Ryan, in the University's filing, argues that the new documents do not prove that the meeting ever took place.

One of the 12 new exhibits submitted by Lawsonalso includes drafts of pages which were changedbefore being entered into school files. One draftshows that a reference to McArthur had beenremoved and the other shows that what Lawson andJackson contend is a favorable evaluation of herwork in the 1983 subcommittee report was omitted.

Harvard's response says that the changed wordsare of no consequence, McArthur's role in the casewas widely-known and that all that was deletedfrom the report was "a very tepid appraisal of[Jackson's] creativity."

The documents filed last week with the court byLawson also included McArthur's handwritten notesof a meeting with Jackson, despite the dean'ssworn statement that he never keeps such notes.

Ryan writes in the University's filing that, onMcArthur's part, "failure to recall the existenceof these notes, taken years before, is surely nota matter that materially affects the issues in thecase."

The University's compliance in the case hasbeen at issue since court documents revealed that10 years' worth of sensitive tenure documentsrequested by the court were incinerated byHarvard. The University maintains that thedestruction was inadvertent