"There's no doubt that the Ad Board would like to see student dissent--especially dissent that involves civil disobedience in any way--muted," says Jennifer Granholme, who found herself before the Ad Board after defending fellow activist Michael T. Anderson '83. "But I don't think that they're really malevolent about it, using things like spy tactics to stop student speech."

But others say the actions of Law School administrators are intimidating in a community where a bad mark on a transcript can seriously set back a legal career.

"I don't think the administration or Dean Upton has a particularly evil intent to quell free speech," says third-year student Douglas Hagerman. "I just don't think that they have an adequate understanding of the implications of being called in [to Upton's office]."

Some students activists claim that the Law School administration is cracking down on students who incriminate themselves, sometimes unwittingly.

Hagerman says the discipline currently pending for his involvement in the Lowell House blockade stems from a private conversation he had with Upton after the protest.

"The afternoon of the protest [May 2] I walked into Mary Upton's office about a totally unrelated thing," he says. After telling her that he had attended the protest, Hagerman says, Upton asked him if he was involved in the blockade.

According to Hagerman, he responded, "It's hard to tell who was involved and who wasn't."

Hagerman says that he subsequently received a letter from Ad Board Chairman Frank E. A. Sander '48, asking him to detail his participation in the blockade. Hagerman refused.

He subsequently received a letter informing him of disciplinary proceedings into his alleged involvement in the blockade. Hagerman maintains that the hearings--which could be held as early as next week--are based on his conversation with Upton.

Both Upton and Sander have refused comment on the matter.

Some students also question the Ad Board handing of the Granholme case, questioning the fairness of bringing charges against a student who reveals illicit behavior while defending another.

But Sander last week told The Crimson, "The Fifth Amendment says you cannot be forced to incriminate yourself. She was not forced to testify."

Granholme, who came forward voluntarily on Anderson's behalf, says she understood the risks she took in testifying. "We [the Ad Board and I] had not made any deals beforehand about immunity," she says. "They [the Ad Board] were really trying not to bring charges against me, but because I implicated myself, they really had no choice."

Granholme adds, however, that the Ad Board's action could potentially quell student speech. "I'm pretty sure that defense witnesses might be reluctant to testify about things that they may have participated in," she says.

The Granholme case was not the first time the Ad Board has stirred controversy over self-incriminating evidence. Last spring, when 119 law students signed a petition of solidarity with those participating in the 17 Quincy St. sit-in, asking for the same punishment as 10 protesters who received official disciplinary warnings, the Ad Board decided to take them up on their offer.