LAST WEEK, the Administrative Board forced two students to withdraw for a year and placed three more on disciplinary probation. These rather stiff penalties were meted out for the students' role in an escalating exchange of pranks between two rooms which finally culminated with two students, both of whom were required to withdraw, accidentally igniting some towels. Because the Ad Board meets behind closed doors, the community will never be able to judge the merits of the case.

Whether or not justice was served, the appearance, or at least the possibility, of injustice remains foremost in students minds and the community has been left with the impression of being governened in an arbitrary manner. The structure of the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (CRR) is now coming under review for the very same reason. The Ad Board's procedures also deserve scrutiny.

One of the major reasons for reforming the CRR is to establish disciplinary procedures which are not only fair, but also are recognized as such by students. Such recognition is equally important for the Ad Board. The ongoing review of the CRR by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences will not begin to solve the problem of arriving at legitimate disciplinary procedures without also addressing the closed and paternalistic structure of the Ad Board. Students can not be present at the consideration of their case and are represented by a member of the board that is judging them. They have no rights to question witnesses. The lack of an adversarial forum for deciding charges brought to the Ad Board leaves students with the good will of the administrators that sit in judgment over them as their only assurance of a fair hearing.

The Ad Board's current procedures do offer a variety of benefits, however. Chief among them is efficiency. Also, privacy is sometimes in students' interest, and in many cases students do not feel they are treated unfairly and benefit by quick and confidential handling of their cases. The solution to the problems that arise when this is not the case should be part of the new disciplinary arrangements which are to replace the CRR at the end of the faculty's review process.

What is needed is a judiciary body to which controversial cases can be appealed--whether they arise from political protest or standard disciplinary violations. Such a body should give students the right to an open hearing if they choose and should hold adversarial proceedings which allow both sides to challenge evidence and witnesses. The new judiciary committee should be comprised of students, faculty and administrators. It should be a standing committee to insure prompt action and should abide by strict public guidelines which require timely proceedings and guarantee those charged with specific rights to due process.

All of these protections are equally important for cases arising out of political protest and those arising from more mundane activities. A court of appeal which enshrines these protections for both sorts of charges will avoid the problem of having a separate tribunal to hear charges against political activists, will preserve the advantages of the Ad Board's current system and will guarantee to students something that should have been guaranteed them long ago: namely, that whatever they are accused of doing, they will get a fair hearing at Harvard University.