Second year students Jonathan W. and David G. Lubell will not be expelled from the Law School, Dean Griswold announced yesterday.

After giving careful consideration to the case, Griswold said the Law School Faculty announced that it "does not believe that the Lubells' refusal to answer questions is sufficient to constitute grounds for expulsion."

However, the Faculty added that it "greatly regrets the course of conduct followed by these students."

At the same time the University issued a statement saying that the refusal of students to answer questions presents a "different problem from such action on the part of Faculty members. Cases of Faculty members are now under consideration by the Corporation."

Griswold's statement came after Samuel P. Sears '17, head of the State Bar Association, appealed to him to fire the Lubells for their invoking of the Fifth Amendment before the Jenner Committee. Sears had called the twins "unfit for admission to the bar of any of our states."

Sears Comments

Sears said last night the Harvard Law School decision "is an invitation for McCarthy to use the front door." He refused to elaborate.

The Lubells issued the following statement last night, on learning the Faculty's decision:

"We are gratified by the decision of the faculty of the Law School to retain us as students. It is another landmark in the democratic tradition of Harvard. The decision is a clear voice in the mistiness of the present irrational atmosphere which would restrict thought and activity to an unprecedented narrow area of orthodoxy.

"We are confident that our conduct in the future as we feel it has been in the past, will reflect only well on ourselves and the Law School."

Griswold's statement added that "considerations which may be applicable in the case of Faculty members who refuse to answer questions do not appear controlling in the case of students. Similarly, grounds for denying an applicant admission to the bar are not necessarily the same grounds for expelling a student from the law school."

"In reaching this conclusion," he added "the Faculty does not regard the refusal to answer questions as either colorless or unimportant. It greatly regrets the course of conduct followed by these students. If they have in fact committed an offense, this should be handled by public authority."

"If these two young men are now expelled from the Law School, the experience is likely to confirm them in the attitudes which were manifest in their testimony," Griswold concluded