The Board ruled that a variance was unnecessary in this specific case because the doors were "not open to and used by the public."

The plaintiffs contest this decision and contend that the Massachusetts Historical Commission was, according to statute, required to review the plans for the entire project, including the plans to divide the Great Hall.

The act of determining that variances were unnecessary is, in itself, a determination that should prompt the review, Bracken said.

Harvard attempted to dismiss the case on the basis that the plaintiffs waited until last week to file with the court, pointing to one statute and claiming that the plaintiffs were required to file for the injunction within thirty days of the Board's decision.

Although this date would have been over eight months ago, Bracken pointed to the section of the same statute which allowed the plaintiffs to bring the matter before the Superior Court without a time restriction.

Included in the visual aids that the University brought to the court were photos of both the interior and exterior of the Union taken the morning after the restraining order was issued.

Felter argued that the plaintiffs were too late, showing pictures of the ceiling completely removed from the Great Hall.

The University also claimed that, if necessary, the entire issue could be avoided. If Harvard decides to make the four doors in question comply with regulations, the University stated that the plaintiff would have no jurisdiction.

However, the plaintiffs responded that this brash measure would violate the approval that was obtained by the Cambridge Historical Commission for preserving the historic doors.

After the judge did not immediately deny the plaintiffs' requests for an injunction, the University asked the court to allow limited construction on the Union that would not affect the areas in question.

This list was approved by the plaintiffs