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.

"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.

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.