Over the past month, there has been a large outcry in response to the Administrative Board's decision to put me on disciplinary probation. In reaction to that decision, The Crimson has published numerous editorials and articles, a heated debate has developed on an Internet newsgroup, professors have been overheard discussing the decision and the president of The Crimson has met with Dean of Students Archie C. Epps and Secretary of the Administrative Board Virginia L. Mackay-Smith '78. Fifteen Minutes's strip "Roommates" by Joshua J. Schanker '98 has repeatedly mocked the Ad Board, and the Undergraduate Council has proposed two bills. Students I've never met have written me e-mails sympathizing with my plight, the Civil Liberties Union of Harvard (CLUH) has contacted me about the decision, House Tutors have offered their support and my case was even discussed in a Gen Ed 105 section.

At first the debate concentrated only on the unfairness of the Ad Board's judgment on my case, but it has now grown to concern the proper procedure and structure of the Ad Board within the Harvard community. The majority opinion appears to be that the Ad Board was not justified to punish me for the article. Although the Ad Board's decision still irks me, I am more concerned with the injustice that will be meted out by the Ad Board in the future if something is not done. Before the Ad Board is able to brush this incident under the table, we, the members of the Harvard-Radcliffe community, should call for student representation on the Ad Board.

For those of you who haven't kept up, here's a summary of the case: On October 15, I was officially put on disciplinary probation after writing a column for Fifteen Minutes' first issue of this academic year. For the column, I called Room 13 and pretended to be a first-year who was very happy at Harvard but was thinking of switching schools because he had just discovered that Harvard was ranked third by U.S. News and World Report. The FM editors, who had originally proposed the idea, found it amusing and decided to publish it.

An employee at the Bureau of Study Council (not a student at Room 13, an organization I consider essential for the Harvard community) Ad Boarded me. My case was heard by the Ad Board (composed of the various deans and Harvard administrators), and I was put on probation. As a result, my permanent transcript was sullied (in Harvard's first disciplinary action against me), I was forced to stop writing "Prank Files" or risk leaving Harvard and my family was contacted by the administration. I was irked and wrote an editorial in The Crimson denouncing the Ad Board's decision on October 21, as everything I had done was legal and not related to academics.

Meanwhile, four students I have never met were drafting two bills to be brought up by the Undergraduate Council. Thomas Kelleher '99 and Sozi Sozinho '97 created a bill denouncing the Ad Board's decision, and Justin Jones '97 and Eli Ceryak '99, with the support of the creators of the first bill, drafted another calling for student representation on the Ad Board.

On another front, Crimson President Todd F. Braunstein '97 and an associate editor of FM, Michael R. Colton '97, set a date to meet with Dean Epps and Dean Mackay-Smith. When they arrived, Epps and Mackay-Smith said they could not talk about the specifics of my case; despite the fact I had just published an editorial describing the case in detail, they claimed to need my official permission. Of course, the deans had known of the meeting for nearly a week in advance and had failed to mention this requirement to any of the students involved. During this meeting, Mackay-Smith hinted to Colton and Braunstein that there was more to this case than I had revealed in my editorial, although she claimed that the University's policies on confidentiality did not allow her to explain the situation to them. Colton and Braunstein told me about their meeting, so I e-mailed Mackay-Smith, asking her to meet about the Ad Board decision and about these mysterious "other circumstances" about which Colton and Braunstein were concerned.

Two days later she responded to my e-mail, asking me what we would be meeting about and telling me that she could not respond to my second question until she knew what we would be meeting about. Her stonewalling was beginning to annoy me. I wrote back with a list of questions I had concerning the Ad Board, its processes and the possibility of appeal. I then, once again, politely asked her to tell me before we met what these unknown circumstances were so I could look into them. Her reply to this message was terse and again begged the question.

During this time, the Crimson published articles related to the Ad Board every few days. Two letters to the editor denounced the Ad Board's decision, and two news articles described the bills being presented to the Undergraduate Council. Shawn C. Zeller '97, the Crimson's ombudperson, wrote a column questioning whether I had a previous record with the Ad Board that influenced its decision (no) and arguing that this was not an issue of freedom of the press. I would argue with Zeller's conclusion that this sordid affair has nothing to do with freedom of the press (I would not have been Ad Boarded had the "Prank Files" not been published), but I agree with him that the primary issue should be the legitimacy of the punishment.

When I finally met with Dean Mackay-Smith, she was initailly very friendly. But when I started asking questions about the Ad Board, she told me to look in the Ad Board User's Guide. Her disposition changed dramatically when I told her I had already read the User's Guide from cover to cover but had not found the answers there. She then called her secretary into her office to sit next to her--presumably to remind me of her authority.

In response to my query about these "other circumstances" which she had earlier alluded to, she explained that she did not think I had focused enough in my editorial of October 21 on the college's stance that I was misusing college resources. (Braunstein and Colton had, understandably, both interpreted her comment as implying a factual omission.) I then asked her whether the Ad Board had the right to punish legal, non-academic behavior, she replied that it did. When I asked her to explain this prerogative, she said that because I was a member of the Harvard community I had to obey the rules of the Harvard community.

Mackay-Smith finished our meeting by demanding--and having her secretary make--a copy of the notes I had taken. I left wondering how the Ad Board could claim to operate on behalf of the Harvard community when the majority of students disagreed with its actions.

On November 7, the Crimson independently published a news analysis by Jal D. Mehta '99 titled "Disciplinary Decisions Lack Student Participation." This article analyzed the neglected Student-Faculty Judicial Board (SFJB), a disciplinary committee composed of faculty and student members. According to Mehta's article, the SFJB was established in 1987 in response to demands from the Undergraduate Council. The numbers show the SFJB has failed its goal miserably: The User's Guide to the Ad Board notes that only one case has been decided by the Student-Faculty Board in its nine years of existence.

As Mehta reported in his article, only one in 500 students makes use of the Student-Faculty Judicial Board (according to CLUH). The option of the Student-Faculty Board is a chimera: Students who try to have their cases heard by the SFJB are often stonewalled, students are frequently counseled against the SFJB by their senior tutors (I know I was) and some students who request the Student-Faculty Judicial Board (SFJB) are denied it. A conflict of interests is institutionalized In Harvard's disciplinary procedure. It just does not make sense for the individuals who choose whether your case will bypass the Ad Board to be...the Ad Board.

I went to my first Undergraduate Council meeting last night after discovering that the bill calling for the council to condemn my punishment was to be discussed. I met the directors of the bill for the first time, who explained to me how the council works. When it was time for the bill to be introduced, Jones and Ceryak gave me a chance to speak. I said that although I appreciated the sentiments behind the bill, I thought its passage might hinder the more important goal of gaining student voices on the Ad Board. Although it would be satisfying to see the Ad Board condemned, this punitive measure would in all likelihood be shrugged off by the administration and could even hinder an attempt to achieve true reform of the Ad Board.

I asked for the bill concerning my case to be dismissed, in the hope that doing so would help to focus attention on the underlying structural problems of the Ad Board. I instead requested that the council should direct its energy toward the more important second bill, the one calling for student representation on the Ad Board. This bill will be discussed in the next few weeks. Of course, even if this second bill does pass the council, Lewis and the rest of the administration will probably ignore it (as they do with most student suggestions the administration does not see to be in its own self-interest). Nonetheless, a council decision is the first step in the right decision, and now is the time to do something if students want to have a voice on our disciplinary committee. If we wait, the Faculty will once again quietly sweep the issue under the rug, as it seems to have done since 1987, when the laughable SFJB was formed in response to the injustices of the Ad Board.

Like most other Ivy League schools and Stanford, Harvard should have student representatives on its disciplinary board. Our disciplinary body should reflect the view of the majority, and this majority should include both students and faculty. Faculty have argued that students prefer the Ad Board because it provides confidentiality and punishment based on precedent. The faculty should let the students decide this. The disciplinary board should have student representation as the default condition; student participation in disciplinary decisions is, at present, merely lip service. Only if the Ad Boarded student wishes for more privacy would he or she then request a trial by merely faculty representatives.

A truly just board should become standard, a Faculty-only board should be created for students who prefer not to be tried by their peers and the ineffective Student-Faculty Judicial board should be eliminated. Student representation should be the rule, not the exception.

Most students are too embarrassed of the actions for which they are Ad Boarded to complain about the process. As I have nothing to hide and am not embarrassed about my actions, I hereby relinquish my right to confidentiality on everything that has to do with my Ad Board decision, so as to preclude further filibustering by the administration. Anyone who has questions about the Ad Board or the specifics of my case can e-mail me at kirtley@fas.harvard.edu. Hopefully, through my bad luck, the Ad Board can be demystified and made fair for future students.

William L. Kirtley '97 writes for Fifteen Minutes.