Facing the Ad Board: Fair or Frightening?

It was like any other night until the police cars circled the building and flashed their lights. At least, that's what three students involved in the rock-throwing incident at the AD claim.

According to the students, Dipanjan Banerjee '98 Samuel W. Brooks '00 and Connor P. Spreng '98, they were hanging out at the Club after celebrating the end of a long week of crew practice during their spring break.

They were intoxicated, and began tossing rocks off the roof of 1280 Mass. Ave, accessed from the roof of the AD Club. The students say they were acting without understanding the consequences.

When a police officer heard the sound of glass breaking and noticed the damage the falling rocks had done to two cars parked on the street below, the students found themselves in trouble.

The case of three students caught breakingCollege rules, sentenced to a year's suspension bythe College's disciplinary body, and deniedreconsideration by Dean of the College Harry R.Lewis '68 serves to highlight the studentquestions surrounding the Administrative Board,which handles all student disciplinary cases.

The lack of information about Ad Boardprocedures and rulings has led to studentcomplaints that the Board is not consistent in itspunishments or that it censures undergraduates tooharshly.

In this case, the three students claim the AdBoard may have gone beyond its stated guidelinesand sentenced the undergraduates not only fortheir offense, but also for their choice ofextracurricular activities and the location inwhich they were apprehended.

The students say they believe their positionsas Varsity rowers and the location of their run-inwith police--at a final club-- may have increasedthe severity of their punishment.

"I feel like the Ad Board looked at this andsaw 'athletes' and 'final club' and felt like theyhad to be severe for one reason or another,"Brooks said.

Night Incident

"[I] observed three males hurling very largerocks from the roof," reads the Harvard UniversityPolice Department [HUPD] report on the incident,recorded by Officer George White. "When the threeobserved my presence they crouched down behind thebrick facade, trying to conceal themselves."

The three students say they acknowledged theirresponsibility for the incident.

"It was incredibly stupid," Spreng says.

"We were never in danger of hitting people," hesays, asserting that the behavior was nothazardous to passers-by.

"If they had hit someone on the head and killedthem that would have turned the whole thingaround," says Harvard University Police Department(HUPD) spokesperson Peggy A. MacNamara.

According to MacNamara, the Cambridge policeofficers called to the scene likely turnedjurisdiction of the incident over to the HUPD, asis generally done in an incident involving Harvardstudents but off Harvard property.

The College has a policy of not commenting onindividual disciplinary cases.

The three were the only men in the club at thetime, and say they had not been drinking there.Only Brooks is a member of the club; he broke clubrules by allowing the other two men into amembers-only area, and the AD has subsequentlysuspended him from the club for the rest of thesemester.

The students say when the police entered theclub--after calling a fire truck to climb inthrough the roof--they decided to deny they threwthe rocks.

"We were scared out of our senses and didn'tsay anything," Brooks said.

But the next afternoon, having had a chance toclear their minds, they say they all contacted theHUPD and accepted responsibility for the incident.

The HUPD then turned over a report of theincident to the University, and the three studentswere told to expect calls from their senior tutorssummoning them before the Administrative Board.

White, the officer on duty, decided not to filecriminal charges against the students.

In addition to the police report, the Ad Boardsolicited personal statements from all threestudents. Before they appeared, the students'senior tutors spoke on their behalf. According toSpreng, Dean Lewis was not present at his AD Boardhearing.

After their appearances the three students wereinformed of the AD Board's decision: they areallowed to finish the semester, then must withdrawfor a year. They will also not be allowed tocontinue on the heavyweight crew, which had anundefeated season and was favored among East Coastcrews.

Justice?

Does it have to be this severe?" Brooks asked.

But some students question whether the threewere punished harshly enough for an incident whichthey believe could have harmed passers-by, apossibility the offenders have denied.

Brooks and Spreng say they knew there was apossibility the Ad Board would ask them towithdraw, but both said barring them from rowinghurts their teammates and coach unnecessarily.Banerjee declined to comment for this article.

The students criticize the Ad board for itsdecision, claiming the disciplinary body drew aconnection between the crew team and the incident.

"It feels like we got this extra punishmentonly because we row," Brooks said. "Rowing in facthad nothing to do with this incident."

The offenses cited by the Ad Board were lyingto an officer of the University and damage toproperty, both listed as offenses leading toprobation in the Ad Board's "User's Guide forStudents," which is distributed to allundergraduates. Because they had committed bothcrimes, their senior tutors told the students toexpect either probation or a request to withdraw.

Spreng, however, said the decision came as acomplete surprise.

"It's a shame they make us do harm again bydeserting the people we've been working with forfour years," Spreng said. "I accept responsibilityfor the stupidity. I do not accept responsibilityfor doing this to the people I respect the most."

The User's Guide says that "restrictions(sometimes called "adding teeth" toprobation)...might forbid a student to participatein an extracurricular activity that was thecontext of the misconduct."

The police report says "all three suspects wereintoxicated and consumed alcoholic beverages whileat the AD Club."

But according to Brooks, the three were neverasked at their hearings whether the incident wasrelated to a party.

The police report presents at least oneinaccuracy.

It says that the rocks caused damages in the"thousands of dollars" to a brand new Chevyblazer. But when tabulated, the actual damages,which the three students have already paid,amounted to $301.90.

"I am worried that some of the tutors saw [thepolice report] and made up their minds," Brookssaid.

Cold Reception

While they decry the sanction the students alsocomplain the disciplinary procedure was forebodingand intimidating.

"It's hidden away. Even the room itself iscold," Spreng said of his Ad Board hearing on thetop floor of Hilles library. "It's a pity that agroup with such an aura about it makes decisionsagainst the students and the University."

Entering the room, students sit at a squaretable along with the 30 to 40 tutors, includingtheir own Allston Burr Senior Tutor andadministrators who evaluate their case.

"The second I walked into the room I realizedthat who I was was not really an issue," Sprengsaid. "I can see their concern is protecting theHarvard name and institution. There is no Harvardif not for the students and it seems that in theprocess this is not accounted for."

All three must vacate campus by May 23, one daybefore the regular undergraduate move-out date.Spreng and Banerjee, both seniors, will not beallowed at Commencement. In addition, all threemust reapply to the Ad Board for readmission aftertheir year's suspension is served.

"It puts a bitter taste in my mouth," Sprengsaid. "We can't walk. We can't even watch ourfriends graduate.

The case of three students caught breakingCollege rules, sentenced to a year's suspension bythe College's disciplinary body, and deniedreconsideration by Dean of the College Harry R.Lewis '68 serves to highlight the studentquestions surrounding the Administrative Board,which handles all student disciplinary cases.

The lack of information about Ad Boardprocedures and rulings has led to studentcomplaints that the Board is not consistent in itspunishments or that it censures undergraduates tooharshly.

In this case, the three students claim the AdBoard may have gone beyond its stated guidelinesand sentenced the undergraduates not only fortheir offense, but also for their choice ofextracurricular activities and the location inwhich they were apprehended.

The students say they believe their positionsas Varsity rowers and the location of their run-inwith police--at a final club-- may have increasedthe severity of their punishment.

"I feel like the Ad Board looked at this andsaw 'athletes' and 'final club' and felt like theyhad to be severe for one reason or another,"Brooks said.

Night Incident

"[I] observed three males hurling very largerocks from the roof," reads the Harvard UniversityPolice Department [HUPD] report on the incident,recorded by Officer George White. "When the threeobserved my presence they crouched down behind thebrick facade, trying to conceal themselves."

The three students say they acknowledged theirresponsibility for the incident.

"It was incredibly stupid," Spreng says.

"We were never in danger of hitting people," hesays, asserting that the behavior was nothazardous to passers-by.

"If they had hit someone on the head and killedthem that would have turned the whole thingaround," says Harvard University Police Department(HUPD) spokesperson Peggy A. MacNamara.

According to MacNamara, the Cambridge policeofficers called to the scene likely turnedjurisdiction of the incident over to the HUPD, asis generally done in an incident involving Harvardstudents but off Harvard property.

The College has a policy of not commenting onindividual disciplinary cases.

The three were the only men in the club at thetime, and say they had not been drinking there.Only Brooks is a member of the club; he broke clubrules by allowing the other two men into amembers-only area, and the AD has subsequentlysuspended him from the club for the rest of thesemester.

The students say when the police entered theclub--after calling a fire truck to climb inthrough the roof--they decided to deny they threwthe rocks.

"We were scared out of our senses and didn'tsay anything," Brooks said.

But the next afternoon, having had a chance toclear their minds, they say they all contacted theHUPD and accepted responsibility for the incident.

The HUPD then turned over a report of theincident to the University, and the three studentswere told to expect calls from their senior tutorssummoning them before the Administrative Board.

White, the officer on duty, decided not to filecriminal charges against the students.

In addition to the police report, the Ad Boardsolicited personal statements from all threestudents. Before they appeared, the students'senior tutors spoke on their behalf. According toSpreng, Dean Lewis was not present at his AD Boardhearing.

After their appearances the three students wereinformed of the AD Board's decision: they areallowed to finish the semester, then must withdrawfor a year. They will also not be allowed tocontinue on the heavyweight crew, which had anundefeated season and was favored among East Coastcrews.

Justice?

Does it have to be this severe?" Brooks asked.

But some students question whether the threewere punished harshly enough for an incident whichthey believe could have harmed passers-by, apossibility the offenders have denied.

Brooks and Spreng say they knew there was apossibility the Ad Board would ask them towithdraw, but both said barring them from rowinghurts their teammates and coach unnecessarily.Banerjee declined to comment for this article.

The students criticize the Ad board for itsdecision, claiming the disciplinary body drew aconnection between the crew team and the incident.

"It feels like we got this extra punishmentonly because we row," Brooks said. "Rowing in facthad nothing to do with this incident."

The offenses cited by the Ad Board were lyingto an officer of the University and damage toproperty, both listed as offenses leading toprobation in the Ad Board's "User's Guide forStudents," which is distributed to allundergraduates. Because they had committed bothcrimes, their senior tutors told the students toexpect either probation or a request to withdraw.

Spreng, however, said the decision came as acomplete surprise.

"It's a shame they make us do harm again bydeserting the people we've been working with forfour years," Spreng said. "I accept responsibilityfor the stupidity. I do not accept responsibilityfor doing this to the people I respect the most."

The User's Guide says that "restrictions(sometimes called "adding teeth" toprobation)...might forbid a student to participatein an extracurricular activity that was thecontext of the misconduct."

The police report says "all three suspects wereintoxicated and consumed alcoholic beverages whileat the AD Club."

But according to Brooks, the three were neverasked at their hearings whether the incident wasrelated to a party.

The police report presents at least oneinaccuracy.

It says that the rocks caused damages in the"thousands of dollars" to a brand new Chevyblazer. But when tabulated, the actual damages,which the three students have already paid,amounted to $301.90.

"I am worried that some of the tutors saw [thepolice report] and made up their minds," Brookssaid.

Cold Reception

While they decry the sanction the students alsocomplain the disciplinary procedure was forebodingand intimidating.

"It's hidden away. Even the room itself iscold," Spreng said of his Ad Board hearing on thetop floor of Hilles library. "It's a pity that agroup with such an aura about it makes decisionsagainst the students and the University."

Entering the room, students sit at a squaretable along with the 30 to 40 tutors, includingtheir own Allston Burr Senior Tutor andadministrators who evaluate their case.

"The second I walked into the room I realizedthat who I was was not really an issue," Sprengsaid. "I can see their concern is protecting theHarvard name and institution. There is no Harvardif not for the students and it seems that in theprocess this is not accounted for."

All three must vacate campus by May 23, one daybefore the regular undergraduate move-out date.Spreng and Banerjee, both seniors, will not beallowed at Commencement. In addition, all threemust reapply to the Ad Board for readmission aftertheir year's suspension is served.

"It puts a bitter taste in my mouth," Sprengsaid. "We can't walk. We can't even watch ourfriends graduate.