Because there was no deep split on a University issue over Dow, the student use of force can be attributed to the University's failure to clarify in advance what its sanctions were. Yet even now, the Administration does not want to define the limits of protests and their consequences because it would rather rely on students memory than on tight rules that may backfire when students collect together out of strong feelings. Therefore, as memories fade, a new crisis may arise.

James Q. Wilson's words about riots hold relatively true for student obstruction, too:

Since people are most likely to feel strongly about symbolic or intangible issues, and since government [or the University] can only deal slowly [if at all] with such matters, the probability of at least disorder and possibly violence is likely to increase over time.

Protests of this nature, then, are bound to recur. It is a truism that the lack of democratic voice leads to illegal student force, which in turn leads to changes in the University. Neither student power nor student freedom is a guarantee against student force. "It is naive to think that student feelings can be channeled into institutions," one University official remarked recently.

The case for dealing with reform within Harvard's system of government is not to be made on grounds that it will stop further protest. It should be made on the grounds that the basis for changing conditions are reasonable.

Harvard is not under pressure to change its system of government for the sake of change. Most students have given no indication that the University structure should be rebuilt, and no students--not even the "red-hot radicals" have demonstrated any tendency since Dow to step beyond their rhetoric on campus matters