimed the hearing would beadversarial as a trial would be, even though AdBoard hearings are supposedly non-adversarial. Hepointed out that he and Fisher are defending thestudents against a case being presented by BemisProfessor of International Law Detlev F. Vagts.

The hearing will determine what disciplinaryaction, if any, the nine students will face. Thestudents are accused of interfering with thenormal operations of the dean's office by blockingaccess to rooms and refusing to leave whenrequested.

Overnight Sit-in

The group, part of the school's Coalition forCivil Rights, held an overnight sit-in Clark'soffice to protest the lack of diversity in facultyhiring. The nine were third-year student CharisseCarney and second year students William Ansprach,Julie Fu, Jodi Grant, Derek Homore, Lucy Koh,Elizabeth Moreno, Jill Newman and Marie-LouiseRamsdale.

Disciplinary action against Carney, the outgoing president of the Black Law StudentsAssociation, might prevent her from graduatingthis June, Cicchino said.

Cicchino said the defense he and Fisher werepreparing would portray the protest as "entirelynon-violent and minimally disruptive." He saidthat the nine students would likely testify, andthat the defense would also call upon "staffmembers" for testimony. He would not rule outincluding faculty in that category.

Cicchino predicted that Vagts, whom he called"eminently fair," will present a far differentpicture.

"The testimony that will be given will depictthe sit-in in the most negative terms possible,"Cicchino said.

Calling Clark "vindictive," Cicchino suggestedthat the dean was responsible for the incidentgoing as far as it has with the Ad Board.

"Everyone knows the dean is the real drivingforce behind this," Cicchino said "in every way hepossibly could, he made this experience asdivisive, as painful, as adversarial as itpossibly could be."

"But that is par for the course," Cicchinoadded. "That's standard operating practice forhim."

The Ad Board, which consists of twoadministrators, three professors and one studentfrom each of the three classes, will heararguments Monday, but a decision will not occuruntil later, after the board has deliberated.

Any decision would involve first findingwhether a violation occurred and seconddetermining what sanction--if any--would be leviedagainst the students

The likely date and time of the meeting wereset in negotiations involving and Ad Boardsubcommittee and both sides in the hearing,according to Peter Cicchino, a third-year lawstudent who, along with Law Professor William W.Fisher III, is representing the nine students.

The Ad Board hearing will mark the first timein recent memory that students facing disciplinaryaction have opted to make public their hearing,which is legal under Ad Board rules.

Because of this lack of precedent, a conflictremains over what constitutes "public" Cicchinosaid that while the Law School community and somereporters will be allowed to attend, it has notyet been decided who else will be eligible. Amember of the board, who asked to remainanonymous, confirmed this, as well as the time andplace of the hearing.

Cicchino said some members of the Ad Board arereluctant to make the hearing completely open.

"It strikes me as singularly unfair thatHarvard, so obsessed with its own position in thepublic eye, suddenly becomes so shy when a matterlike this, that will bring it intenseembarrassment, comes up," Cicchino said.

One member of the Ad Board said theLawSchool Record would be allowed to attend themeeting, but that it was unclear which if anyother member of the press would admitted.

Cicchino claimed the hearing would beadversarial as a trial would be, even though AdBoard hearings are supposedly non-adversarial. Hepointed out that he and Fisher are defending thestudents against a case being presented by BemisProfessor of International Law Detlev F. Vagts.

The hearing will determine what disciplinaryaction, if any, the nine students will face. Thestudents are accused of interfering with thenormal operations of the dean's office by blockingaccess to rooms and refusing to leave whenrequested.

Overnight Sit-in

The group, part of the school's Coalition forCivil Rights, held an overnight sit-in Clark'soffice to protest the lack of diversity in facultyhiring. The nine were third-year student CharisseCarney and second year students William Ansprach,Julie Fu, Jodi Grant, Derek Homore, Lucy Koh,Elizabeth Moreno, Jill Newman and Marie-LouiseRamsdale.

Disciplinary action against Carney, the outgoing president of the Black Law StudentsAssociation, might prevent her from graduatingthis June, Cicchino said.

Cicchino said the defense he and Fisher werepreparing would portray the protest as "entirelynon-violent and minimally disruptive." He saidthat the nine students would likely testify, andthat the defense would also call upon "staffmembers" for testimony. He would not rule outincluding faculty in that category.

Cicchino predicted that Vagts, whom he called"eminently fair," will present a far differentpicture.

"The testimony that will be given will depictthe sit-in in the most negative terms possible,"Cicchino said.

Calling Clark "vindictive," Cicchino suggestedthat the dean was responsible for the incidentgoing as far as it has with the Ad Board.

"Everyone knows the dean is the real drivingforce behind this," Cicchino said "in every way hepossibly could, he made this experience asdivisive, as painful, as adversarial as itpossibly could be."

"But that is par for the course," Cicchinoadded. "That's standard operating practice forhim."

The Ad Board, which consists of twoadministrators, three professors and one studentfrom each of the three classes, will heararguments Monday, but a decision will not occuruntil later, after the board has deliberated.

Any decision would involve first findingwhether a violation occurred and seconddetermining what sanction--if any--would be leviedagainst the students