Students 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have the resources to continue fighting, so the legal challenge to the administrative board proceedings is going to be withdrawn," said David E. Kelston, who represents one of the former members of the Class of 1999, Valentin Dinu.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, when his visa expires.

"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 Club while at Harvard--decided to drop their suit after U.S. District Court Judge Richard G. Stearns ruled against their claim that the College did not have a right to suspend students who had completed all their graduation requirements.

The University's attorney in the case, Robert W. Iuliano, said the suit had been founded on an unsound critique of the administrative board from the very beginning.

"It's easy for lawyers who represent students to criticize the administrative board as has happened in this case," he said. "It's quite a common ploy for lawyers because it distracts attention from the conduct of their clients."

"In reality the administrative process, at least in my view, is quite fair," added Iuliano. "It's important to recognize that it consists of 30 members of the university who deal most regularly with students and to try quite hard to understand the facts as they are, not the facts as students' lawyers would like them to be," Iuliano said.

In his opinion, Stearns--who referred to the case as "somewhat unusual"--said the fundamental flaw in the plaintiffs' case was their claim that because they had completed their academic requirements, they were no longer really students subject to the College's rules.

"A reasonable Harvard College student would recognize the fact...that a school has an inherent, if circumscribed, right to regulate student conduct," Stearns wrote in his decision.

"While it is not difficult to imagine cases in which a school might improperly withhold a degree for impermissible reasons...this case is manifestly not one of them," he added.

If the students had persisted with their challenge, the court would have proceeded to the second claim of the suit, which argued that the College's administrative board proceedings were so unjust that they exceeded the wide area of discretion the government usually gives to college disciplinary processes.

The plaintiffs had maintained their innocence all along, but the College had filed for preemptive "summary judgement" on the second claim, arguing that the administrative board had sufficient reason to believe the students had accepted money for work they had not performed.

Harvey A. Silverglate, who represents Abraham Tsoukalidis, was on vacation this week and could not be reached for comment

The University's attorney in the case, Robert W. Iuliano, said the suit had been founded on an unsound critique of the administrative board from the very beginning.

"It's easy for lawyers who represent students to criticize the administrative board as has happened in this case," he said. "It's quite a common ploy for lawyers because it distracts attention from the conduct of their clients."

"In reality the administrative process, at least in my view, is quite fair," added Iuliano. "It's important to recognize that it consists of 30 members of the university who deal most regularly with students and to try quite hard to understand the facts as they are, not the facts as students' lawyers would like them to be," Iuliano said.

In his opinion, Stearns--who referred to the case as "somewhat unusual"--said the fundamental flaw in the plaintiffs' case was their claim that because they had completed their academic requirements, they were no longer really students subject to the College's rules.

"A reasonable Harvard College student would recognize the fact...that a school has an inherent, if circumscribed, right to regulate student conduct," Stearns wrote in his decision.

"While it is not difficult to imagine cases in which a school might improperly withhold a degree for impermissible reasons...this case is manifestly not one of them," he added.

If the students had persisted with their challenge, the court would have proceeded to the second claim of the suit, which argued that the College's administrative board proceedings were so unjust that they exceeded the wide area of discretion the government usually gives to college disciplinary processes.

The plaintiffs had maintained their innocence all along, but the College had filed for preemptive "summary judgement" on the second claim, arguing that the administrative board had sufficient reason to believe the students had accepted money for work they had not performed.

Harvey A. Silverglate, who represents Abraham Tsoukalidis, was on vacation this week and could not be reached for comment