The Harvard Law Review has voted to stand by a controversial policy change that reduces the importance of students' grades as criteria for membership.

At a closed meeting Tuesday night, editors of the prestigious student-run journal of legal opinion rejected a faculty recommendation that grades be reinstated as selection standards in conjunction with scores from a writing competition.

Last February, under pressure from first-year students who organized a 400-signature petition drive, the Review abandoned a policy of selecting half of its members on the sole basis of first-year grades. The petition charged that grade based selections were arbitrary and inequitable.

In place of the old policy, the Review adopted a two-track selection process that relies heavily on a writing competition. The new admissions policy will take effect next year.

Faculty Pressure

Earlier this fall, an ad hoc faculty committee on Law Review selection proposed that grades be made a roughly equal factor in both tracks of the competition. A plan drafted by Professor of Law Paul C. Weiler called for the use of grades to up the balance when writing scores were closely grouped.

But the Law Review rejected that proposal by a large majority. The magazine resolved that some positions should be "open to anyone who takes the writing competition without reference to their first-year grades," said third-year law student and Review President Robert D. Fram.

Top Dog

Fram added that the exclusive use of grades contributed to a "winner-take all" phenomenon whereby first-year students with the highest marks captured the larger part of extracurricular as well as academic honors.

"I'm pleased that the Law Review will no longer be in the business of certifying the first four students in a Law School section," he commented.

Second-year law student Carol S. Steiker '82, who coordinated last year's protest, called the Review's decision "a step in the right direction" and said it represents a commitment to downplaying the importance of grades.

Steiker, now a Review editor, proposed that grades be eliminated altogether, but her plan was voted down.

Professor of Law Richard B. Stewart, who heads the ad hoc committee, disagreed with Steiker's charge that grades are relatively arbitrary selection criteria.

"The Review's competition is one exam graded by two editors and one professor. Grades are based on six exams, graded by six professors over the course of a year," he said.