“The warning to disperse was never made explicitly to them,” he said.
Although Fitzpatrick argued to the Ad Board that the students should receive no punishment, Bartley testified that he felt the board needed to give some form of punishment, and that a warning was appropriate.
“I think you have to,” he told the Ad Board. “Sit-ins get warnings here.”
In May 1992, the Law School Ad Board issued a warning to 8 students involved in a 25-hour sit-in of Dean Robert C. Clark’s office to protest the lack of minority and female faculty at the school.
The students involved in that sit-in were asked to leave the premises.
Guinier argued that the students on trial yesterday should receive a less harsh punishment because “they were never asked to leave.”
“It is my opinion that what the students did in their symbolic presence in Massachusetts Hall fulfilled their responsibilities as lawyers-in-training,” she said.
Read more in News
Lost in the Blur of the Changing SquareRecommended Articles
-
After the Sit-InFor three weeks in late April and early May, the Progressive Student Labor Movement (PSLM) was the first topic of
-
Sumner Rd. Eviction Hearings ContinueHarvard officials yesterday presented testimony to a Rent Control Board examiner in its ongoing struggle to evict tenants from 7
-
Growing UpB ACK IN MAY, a bunch of students held a peaceful sit-in at the headquarters of Harvard's governing boards. Some
-
Ad Board Votes to Warn Law School ProtestersThe Administrative Board of Harvard Law School slapped the so-called Griswold Eight with a warning last week, declining to impose
-
Ad Board Will Try Student ProtestorsThe nine students who staged a protest in the office of Law School Dean Robert C. Clark on April 7
-
Demonstrator's Leave Of Absence RescindedAs a result of the Paine Hall anti-ROTC demonstration a Harvard student has had his leave of absence revoked and
