Second year law students Jonathan W. and David G. Lubell yesterday defended their record as citizens and law students and their right to attend Law School, in answer to the open letter of Samuel P. Sears '17, head of the State Bar Association.

Referring to Sears' attack on their use of the Fifth Amendment before the Jenner Committee, the Lubells in a statement to the CRIMSON claimed "to say that the use of a constitutional privilege is grounds for expulsion is substantially to nullify the very privilege given."

The Lubells also charged the investigating committees with being "intent upon removing from the American scene any viewpoint or activity which is distasteful to them, as well as any dissenting or unorthodox opinion."

Sears' letter to Dean Griswold of the Law School asked for the twins' expulsion, calling them "unfit for admission to the bar of any of our states and unfit to continue as students at the Harvard Law School."

Griswold said yesterday that he had not had time to read Sears' letter. "If I decide comment is necessary," he said, "I will release a statement through the Harvard News Bureau."

The Lubells' statement said:

"The open letter of Samuel P. Sears to Dean Griswold came as a distinct shock to us. Mr. Sears contends that we have 'clearly disqualified' ourselves from further membership in the student body.

No Criticism

"The day before we appeared before the Jenner committee there were no, nor could there be any criticism of us as competent students or loyal citizens. We had received high grades in the January law exams and had been elected to executive posts on the Law School Record. (Incidentally, during his term of office, as Gallery Editor, Jonathan had published in the column a Gallery of Mr. Sears.)

"The day after we appeared before the Committee we are no longer considered qualified students by Mr. Sears. It seems as if our 'crime' was the assertion of the privilege contained in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

"To say that the use of the constitu- tional privilege is grounds for expulsion is to substantially nullify the very privilege given. What we have done is to use a privilege made available in the Bill of Rights. We have acted with the understanding that the privilege may be claimed not only where it would, but also where it might, not only incriminate but tend to incriminate one, not only of a conviction but of a prosecution. (Blau vs. U.S., 340 U.S. 159)

"We acted believing that the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty permeates both the legal and social fabric of our society. Nor did we lose sight of the current hysteria which has its effects upon legal endictments and prosecutions.

Democratic Traditions

"In invoking the privilege under the Fifth Amendment we feel that we have acted not against, but in line with the democratic traditions of the University and Law School. Opposition to the current investigatory committees is required if the freedom of thought, discussion, and press--so essential to the academic community--is to be preserved.

"The committees in their past and present activities are intent upon removing from the American scene any viewpoint or activity which is distasteful to them, as well as any dissenting or unorthodox opinion. (For example, questions to us relating to our activities in a Building Service Employees A.F.L. strike at Cornell University; our brief writing for the Lawyers Guild which included one case in which the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed conviction, a decision which the Guild had urged, and another brief on the segregated education cases; and our contribution to the 'Record' editorial of Feb. 12 which opposed Congressional investigation of colleges.)

"Mr. Sears urges that 'the Law School. . . retain the position it has established over the year.' We sincerely hope that the Law School will be true to its traditions which found its finest expressions in Dean Roscoe Pound's criticism of the Palmer Raids of the 1920's, Justice Frankfurter's dissent of Sacco and Vanzetti, and Professor Chafee's participation in the great free speech controversies.