Today is the first of May. In a little over two weeks, exams will begin. And if the members of the Progressive Student Labor Movement (PSLM) do not emerge from Massachusetts Hall and take their final exams, they will likely be forced to withdraw from the College for a full year. Harvard should do nothing to prevent such a result.

In its original statement of demands, PSLM had requested immunity from any academic or disciplinary repercussions. Beyond a non sequitur that other universities had granted similar demands, the only justification for the request was that PSLM was acting to make Harvard “a better university”—in contrast, one assumes, to all the protests to make Harvard a worse university. In short, PSLM asked to be excused from certain academic requirements because of the rightness of its cause.

At one level, such a request is misguided, because it reduces the moral force of the protests. I believe PSLM is sincerely committed to its cause, and suffering is not the only means to show sincerity. But I would guess that at least some of the 50 percent of students who find the sit-in unjustified consider a protest the University offers to supply with food, soap and other necessities to be more like Progressive Student Summer Camp—all the protest and none of the consequences. If PSLM had simply padlocked Mass. Hall and refused to reveal the combination, the protest would lack much of its moral force; occupation would be too easy, and the depth of feeling that protest serves to demonstrate would be lost. That doesn’t mean the protesters must go on hunger strikes or try self-immolation, but it does mean that they will be taken more seriously by students and administrators if their requests for academic protection are based on principled argument rather than raw self-interest.

But there is another level at which protection from academic consequences would be counter to the University’s basic mission. When McCarthy-era administrators sought to judge the ideologies of professors, they were rightly opposed by supporters of academic freedom. Those supporters should equally oppose attempts by the University or by professors to dole out rewards and punishments based on the ideologies of their students.

Since students inside the building are necessarily missing classes, professors have been asked to show their support by teaching classes at Mass. Hall; some have already done so. Other professors have been asked to allow tests to be proctored to the students inside; no doubt similar requests for exams, or requests to allow work to be delayed or to make exams optional, will come as finals near. Regardless of how effective a learning environment Mass. Hall provides (protesters hanging out the windows, frequent chants and marches, etc.), the choice to “show support” by preventing students from suffering the consequences of their actions—using an ideological test to confer a pedagogical benefit—is clearly inappropriate. Professors may use their lectern as a soapbox, but not their grading sheet.

I don’t want Harvard to give PSLM special privilege, but more importantly I don’t want Harvard to throw the book at those with whom its professors tend to disagree. Professors who would not make exceptions for students protesting at a local abortion clinic, or students attending a rally for Al Gore ’69, or students whose political views are not strong enough to protest anything at all, should not make the lives of PSLM members easier than necessary. Why, for instance, are students inside the building the focus of this effort? PSLM members who organize the events outside the building have devoted exceptional measures of time to their cause; don’t they deserve equal sympathy?

Professors can and should give students certain exceptions from academic requirements. Even when a student’s absence is in some way voluntary—observing a religious holiday, going home after a death in the family—we allow exceptions on the argument that these commitments are too important for students to be asked to compromise them. But these exceptions are neutral and valueless; we don’t allow professors to give Jews exceptions but not Catholics. Exceptions based on one’s commitment to the living wage, however, would not be neutral—especially as a means of expressing “support”—and would not fall in this protected class.

Some professors may consider the sit-in “learning outside the classroom,” but ultimately that too is a fiction. We take courses on the classics to learn about the classics, and the purpose of government classes in an academic setting is to separate the study of political action from its pursuit. Describing the PSLM action as “learning”—and doling out benefits for participation—in courses devoted to subjects other than mass protests and wage policies can only mean allowing professors’ politics to replace their teaching.