Computer Pranksters Let Off By Ad Board

One week after voting to punish seven freshmen with a year's suspension for a widely publicized computer prank, the Administrative Board yesterday overturned its decision, putting the students instead on disciplinary probation.

The seven, all residents of Weld and Strauss Halls, chose to appear before the Ad Board yesterday in 30-minute interviews to appeal last week's verdict.

The Ad Board initially required the seven to withdraw after they entered the Science Center computer system by telephone on two consecutive nights last month and made it repeatedly print out, "This computer test sucks."

Relieving Tensions

The prank came during the final days of testing for the computer portion of the Quantitative Reasoning Requirement (QRR), a mandatory test for all freshmen. The pranksters said that they were trying to relieve the frustration of the more than 600 freshmen who had still not passed their QRR test.

QRR teaching fellows had to turn off the printer to stop the message from coming out. Some freshmen lost the programs they had written and sent to the printer to pass the test and had to retype them, said participant Jay Ramaswamy, who will be on probation until next spring.

The seven also used another student's computer account, one said. However, freshmen familiar with the incident asserted that the prank involved nothing more than the rudimentary commands needed to pass the test.

The Ad Board last week also put an eighth freshman, Kevin D. Collins, on disciplinary probation for one year for his part in the prank on one of the two nights. But Collins could not appeal his punishment.

Only students required to withdraw have the right to an appeal, said Thomas A. Dingman '67, assistant dean of the College for the house system and member of the Ad Board. Dingman yesterday acted as advocate for one of the seven. He refused further comment.

Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III also refused comment. The students themselves confirmed their reduced sentences.

Person to Person

The implicated freshmen yesterday said they feel their personal appearances were key factors in the outcome of their appeal.

"They were able to get a much better idea of who we were," said Marcus Q. Mitchell. "We wanted to be totallyhonest. There was no question we couldn't answer,"Mitchell said.

Mitchell, who will be on disciplinary probationuntil the spring of 1987, said that a personalappearance at the initial Ad Board meeting lastweek could have averted the first verdict. SaidMitchell, "You've got to know the kid before youcan make the decision."

"I think a personal appearance is necessary toget a fair verdict." said Gregory P. Gicewicz, whowill also be on probation until next spring.

Gicewicz said he told the Ad Board in a35-minute interview that he recognized the needfor punishment, but that he did not foresee the"big mess" the prank would cause.

Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57, whochairs the Ad Board, said that cases areoverturned "reasonably frequently." He said thattwo cases involving two students have beenoverturned this year.

Jewett said that students choose to appear intheir appeals in over half of the cases. He saidpersonal appearances do not always help theimplicated students. Jewett refused comment onyesterday's case.

The seven expressed mixed feelings about the AdBoard.

"[The verdict] shows the Ad Board isn't totallydesensitized to students." Mitchell said.

The four other freshmen receiving probationuntil next year are H. Glen Abel, Paul T. Nakada,Eddy J. Rogers III, and Kevin W. Ryter.

History

Computer officials last week gave conflictingreports of the extent of the prank's damage. CoreCurriculum Director Edward T. Wilcox, who is alsovice chairman of the Ad Board, said last week thatthe pranksters "crashed the system"--making thecomputer stop functioning for several minutes--andthat withdrawal for one year was not excessive.

But said Mitchell: "[Wilcox] was totallyoff-base. No one crashed the system."

Students last week expressed outrage at theseverity of the Ad Board's initial punishment.

Residents of Weld North sent a letter to Jewettprotesting the punishment. Freshmen alsocirculated a petition asking the Ad Board toreconsider the case and to give an explantion forthe punishment, calling it "unduly extreme anddrastic."

"I had a roommate who committed a felony in thestate of Massachusetts and received a one-yearwithdrawal," said Thomas F. McConnell '89 ofGreenough Hall. "To put a computer prank, andbeyond that, the protecting of friends, on thesame level, to me, is a shame and a travesty.