When the Law School Administrative Board last month gave second-year student Michael T. Anderson '83 an official warning for his involvement in the Lowell House blockade, first-year student Jin Lee got angry.

Lee wrote a letter to The Crimson decrying the "injustice" of the Ad Board's decision, calling the Anderson reprimand "the University's latest attempt to stifle campus activism." He was enraged by what he called "the chilling of rightful and desirable student dissent."

After reading Lee's letter, Dean of Students Mary Upton asked Lee to make an appointment to speak with her.

Four days later, Lee wrote another letter to The Crimson. This time he said that "toning down [his original] letter" was necessary because "I believe that I overjudged the severity of the reprimand."

"I withdraw my references to the 'severe' nature of the reprimand, and my implication that the Ad Board may be seeking to chill legitimate dissent as well as curtail improper conduct," he said in a letter printed last week.

Both Lee and Upton have said that the incident was based on basic "misunderstandings," and that the Law School administration made no attempt to pressure him into moderating his dissent.

"I thought that some of his understandings of what had gone on were incorrect. I wanted to clear up any misunderstandings," Upton says.

Lee has since maintained that the purpose of his requested meeting with Upton was merely to discuss some of the opinions he had expressed in his letter.

Lee says he later realized that "it was all a misunderstanding," and that Upton's request was a poorly-worded note asking--but not requiring--him to meet with her.

Nonetheless, some students say that the Lee incident is merely the latest in a series of attempts by the Law School to quell increasingly outspoken student activism.

Divestment activists have pointed to a string of incidents over the past year between students and administrators which they say have given the Law School an air of paranoia and distrust.

One student currently faces disciplinary charges because he mentioned his involvement in anti-apartheid activity last spring during a discussion on another matter with Dean Upton.

Another student, who last week was given a warning by the Ad Board for her involvement in anti-apartheid activity, incriminated herself by defending another student facing disciplinary action.

Other students say that activists quoted in The Crimson on matters relating to Harvard's investments in South Africa-related companies are routinely called in to speak with administrators.

Many of the students directly involved in these incidents--most of whom are connected with the vocal anti-apartheid and divestment movements--say they were not being harassed by the Law School Administration.