Three members of the Harvard Law Review submitted their resignations over the weekend, citing disagreement with the Review's adoption last Wednesday of an affirmative action plan.

The resignation of the three third-year students comes at the end of a week of internal debate at the Review over changing membership selection procedures to give minority and women students a greater chance of qualifying for the prestigious law journal.

The Review will reconsider its position on affirmative action at a general meeting scheduled for this Wednesday, and could decide to reverse the position Review president Stuart Singer said yesterday.

Kathy Smalley, one of the editors who resigned, said yesterday that "the idea that the Law Review would discriminate on the basis of race and sex was repugnant to me," adding that the journal "should not purchase additional diversity at the cost of its commitment to the idea of merit."

Singer said he "deeply regrets the resignation of any member."

Carl Guarino and David Ridl, the other two editors who resigned over the affirmative action proposal, were unavailable for comment yesterday.

In the past, the Review offered membership to the five highest-ranking students in each of four sections into which first-year students are randomly assigned.

Under the proposal, adopted last Wednesday by a vote of 45 to 39, the Review will offer membership to the top four students in each section and will then search for the highest-ranking minority member among the next highest-ranking students in the section. If no minority student is found in this group, the Review will select the highest-ranking woman in the group of 25.

Other members said yesterday that a reversal of last week's position is unlikely since some editors who voted against the proposal last week would not do so this week.

Four Review members--including both proponents and opponents of the affirmative action proposal--are attempting to prevent a reconsideration of the Review's position by circulating a petition calling for a boycott of the Wednesday meeting.

"Another meeting will only magnify already intense feelings" about the issues, the petition states, adding that last week's meeting "was fair and reasonable."

To deny the reconsideration meeting a quorum, 41 members would have to boycott the session. A second memo was posted yesterday, urging all editors to attend Wednesday's meeting.

The memo states that "to prevent effective reconsideration of the affirmative action plan is unfair and will only increase alienation and disaffection of those editors who strongly desire the meeting."

Singer said that a boycott of a meeting has never occurred before at the Review.

The general meeting will also consider amendments to the proposal, including whether women should be included in the plan and whether to continue accepting the five highest-ranking students in each section in addition to selecting a minority or woman candidate, thus increasing the number of Review members.

The Review may have trouble securing the detailed grade information it needs to implement the new selection procedure. A committee examining curriculum reform at the Law School is "very seriously considering" a proposal to withhold first year grades from the Law Review, but will probably not make a recommendation on the subject until the end of March, Molly Burke, a student member of the committee, said yesterday.

One reason for witholding grades from the Review is that the grade-based selection at the Law Review "has a negative effect on education at the Law School, because it creates excessive tension for first-year students, and diverts their energies," Burke added