su-etc
a decision on narrow legal grounds
a266  1935  03 Jan 89
AM-Dartmouth Review,0423
Court Lifts Suspensions of Dartmouth Student-Journalists
By JOE MAGRUDER
Associated Press Writer
    CONCORD, N.H. (AP) - A judge on Tuesday ordered Dartmouth College to
lift suspensions against two former editors of the Dartmouth Review,
a conservative student newspaper, citing the bias of a disciplinary
board member.
    Grafton County Superior Court Judge Bruce Mohl's ruling did not
address First Amendment claims and other broad issues in the
students' underlying lawsuit, which he termed ''a massive legal
battleground.''
    In a state lawsuit and a companion federal action, Review staffers
accuse Dartmouth of violating their rights and discriminating against
conservatives. The two former editors sought reinstatement while they
pursue those lawsuits.
    Mohl also left the door open to further disciplinary action by the
Ivy League school against former Dartmouth Review staffers
Christopher Baldwin and John Sutter by a reconstituted disciplinary
panel.
    Baldwin, 21, of Hinsdale, Ill., and Sutter, 22, of St. Louis, were
suspended in March for 18 months for their role in a classroom
encounter with a black professor of music, William Cole. A third
Review staffer involved in the incident has completed his six-month
suspension; a fourth served probation.
    The students, who are white, denied any racial motivation but the
incident sparked renewed racial tensions on the Hanover campus.
    Mohl ruled that disciplinary panel member Albert LaValley's presence
on the panel ''was fundamentally unfair'' to the students.
    LaValley's objectivity was disputed because of a letter he had
signed four months before the incident. The letter condemned the
off-campus weekly Review for ''slanderous articles'' that ''seriously
threatened the principle of academic freedom'' and complained of
''sexist and racist'' characterizations of faculty members.
    ''No citation is needed to conclude that the letter LaValley signed,
and that he testified that he agreed with, demonstrates substantial
bias and prejudice on his part against students who write for The
Dartmouth Review,'' Mohl wrote.
    ''Had the content of the letter been known to the (disciplinary
board), the court cannot imagine the (board) reaching any conclusion
other than that LaValley should not sit on the ... panel.''
    The decision noted that LaValley, who was not identified in the
decision other than as a panel member, discussed the letter with the
disciplinary board chairman the day hearings for the students began.
    LaValley could not recall details of the letter at the time and said
he believed he could be objective. Others on the panel, whose members
include students, faculty members and administrators, accepted his
judgment, the court wrote.
    
 
AP-NY-01-03-89 2223EST
***************