"Established procedures do not break down as a result of people taking extreme actions; extreme actions take place when the established procedures have already broken down," said John M. Sansone, a first-year Law student.

Faculty members and some students concentrated on what Louis Loss, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law, called the "means-ends conundrum."

Loss said in his speech that he was faced with three "profound truths"; the first being the critical nature of race relations and the second being the intolerable nature of coercion in the University. The third truth, he said, was that the first two were irreconcilable.

While stating that "whatever combats racism is to that extent good," Loss said that the University "cannot survive if any group, no matter how noble, can act with coercion."

Charles Fried, professor of Law, pointed out "the moral ambiguities and imperfections" of the situation. But, he said, "we always act in a situation of moral ambiguities and imperfections," and he asked that students abide by the fair procedures of the Ad Board and faculty.

Earlier in the meeting James Vorenberg '48, chairman of the Ad Board, described the procedures the Board had followed in the cases.

Vorenberg said that the three faculty members and three students had equal voices in the decision since the Board decided to be guided by informal votes with students and faculty. University statutes prohibit students from voting on discipline cases.

One of the black students disciplined, Raymond D. Jones, a second-year Law student, also spoke on the Board's procedures and described events which he said were "indicative of the shoddiness of parpose. preparations, and procedures [of the Board]."

The audience seemed to reward eloquence in most of its ovations, applauding both Jones and Loss with enthusiasm.