A North House senior today will ask the Administrative Board to reconsider its decision to require him to withdraw for one year as punishment for using a racial slur last winter in a phone call to a Black student working at the Currier House bell desk.

The College's chief disciplinary body last Tuesday also handed down the same punishment to four other students who shattered a window near the Black student that same night, less than an hour before that student received the phone call containing a racial slur. The events of that early January morning rocked the Harvard community, spurring a reassessment of racial attitudes on campus.

But in its deliberations last week the Ad Board decided that the four students involved in the window-breaking and Jack C. Patterson '88, who made the phone call with a racial slur, were not acting together. The Ad Board ruled that the window-breaking was not racially motivated.

The Ad Board also will consider today the case of a sixth student, who was Patterson's roommate last winter, who made a second phone call to the Black student at the bell desk five minutes after the one with a racial slur. That second phone call did not contain a racial slur.

Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57, who chairs the Ad Board, would not comment on the cases. He said this was not the first time that the disciplinary body has dealt with racial harassment cases.

Neither Patterson nor his roommate at the time would comment on the cases last night, saying that it "would not be appropriate" for them to speak before their hearings today. Only one of the four students involved in breaking the window could be reached for comment yesterday. That student spoke on the condition that he would not be indentified.

The Crimson has decided to with hold the names of all the students except Patterson, whose case is the only one found to have racial overtones.

If Patterson's appeal is denied, he can take his case to the full Faculty of Arts and Sciences. That body last overturned a disciplinary decision in 1969, Jewett said.

The students who broke the window were not punished for racial harassment. Instead, members of the board were concerned by "the nature of the weapon and the recklessness of using a catapult capable of breaking safety glass at 100 yards," said one Ad Board member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The student disciplined for breaking the window told The Crimson last night that Jewett said an appeal on the window-breaking cases would probably be futile because there was precedent for the punishment.

The consideration of all these cases by the Ad Board comes eight months after the incidents took place in the Quad during the early morning hours of Sunday, January 25.

At about 3:30 a.m., Johnathan O. Williams '88, the Black student working at the bell desk, reported to University police that a plate glass window had been shattered by two oranges. Forty-five minutes later, Williams told police that he had received an anonymous phone call in which a male said, "Negro hit squad strikes again."

He later received a second phone call from a different person who said, "How's the draft in there, man?"

Williams said yesterday that he thought the punishments meted out to the students who broke the window and made the phone call containing a racial slur were "a little strict." Williams said he was not asked to testifybefore the Ad Board.

"I might have wished to see [Patterson] in apublic service activity but you can't force peopleto appreciate other people," Williams said.