(The following represents the opinion of a minority of the CRIMSON editorial board, and was written by William R. Galcote. The majority editorial appeared January 6.)

THE COMMITTEE on Rights and Responsibilities' recent decision in the cases of students involved in the Nov. 19 SDS action against Dean May was necessary to protect the University's essential scholarly functions and the safety of its members.

The seriousness of the actions of the 75 to 100 SDS supporters who encircled May in his office, shouted abuse at him for an hour, and then chased him to the doorstep of a Master's residence should not be minimized. If a university is to preserve any atmosphere of free inquiry, its members must not be faced with the threat of the type of harassment directed against May. Even with physical security, faculty members sometimes only produce mildly differing versions of orthodoxy; without it, they will inevitably only reproduce the views of those who possess the largest street gang.

It is sophistry to argue that, since Dean May (the administrator), not Professor May (the scholar) was attacked, the action did not endanger academic freedom. If it is ever established that any member of the Harvard community can be thus attacked with impunity, no one-faculty, administrator, or student-is secure from the threat of such attacks from those radicals who hold that scholarly work serves objectives and often evil functions. For tactical reasons, leaders of radical groups may confine their attacks to administrators for the moment, but splinter groups or individual members may decide to be more adventurous; indeed, some at Harvard have already done so, in actions such as last spring's classroom disruptions, and this fall's assault on the Center for International Affairs.

Though the discipline meted out to those participating in the Nov. 19 action is clearly justifiable, the occupation of University Hall by the Organization for Black Unity (OBU) does not call for similar punishment. The Committee on Rights and Responsibilities should recognize the occupation for what is was-a bargaining tactic undertaken by a group engaged in important, and frequently frustrating, negotiations with the University. While they did disrupt the normal functioning of the University, members of OBU used restraint in the occupation: they neither physically assaulted nor harassed other members of the University. In sum, the OBU occupation did not present a grave threat to the University's essential academic activities.