It was first semester of "Brent's" first year at Harvard. He and his roommate "Dave" had just discovered they shared the same birthday--a date which also happened to fall on Head of the Charles weekend. Brent and Dave spent time planning the party; they let their proctor know in advance it would happen. "At the time," Sam says, "I had the sense Harvard social life was pretty lame. Now I'm just deadened to it." They threw a good party. They served drinks but made sure it didn't get out of control. No property was destroyed, no one was hurt. When another proctor came by and told Sam and Dave to close the party down, they did. They thought that would be the end of the story. They were wrong. They forgot about the Administrative Board, or Ad Board, Harvard's infamous disciplinary body.

Unfortunately for Brent and Dave, theparty was held on the weekend everyone--at leasteveryone except newly arrived first-years--knowsnot to hold parties. It was also just after thenew Massachusetts laws regarding possession ofalcohol by a minor were passed, which didn't helpthe two first-years. They had to presentstatements to the Ad Board and meet with theirsenior advisor. It should have been a routinecase. Instead, Brent and Dave were landed withprobation, a harsher punishment that the onedescribed in the User's Guide for similar cases.

They say they didn't know anything about the AdBoard, anything about the proper procedure andtheir rights. They say they believe their senioradvisor did not argue on their behalf butrecommended the harsh sentence. "She was supposedto be our advocate, but I got the feeling from thestart she was not happy with what we had done,"Sam says. They point to a number of breaks fromprocedure. They say they were asked to sign theStudent-Faculty Judiciary from after their casehad gone before the Board, instead of before aswritten in the rules. They were discouraged fromappearing before the board, and they were informedtheir parents would receive an explanatory letterin the mail; the letter was never sent. InsteadDave told his father, a rabbi, himself. "They'renot treating you with the menschlichkeityou deserve," his father said.

Did Brent and Dave learn from this? "I was sonew to the college it really disillusioned me,"Brent says. "It was not educational. It wasdepressing, frustrating and condescending."

EDUCATE AND PUNISH?

Sam and Dave's case is not uncommon. Ad Boardmembers say the board is meant to be aneducational tool, but many students who have dealtwith it say they simply felt annoyed and angry.Virginia L. Mackay-Smith '78, secretary of theAdministrative Board, emphasizes the Board is nota court with two sides but a body which tries towork with the student to come to a mutualrealization. "There is an expectation that thestudent will engage in a conversation with theBoard," Mackay-Smith says.

Undergraduates say those who understand thatphilosophy, and pander accordingly, get offeasiest since the Board is mainly looking forrepentance and a sense the student learned fromthe experience. Despite the fact most Harvardstudents can figure out how to work the systemfairly quickly, Allan Erbsen '94 warned in aletter to The Harvard Crimson that the Ad Boardmay not be fulfilling its goals. "Even when the AdBoard reaches a 'good' outcome, students are oftenso alienated by the process that they drive noneof the educational benefits that the Ad Board hadhoped to impart to them," Erbsen wrote.

Erbsen was director of Civil Liberties Union ofHarvard (CLUH), an organization which published an85-page report in 1992 on potential Ad Boardreforms. Eric D. Miller '95, CLUH's associatedirector for University Affairs says he thinks theAd Board has improved since CLUH started workingon the problem and monitoring it, but says hestill believes the Ad Board is not entirelyrealistic about its role in the Harvard community."I'd like them to admit they're a judicial body.They see themselves as an educational body."

The Board is composed of all Senior Tutors andadvisors, a number of deans who deal with academiclife, senior faculty members and a few others,including the director of the Core and theRegistrar. The strong faculty presence dates backto the Ad Board's founding in 1890, when thefaculty was the administration. No students are onthe Board, a fact which many undergraduates saythey think should change.

The main accusations leveled at the Ad Boardare the following: the Senior Tutor is usually arepresentative but not an advocate; there is noreal appeals process; students know little aboutthe proper procedures and punishments; and thejurisdiction of the Ad Board is too broad,extending both to small problems better handledlocally and large ones better handled in a courtof law.

SECRECY

One recent proposal by L. Fred Jewett'57, Dean of the College, would make the Ad Boardless secretive by publishing the details andresults of particular cases without including thenames. Mackay-Smith says she supports thisproposal, adding, "I almost wish we could televisethe meetings with blue dots and bleeped outnames."

Confidentiality and secrecy are part of whatmake the Ad Board feared by students, who have noidea what goes on behind the closed doors ofdisciplinary committee meetings. In many cases,this secrecy leads to confusion, since only selectdetails leak out, Certain cases, such as therecent first fight at the D.U. final club or acase involving The Harvard Crimson, are coveredextensively by the campus media but do not alwaysportray all sides of a story. Legendary casesresult--such as the S&M couple who performedconsensual acts in public rather than the privacyof their own room and were required to withdrawfor the year--and the truth is not always clear.Students may say whatever they wish about acertain case, although even that night is notalways known. One student whose story was coveredin The Crimson says he was frustrated he could nottalk about his case. "I was under the impressionthat during the Ad Board investigation we were notsupposed to discuss details."

Todd F. Braunstein's '97 case was muchpublicized, in large part because it involved TheHarvard Crimson. Braunstein, a Crimson editor, wasaccused by the Undergraduate Council oftrespassing and tampering with council property.He entered the council offices for the purposes ofrecording potential ballot stuffing, by means of akey he believed a Council member provided.Braunstein's case was essentially dismissed,; hereceived a "scratch," which exonerates the studentcompletely of any wrongdoing. Despite hisagreement with the decision reached, Braunsteinstill says the system could have been better. Inparticular he would have liked the opportunity tocross-examine his accusers, a feature of the legalsystem that many students say they wish the AdBoard shared. "I agree with making everythingpublic. The Ad Board should be held accountable.In an academic setting dedicated to veritasthe Administration shouldn't be afraid of havingtheir decisions questioned in a public forum,"Braunstein argues.

E. Michelle Drake '97, director of CLUH, alsofinds the Board's secrecy problematic. "Even theFederal Justice System doesn't bother to deletethe names [of alleged offenders]," she proclaims.

Braunstein also says he supports the additionof a jury of one's peers, although he admitsstudents would probably have been harsher on himdue to his affiliation with The Crimson. Studentsare actually on the Student-Faculty JudiciaryCommittee, which conducts open hearings, but theyhear only new cases never dealt with before by theAd Board. In most cases, Senior Tutors do not evensuggest the Committee as on option. The User'sGuide states "No disciplinary case may proceed ifthe student charged has not had a chance to makethis decision." However, a few students havecomplained they were not informed of thepossibility until after going before the Board.This seems to be a trend; even when alternativeoptions are available and certain rights allowed,students are often not aware of them.

OUT OF BOUNDS?

Students often try to compare the AdBoard to a court of law, which administrators saysimply is not the case. Jeffrey Wolcowitz,vice-chair of the Board says it is not a judge orJury but "an educational tool." Nevertheless,since requirement to withdraw from Harvard candrastically affect a student's life, many say theywish the standards for evidence were higher. "A1,"who recently came before the board says he feltthe Board's decision to place him on probation wasnot unfair but believes "in a court of law I'dhave been sitting back and relaxing."

Drake notes the Ad Board process seems toconflict with the ideas of due process. "It'sdifficult when there are two systems and one is somuch more superficial. It's difficult to knowabout the correct relationship between the Adboard and the regular legal community," she pointsout. Keith Light, a former senior advisor forCanaday who served on the Ad Board for two years,says he recognized that "the biggest dilemma ofthe board is working with a standard that fits auniversity setting given there is also a standardthat governs the legal system. Beyond a shadow ofa doubt' does not have to apply to the Ad Board."Although Light states he believes the Board bendsover backwards to ensure a fair decision is made,there are "inevitably limitations to a large bodythat attempts to hear difficult and complexcases."

If the crime is less clear and the accuseddenies committing it, the role of a fair processis more important. "Tom" was accused of a crime hesays he didn't commit and required to withdraw fortwo years. He says he is frustrated by the AdBoard's role as judge and jury and theA-1