Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III has charged students identified as having participated in a blockade of a South African official with a series of charges that include violating the official's rights and acting immaturely.

In a strongly worded letter to one of the students, Epps wrote that the protest actions "involved serious disregard for college rules and for the welfare of others."

Epps informed the approximately 15 students identified by the University as being involved in the blockade that they face charges for putting South African Vice Consul Duke Kent-Brown "in physical fear of his safety...,[for having] participated in a forceable blockade," and for interfering with University police.

The students will also face possible punishment for their failure to obey an officer of the University and to act "with the maturity and responsibility expected of Harvard students," the letter read.

In addition, approximately three of the 15 will face an additional charge of having lied to Epps when they assured him "that the Vice Consul's speech would not be disrupted," the letter read.

One student also has been charged with having "attempted to obstruct" the vice consul by grabbing his arm, protesters said. It is not yet known who this student is.

Epps refused yesterday to comment on the charges or the case, which is before the Administrative Board.

The students, who are all members of the Southern Africa Solidarity Committee (SASC), criticized the complaints calling them "absurd."

"Epps's letter contains grammatical errors, factual errors and logical errors," said protester Judith R. Barish '88.

"It's obvious that Epps is incensed," Barish said. "He is so furious that he has lost a certain amount of perspective," she said.

Barish specifically criticized the charge that the Vice Consul was in physical danger as "ridiculous."

One of those students accused of lying to Epps said he thought the charge was unjust.

Mithchell A. Orenstein '89, said that he told Epps before the speech that SASC did not plan to disturb the event. Orenstein said he did not think that statement was a lie because the blockade did not necessarily have to disturb the speech.

"I didn't reveal the whole truth to him but I don't think I have to," Orenstein said. "He put me on the spot--slightly unfairly--and I told him as much as I think I could have while being consistent," he said.

The protestors claimed that the University's mishandling of the situation prevented them from identifying several participants in the blockade. The protestors said not all the students who participated in the blockade have been identified by the University.

The students defended their blockade as a legitimate act of civil disobedience and criticized Epps for not having instructed them to dismantle their blockade or having them arrested.

"The university didn't go through any of the proper procedures." Orenstein said.

"They didn't arrest us. They didn't take outIDs. They don't even know who the hell was there,"Orenstein said.

The University has used photographic evidenceto identify those students involved in the protestaction, official said.

Although members of the Ad Board would notdiscuss the specific handling of the case,protesters said officials with whom they hadspoken said a sub-committee of the Board ispreparing to look into individual cases.

This smaller body will determine the severityof punishments protesters may face. If thestudents face the possibility of punishments ofprobation or more, they are entitled to appearbefore the board