A third-year Harvard Law Review editor confronted president Emily R. Schulman '85 on Tuesday about rumors that she or her lawyer had written a letter claiming that her troubles at the journal are a result of anti-Semitism.

But Schulman reportedly refused to confirm or deny the allegation at the time, and her lawyer refused to comment on the rumor when contacted yesterday by The Crimson.

Isobel Jones, the editor, said she accosted Schulman at the Review and demanded to know if such a letter had been written to the Review's board of trustees or the special investigator of the ongoing probe.

Schulman, who is Jewish, is currently under investigation for allegedly making racist and sexist remarks and for alleged abuse of power.

Jones said she wanted to be fair and ask Schulman about the letter before taking any action. But Jones, who converted to Judaism in 1989, said Schulman would not comment on the allegedletter or the investigation when confronted.

"I indicated that I thought I had a right toknow if she called me an anti-Semite," Jones said.

"When she said that she had not done so, Iasked the next obvious question: `Then it's nottrue that you have said what is happening is theresult of anti-Semitism, made worse because Jewsare involved?'" she added.

"Then she said that she had no comment, andthat was as much of an answer as I was going toget," Jones continued.

Schulman did not return repeated phone calls toher home yesterday afternoon and last night.

Following the confrontation, Jones met with LawSchool Dean Robert C. Clark on Wednesday to talkabout "various things" including the allegedletter. Jones said she told the dean that thereport, when completed by the investigator and theboard of trustees, should be made public--at leastto the editors of the Review.

Clark last night declined to comment on thealleged letter or the investigation.

But he did say many students have approachedhim regarding the dispute at the Review, and hewill consider Jones' recommendation that the finaldecision be made public.

Schulman's lawyer, Nancy Gertner, also declinedyesterday to confirm or deny if she had written aletter saying that Schulman was a victim ofanti-Semitism.

"Both sides in this investigation haveregularly and confidentially communicated with theboard of trustees and with the investigator,"Gertner said.

But Gertner complained that the impartiality ofthe pending decision is in jeopardy because somuch information has leaked out.

"I would like to know how the communications ofany of us were released to the media....If thisinvestigation is to be fair, the information mustbe kept out of the media until a decision ismade," she said.

The investigator contracted by the Review'sboard of trustees, Boston attorney Ralph D. Gants'76, would neither confirm nor deny yesterday ifhe had received the alleged letter.

"I'm not going to comment on thecorrespondences involved with the investigation,"he said.

Jones said she told other Review editors abouther discussion with Schulman because "I thoughtthey should know what had happened."

Another Review editor, who spoke on conditionof anonymity, said yesterday that she heardthatSchulman's lawyer had written a letterregarding an anti-Semitic charge. The editor saidshe didn't see Schulman involved in the argumentTuesday, but she said "it may very well havehappened."

The dispute over charges of anti-Semitism isthe latest development in the ongoing probe of theReview president.

The controversy began at a September 30 staffmeeting when four Black women editors chargedSchulman of racism.

According to some third-year editors, Schulmansaid that allowing a Black woman to edit anarticle written by Assistant Professor of LawCharles J. Ogletree Jr., who is Black, "would be adisaster."

Some editors also alleged that Schulmandiscouraged a female classmate from seeking toadvance in the Law Review hierarchy, because thatwould mean "too many women in leadershippositions."

Schulman has repeatedly denied accusations thatshe made the racist and sexist comments.

On October 4, the staff took an unprecedentedvote of "no confidence" in Schulman. The voteended in a tie, with Schulman voting for herself.

In November, the Review's board of trusteescontracted Gants, the special investigator, toexamine the charges.

A decision was to have been reached bymid-December.

But Gants, who has met with Schulman's attorneyand the attorney of the four Black third-yeareditors said "that timetable had to bere-evaluated.