The organizers of Tuesday's demonstration in front of University Hall faced a daunting challenge: How could the three groups protesting each make their cases without overshadowing one another? Would the Faculty recognize three separate groups of activists, each with legitimate complaints that should be taken seriously, or would they just see one mob of noisy students drawn more by the novelty of protest than by the causes themselves?

The answer, two days later, still isn't clear. There is still a long way to go before all of the issues raised by protestors will be met, but some progress has been made. The more surprising victory to emerge from the "Rally for Justice" was the University's announcement it would require companies that make Harvard insignia apparel to reveal where their factories are located, one of the central demands of the Progressive Student Labor Movement's anti-sweatshop campaign. Though it remains to be seen how this new policy will be implemented and enforced, it is still a promising step in the right direction.

This advance, however, seems to have been completely overshadowed by a decision that was nearly a foregone conclusion--the full Faculty's vote to dismiss D. Drew Douglas, Class of 2000. Given their options, the Faculty made the right choice--to dismiss Douglas, rather than require him to withdraw, as five Faculty Council members had proposed. In the end, the Faculty followed the Administrative Board's recommendation by an extremely lop-sided vote.

Without trivializing the importance of the Douglas vote, if that decision is all that comes out of Tuesday's protest, the rally will not have succeeded. Indeed, it would seem to serve the administration well if the Douglas situation continues to overshadow the other two groups behind the protest, since Harvard's action on the other issues, especially the living wage, has been much less encouraging.

Indeed, while Harvard's agreement to full disclosure is a good start, the University's labor practices are still far from perfect. Now Harvard must start terminating contracts with contractors who use sweatshop labor. Closer to home, the University should commit to a living wage of $10 an hour for its employees, enough to keep workers above the poverty line.

Even the Douglas vote resolved none of the underlying issues his case brought to light. Protestors demanded expulsion, but this option was never before the Faculty. At some point, the Faculty needs to make a policy decision to clarify when expulsion is appropriate. We believe rape deserves the harshest punishment Harvard can impose, expulsion. If, as the administration has argued, dismissal is effectively the same as expulsion, the College needs to clarify this distinction.

Tuesday's rally was an important event and its immediate consequences--the dismissal of Douglas and Harvard's agreement to full disclosure--have been encouraging. But once the shouts have faded and the dust has settled in the Yard, the administration should remember that fundamental concerns remain unresolved.