Students debated the morality of Harvard's decision to rescind Gina Grant's admission in a fiery mudslinging match at the Institute of Politics last night.

Although no new information was uncovered in the debate, panelists "raised important issues about the justice of the system," according to E. Michelle Drake '97, the event's coordinator and chair of the Harvard Political Union.

Grant served six months in a juvenile correction facility in South Carolina after pleading no contest to the killing of her mother, Dorothy May field, in 1990.

The Faculty Standing Committee on Admissions and Financial Aid voted this month to rescind Grant's admission after learning that she had lied to her alumni interviewer about her role in her mother's death.

The debate's tone was hostile from the outset. Panelist Stephen E. Frank '95, former Crimson editorial chair, opened his remarks with a personal attack on Undergraduate Council President Josh D. Liston '95.

"Josh has claimed at various times to represent himself, the U.C., or Gina Grant, but to me his actions seem hypocritical," Frank said. "He's made every effort for publicity."

Liston, who was originally slated as a panelist, was replaced by Derek T. Ho '96, president of the Harvard-Radcliffe College Democrats and co-managing editor of the Perspective.

"Josh [Liston] didn't come because Gina didn't want any more media attention," Drake said.

Frank teamed with David B. Lat '96, associate editorial chair of The Crimson,to argue in favor of Harvard's decision.

"Gina Grant falls short [of Harvard admissionsstandards] because the act of murder that shecommitted was particularly brutal," Frank said.

Frank waved a copy of the autopsy report at theaudience and explained in detail the brutality ofthe slaying, emphasizing that Grant struck hermother 13 times.

"Count to 13," he said. "Do it out loud. Ittakes a long time."

"If she picked up a gun and killed her motherin one clean shot, that would be different," headded.

Ho and Scott Shuchart '97, senior editor of thePerspective, argued against Frank and Lat, sayingthe Juvenile justice system should guarantee Grantan equal opportunity, despite her crime.

"The system views offenders as children," Hosaid. "Their temporarily misguided behavior can becorrected."

Ho and Shuchart argued that the case had beendecided by the legal system, and that Harvard hasno right to question that decision.

"We have to look at it in light of the Judge'sdecision," Ho said.

"The misrepresentation was not malicious," Hoadded. "It was an attempt to secure for herselfwhat the justice system promised her and that is anew start."

Frank and Lat lambasted Shuchart's positionthat Grant had reformed since killing her mothernearly five years ago.

"We can't draw a clean and easy dichotomybetween who we are today and who we were in thepast," Lat said. "I'm no physics major but Ibelieve that time is a continuum."

Shuchart replied by calling Lat's arguments"metaphysical cheap shots."

Despite the hostility that characterized thedebate, members of the moderately-sized audiencesaid they enjoyed the discussion.

"They were at each other's throats, but that'sthe nature of the debate," said Ronald Newman, aCambridge resident