Students who receive probation from the Administrative Board no longer must petition to remain active in extracurricular activities, members of the Board said this week.

Under reformed rules for the College's chief disciplinary body, probation is a very serious warning which places students under severe risk of being asked to withdraw. Students will only be forced to quit extracurriculars if the Board believes participation affects the problem.

Students can also receive a "warning," a less severe admonition or, in a serious offense, be asked to take a year off or withdraw from the College.

In the past, students placed on probation could petition the Ad Board for permission to participate in non-academic activities. But the Board--composed of faculty, senior tutors, first-year advisors and administrators--said that since nearly every petition has been accepted in recent years, the Board decided to review whether the non-participation contingency is fair.

And members said the change marks an evolution in the disciplinary body's view of the punitive role of extracurriculars.

"There has always been a question of whether it was a fair provision, since people who were deeply engaged in activities were hit harder than students who were not active," said Henry C. Moses, the dean of first-year students.

Moses headed the subcommittee charged with the probation question last year. He said the committee focused on whether extracurricular participation is a privilege or a part of the educational process.

"Even though the practice of participation was in place, the debate about participation went on," Moses said. He said the Board reached a consensusthat in cases where participation in outsideactivity is not related to the student's problem,it is unnecessary for the student to stop.

Reform of Board policies may continue ifmembers choose to react to procedural questionsraised by an inquiry launched two weeks ago by theCivil Liberties Union of Harvard (CLUH).

Among other concerns, CLUH members have saidthey are dissatisfied with the policy of havingsenior tutors represent students. CLUH Chair JamesF. Ryan '91 said students should instead beallowed to choose representation from someoneoutside the disciplinary body.

But Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 andother Board members said this week that studentsare better served when those presenting their caseunderstand the group's rules and precedents.

"You have to understand that the members of theAd Board are always thinking, 'Is this studentgetting a fair shake?" Moses said. "A senior tutoris always subject to the scrutiny of the othermembers of the Board."

"The Board does not see itself as an adversaryof the students," Moses added. "We try to workwith the students. But the minute we bring inoutside counsel, immediately we go to the'we-they' mode."

Individuals can also request advocacy from aspecific panel of Ad Board members in lieu of thesenior tutor or make a personal appearance.

The student-Faculty Judicial Board offersanother alternative, Jewett said. But that boardhas heard only one case since its creation a yearago.

Students have also charged that the Ad Board'sconfidentiality hinders its effectiveness. Onestudent charged that she could not find out theoutcome of a sexual harassment case in which shewas involved.

But while the dean said that in most cases theAd Board tries to informally notify all parties ofthe action taken, the group is still bound by lawto safeguard confidentiality.

"We're not allowed to broadcast [decisions],"Jewett said. "A student has a right to keep thingsabout their record private.