Oppenheimer said the meeting was "not the initiation of the disciplinary process," but was merely a discussion for his own future reference.

Adam K. Richards '96, one of the demonstrators, said yesterday that the protest was not specifically intended to interfere with the class.

"The point of the demonstration was not to disrupt the classroom experience per se," Richards said, emphasizing that he was speaking for himself and not for the group.

"It was to highlight and bring attention to Harvey Mansfield's specific politics and how he uses them, specifically in regards to his testimony in Colorado as an 'expert witness' against homosexual sex," Richards said.

Mansfield said his intention in asking Lewis about the disruption's legality was not to get the demonstrators in trouble.

"I think there was a certain levity and that they didn't quite realize how serious this is," Mansfield said, adding that he only wanted to give the demonstrators warning that such behavior would not be tolerated in his classroom.

"I don't remember even from the late 1960s the actual invasion of a classroom," Mansfield said. "Worse things were done and passions were much higher, but so far as I recall it wasn't done in the classroom."

Clayton said yesterday that Mansfield's objections were unfounded.

"I don't know that the class even lasted two hours, so I really doubt we infringed on anyone's time, because I doubt they used all their time," Clayton said. "If they had asked us to leave, we would have done so immediately.

Final clubs and other groups disrupt class with streaking and other pranks, Clayton said, and are not reprimanded.

"Basically it just appears that Harvey Mansfield is using his clout to try to squash any opposition to him," Clayton said.

Mansfield's objection could even backfire, Clayton said.

"The more attention we receive from people struggling to sort of punish us, the more attention the act will get, and in the end a larger audience will reach what we have to say," he said