Their blockmate, Michael L. Goldenberg ’88, wrote a letter to The Crimson protesting the outcome of the case.
“The incident occurred amidst an atmosphere of joking and playfulness. Intentions on all sides were purely benign. The fire was an accident. And although it was potentially very dangerous, nobody was hurt and there was no substantial property damage,” he wrote. Goldenberg also spoke strongly against the lack of student representation on the Board.
“A student writes a statement of his involvement to be read at the hearing, and from there, can only cross his fingers and pray,” he wrote. “He cannot even appear at the hearing in order to ensure that his case is properly argued and that all of the facts are understood.”
Dean of Freshmen Thomas A. Dingman ’67, who served as a representative for the two students to the Ad Board, declined to comment on the incident.
“OUT OF TOUCH”
In addition to the perceived injustice of the disciplinary measures, the Ad Board was criticized for being secretive and out of touch with the student body.
“I thought [the incident] brought the whole system of disciplinary action at Harvard under the spotlight as an archaic process,” says Rogers. “Back then, they were just completely out of touch with reality.”
Rogers cites a later incident in which he was questioned by a member of the Ad Board about a roommate’s activities.
“One of the questions I was asked was, ‘How many people were at the party?’ and I said, ‘I don’t know,’ and the guy said, ‘Well, how many invitations did you send out?’” Rogers recalls. “I wanted to ask him, ‘Do you even know how college works?’”
Julie L. Belcove ’89, a former Crimson editor who reported on the computer prank in 1986, characterizes the Ad Board at the time as “very draconian.”
“Any time something is behind closed doors, it’s suspicious,” she adds.
John “Jay” L. Ellison, the current secretary of the Ad Board, says that the Board has undergone reforms since 1986 that have addressed some of the previous criticisms. For example, students are now able to choose a faculty member other than their resident dean as an advisor and representative, eliminating the dual role that the resident dean used to play as both a student advocate and a Board member.
“Having more openness about our process and sitting down with every student does help it be more transparent,” he says, adding that the Ad Board goes under review every couple of years.
“I’m glad to see that the Ad Board is being revamped,” says Lari. “But [I] wonder if the changes are going as far as they should.”
—Staff writer Mercer R. Cook can be reached at mcook@college.harvard.edu.