Opponents of Clark's get-tough policy will continue to insist that the dean is merely using the rules to stifle dissent and discourage debate. This is nonsense, of course. No one has objected to peaceful, non-disruptive forms of protest, such as speeches, forums, articles and the like.

Some students might challenge the dean by staging another sit-in to call his bluff. After all, it was CCR protester Keith Boykin who declared with Schwarzeneggerian flair, "We shall be back." If so, Dean Clark, I humbly offer my three-point plan to deal with campus malcontents in your office.

First, do not meet with the demonstrators. Doing so only rewards their misbehavior and encourages future disruptions. Tell them, as you have done in the past, to schedule an appointment like everyone else.

Second, allow the protesters one hour to leave the occupied premises. This will give demonstrators enough time to reconsider the risks of breaking University rules. It will also provide some cover for more moderate participants to leave and convince their peers to do the same.

Finally, if the deadline is ignored and the moment of truth arrives, call the police and have the demonstrators arrested for trespassing. Allow their classmates and future public defenders to bail them out of jail. After appropriate consultation and investigation, suspend or expel the malefactors, or at least place them on probation.

These are stiff measures, but they will do more than just lay down the law. If implemented, they will teach students to behave like adults, to accept the consequences of their actions--important lessons for anyone, especially future lawyers.

Strangely enough, Clark's policy could also do some favors for future demonstrators. My hunch is that the true believers on campus have been discredited largely because their causes have spawned an industry of protest, much of it insincere, self-serving and all too frequent. (Look closely, and you'll discover a lot of the same faces at these events.)

If these policies are executed, there will be fewer protests and fewer people at these protests. But the causes for which groups like CCR are fighting could be better served if their sit-ins drew only one or two committed students ready to put their academic careers on the line instead of the 45 who know they will get off scot free. Remember, it was the willingness of people like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. to endure hardship that lent credibility and depth to their civil disobedience.

Dean Clark, if you're reading, I wish you the best of luck in your mission to return sanity to the Law School. Remember that when times get tough, you have at least one fan cheering you on.

Mark J. Sneider '93 does not plan to apply to law school. Really.