Advertisement

Grant Case May Be Over, But Questions Persist

Attorney Says Teenager Did Not Lie to Alumni Interviewer; Concerns Over Juvenile Anonymity, Admit Process Remain

Dershowitz said the "leaks" made by members ofthe faculty admissions committee wereinappropriate, but added that "the community has aright to know what happens."

"This has become a public case," he said."There's no sense in keeping this confidential."

Media and Students

Nearly all involved in Grant's case agree theevent has become something of a media circus.

On Wednesday afternoon, nearly 80 reporters,camera operators and photographers converged onRadcliffe Yard as a slightly smaller number ofprotesters outside Byerly Hall demanded thatHarvard re-examine its decision.

Advertisement

Hundreds of journalists descended on the Yardand the Houses, interviewing students andemployees.

Dershowitz debated Burnham on ABC's "Nightline"Tuesday night, and Boston University PresidentJohn R. Silber said he would welcome Grant if sheapplied to B.U.

Told of yesterday's new developments, however,B.U. spokesperson Michelle Cooley said theuniversity had no comment.

Undergraduate Council President Joshua D.Liston '95, who organized the student rally onWednesday, appeared on three networks and in theBoston Globe.

Crimson President Andrew L. Wright '96 spoke onNational Public Radio and CBS' "This Morning"yesterday morning. Other students appeared inmedia sources ranging from the Associated Pressnews wire to local radio stations.

The Grant case divided newspaper editorialpages as well.

The Crimson printed a staff editorial Wednesdaysaying Harvard was correct in its decision becauseof the nature of Grant's offense.

The Boston Globe printed a staff editorialTuesday, which also agreed with the rescinding ofGrant's admission. "Sealed juvenile records mayeradicate the paper trail of the murder, but thefact of the crime is not so easily dismissed," theGlobe editorial read.

The New York Times' editorial staff disagreed.In an editorial published yesterday, titled"Harvard's Unseemly Haste," the Times condemnedHarvard's decision in strong terms.

"Harvard has a right to make hasty decisions onincomplete facts, but it has no right to useprimitive public relations techniques to raisesuspicions about offenses that never occurred,"the Times editorial read.

Advertisement