(The following is the opinion of a minority of the CRIMSON's Editorial board)

ASKING the University to specify how it will punish various forms of demonstration this Friday is asking the Administration to settle on a harsher, less flexible treatment of potential demonstrators than it intends. Those contemplating a violation of the Dow recruiter's civil liberties want to know just how much they are putting on the line by breaking the law. The legal analogy is a dubious one for the relationship between students and administrators; but even if it applies, the University, like a judge, should not be forced to pass sentence before it knows the details of the specific case.

A quibble with the University's delineation of punishments and abstract talk of exercising personal conscience miss the essential point--a disruptive protest this Friday would be a bad idea. The October demonstration raised the questions of recruitment policy and University War complicity. Another disruptive demonstration would say nothing new on these complex issues and would work against their resolution in the Student-Faculty Advisory Council, sinking the content of the Dow debate in another wrangle over just and unjust punishments.

The appeal of a disruptive (as opposed to a peaceful) demonstration Friday is that it would clearly test the University's tolerance of violent dissent. Veterans of the October sit-in should avoid the fallacy that they have to prove their sincerity by playing confrontation politics with the Administration. They would be indulging in the same mindless, reflex escalation they rightly deplore in this country's Vietnam policy.