Participants in the Mallinckrodt sit-in seem to have reacted to their punishment with the same measure of relief and distaste shared by many members of the Faculty. The probation of 74 students will probably have the effect desired by the Administrative Board: deterring at least for a time, civil disobedience demonstrations on campus.

That end could have been served with less harsh punishment. It could have been served had there been instead of punishment a firm definition of the University's policy towards future demonstrations. The penalty was needlessly severe. More important, the assignment of punishment was arbitrary and unjust.

Officials who talked with the demonstrators the afternoon of the sit-in did not spell out how seriously the University regarded the situation; they could not. They did not define the University's policy on such demonstrations; it had none. Nor could they in any way indicate who--if anyone--would be held responsible, or what penalties were involved. They did not know.

They instead took down the names of some students they recognized. In considering disciplinary action later, those students were distinguished from protestors who handed in their bursar's cards but were not actually identified at the scene. That division--which depended on the zeal of individual House officers--bore only a casual relation to students' participation.

It now appears that even that distinction was ignored. Students who later signed petitions saying that they accepted collective for obstructing the Dow recruiter were put on probation; students who signed similar petitions--but with the semantic distinction that they simply accepted responsibility for the demonstration--were not.

Probation is a proper penalty for demonstrators who go beyond limits set by the University. But those limits were not defined at the time of last week's sit-in. Nor was the University equipped to make a measured, equitable response. Justice may at times be arbitrary, but it presumes at the very least that procedures are folowed which aim to avoid arbitrary results. The Faculty was given to understand that those students placed on probation were on the scene in Mallinckrodt. For some students, that was not the case.

The University did not have to compensate for the absence of a well-defined policy by means of an arbitrary stab at deterrance. It should not have tried. The consequences of civil disobedience have now been made clear. The Administrative Board should terminate the probations at the earliest opportunity.