A page of notes by President Neil L. Rudenstine was used as a court exhibit by the U.S. government in its antitrust case against MIT, according to the court documents.

The documents, obtained by The Crimson under the Freedom of Information act, include several mentions of Rudenstine and refer to activity the Department of Justice regards as tuition price-fixing.

In an interview yesterday, Rudenstine defended his actions as provost of Princeton University in the early 1980s.

Rudenstine hesitated to comment on aspects of the antitrust case, which was recently tried and is yet to be decided. Still, he said Princeton and other colleges participated in non "price-rigging."

"In my view we did not do anything that is unlawful," Rudenstine said.

The first court document involving Rudenstine is a handwritten note marked with his initials. It contains a list of universities: Harvard, Penn., MIT, Stanford, Brown, Yale. Next to the names of the colleges is a list of administrators, some of them provosts. The Harvard entry names then-Dean of the Faculty Henry Rosovsky.

Scribbled and circled beside each entry is a percentage figure, presumably representing the tuition increase each school planned for the coming academic year.

Rudenstine said the disorganized, vague and unsystematic nature of the information on the paper is good evidence that the schools were not engaged in collusion.

Because many Ivy League schools were absent from the sheet and some non-Ivies--Stanford and MIT--were listed, Rudenstine said the paper showed no evidence of a scheme within the Ivy League.

"It's not a group that's clearly going to make common decisions," he said.

"It's relevant only as a kind of scattershot of what the range is likely to be across the country," Rudenstine said.

Moreover, Rudenstine said the broad range of prospective increases, from 5 to 10 percent, would not have beenhelpful to someone intending to fix prices.Finally, Rudenstine said the would have preparedsuch notes only after a Princeton committee hadalready decided that college's tuition increasefor the next year.

He said he might have collected suchinformation in order to respond to questions frommembers of Princeton's board of Trustees, whomight have been curious to see how Princeton'splanned tuition increase compared to those atother institutions. Rudenstine said he has noqualms about having assembled such information.

Another part of the court record involvingRudenstine comes from a February, 1992 depositionby former Princeton President William G. Bowen.

Bowen was asked by Justice Department DrewPearson, "Do you recall whether this year, meaningthe winter of 1982-83, Provost Rudenstine obtainedprospective fee information from other schools?"

Bowen answered that he had no way of recallingthat.

Pearson also asked about meetings between IvyLeague provosts. "Did Princeton's Provost obtainprospective budget and fee information at thosemeetings?" Pearson asked.

Bowen answered, "It's possible; he could wellhave. I don't know that he did. He and I dividedwork."

In yesterday's interview, Rudenstine answeredquestions about the provost meetings in the sameway he responded to queries about otheractivities. The colleges, he said, never made asystematic, organized, deliberate effort to aligntheir tuitions.

Rudenstine said that at the time of theactivities in question, no one had ever criticizedthe universities' policy of cooperating todetermine financial need. Concerns about antitrustlaws hardly crossed the minds of universityofficials, he said.

The Ivy League colleges signed a consent decreein the spring of 1991 in which they agreed not toshare tuition, salary or financial aidinformation. In return, the Justice Departmentdropped an antitrust suit it had filed against theinstitutions