The Board wrote a letter to the students, asking them to describe their participation in the protest. Most had admitted demonstrating outside the building during the protest.

But the petitioners, by and large, did not comply with the Ad Board's request. Rather, they drafted a letter to the Law School faculty, asking it to "monitor the Ad Board's proceedings."

"Inquisitorial methods of fact-finding should not be used to chill legitimate protest," the letter read. "The Ad Board has no right to force us to be our own prosecutors." Charges were never brought against any of the petitioners.

The Ad Board has no right to force us to be our own prosecutors." Charges were never brought against any of the petitioners.

The Ad Board tried to curb subsequent protest in a notice printed in the Law School Advisor, the official Law School publication, at the beginning of the academic year.

The notice, which some students have called intimidating, began with a short explanation of the punishments the Ad Board handed down in response to an April sit-in at the headquarters of Harvard's Governing Boards at 17 Quincy St. But the notice went on to warn that the Ad Board "expects all students to express their views in a manner consistent with the Resolution [on Rights and Responsibilities]; any student who fails to do so may face serious disciplinary sanctions rather than the Warnings issued in connection with this incident."

Some students feel that the notice was a threat to step up punishment with any further protest. "The notice was clearly an attempt to chill free speech," Hagerman says.

Some students also complain that controversial quotes in The Crimson are a sure way of being summoned to speak with Upton. They point to an incident last month in which outspoken activist Jamin B. Raskin '83 told The Crimson that the "administration rounded up the usual suspects" in the Lowell House investigation, and that there "were headhunters on the Ad Board who smelled blood this time." Upton immediately called him in to discuss the matter.

Although some students have called this incident an example of administrative intimidation, both Raskin and Upton say their meeting was not an attempt to pressure Raskin.

"If something upsets me about Harvard, I'll go to Dean Upton to talk to her. If something upsets Dean Upton about me, she'll come talk to me. That's all right," Raskin says.

Upton also says her reasons for calling Raskin in were legitimate. "If people are willing to be quoted in the paper," they are accountable for it, she says. "I have some First Amendment rights, too."

Raskin adds, however, that Upton's action could have chilling consequences on other students. "I thought that Dean Upton was calling me in on a personal basis and not on an institution basis. But I think that she has to realize that she has an institutional responbsibility and her actions are perceived as institutional actions," he says.

Many alleged examples of "1984"-style intimidation at the Law School are also largely a matter of perception, say many of the students involved in the relevant incidents. '"Harassment' is an awfully strong word," Granholme says.

But administration attempts to quiet protest have often been awkwardly applied and susceptible to misinterpretation, students say.

Further, there is not yet a clear understanding of whether the Law School is seeking to suppress free speech or irresponsible protest.

"There is some disagreement about what's legitimate and what's illegitimate," Hagerman says.