However, "she should've told the truth," St.Germain said.
Another senior, who asked not to be identified,said Harvard had the right to rescind Grant'sapplication in light of what she said during herinterview, but said Grant's situation wasextremely difficult.
The rescinding "is understandable, but when youwant to get into school very, very much and feelthat that [information] can interfere with yourdreams, you're not sure what to do," the seniorsaid. "It's very tough to make that judgment callin this situation, for Gina and for the public."
Looking Forward
The facts of the Grant case may never becomefully known. Grant has repeatedly shied away frompublic comment, and Harvard has refused to offerany information beyond its first press releaseannouncing the decision to rescind the admissionoffer.
Although Harvard appears to have annulled theoffer because of Grant's alleged misrepresentationin her interview, the case has raised questionsover both the candor a school can fairly requireof applicants and the extent to which juvenileproceedings are truly confidential.
Grant's 1990 trial was covered extensively bythe local media, even though the actual courtpapers were sealed by Family Court Judge MarcWestbrook. Harvard, Rindge and Latin and theBoston Globe found out about Grant's past afterreceiving anonymous packages containing pressclipping from the trial.
The case has also left doubt as to whetherjuvenile offenders can check off "no" on theCommon Application section that asks whether anapplicant has been placed on probation, beensuspended or voluntarily left school. The initialscrutiny of the case focused on Grant's decisionto mark off "no."
Michael C. Behnke, director of admissions atthe Massachusetts Institute of Technology, saidthe Grant case might cause schools to