Disciplinary procedures have been initiated against the students who occupied Massachusetts Hall during the three-week "living wage" sit-in.

The student protesters who exited Mass. Hall Tuesday have been contacted by their Senior Tutors to prepare statements describing their role in the sit-in.

According to the Administrative Board's handbook, a student who commits "an offense against law and order at the time of a disturbance or demonstration or who disregards the instructions of a proctor or other University officer at such a time" is subject to disciplinary action and may be required to withdraw.

But Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 announced Tuesday that he would recommend the Ad Board not require the College students who took part in the sit-in to take time off.

"I personally believe, and will recommend to the Board, that the students involved in the sit-in should not have their education interrupted because of their conduct," Lewis wrote in a statement.

Lewis' statement does not address the possibility of lesser sanctions--such as admonishment or probation--that would not require the students to withdraw.

The initial demands of the Progressive Student Labor Movement (PSLM) included disciplinary immunity, but the negotiated agreement with the University did not address disciplinary repercussions.

"We didn't want to slow down the process of coming to an agreement," said PSLM member Stephen N. Smith '02.

Seven Faculty members have issued a letter to top University administrators discouraging disciplinary probation or any other substantive disciplinary action against the student activists. A group of House Masters also sent a letter of support for the student protesters.

'We expect the students' position to be examined by the Ad Board, but we don't expect the Ad Board to take any draconian action," said Eliot House Master Lino Pertile.

The Faculty letter specifically discouraged administrators from even putting the students on probation.

"We are proposing that the Administrative Board take no disciplinary action above the symbolic level of a warning or admonishment, and that there be no indication of disciplinary action on any student's official record," the Faculty letter said.

The letter praised the PSLM members for having brought the issue of low-paid Harvard employees to the forefront of campus discussion.

"The students' actions have not only reopened the debate; they have transformed it," the Faculty members wrote.

Bradley S. Epps, professor of Romance Languages and Literatures, Richard G. Heck, professor of Philosophy, Michael Herzfeld, professor of Anthropology, Christine M. Korsgaard, professor of Philosophy, Juliet B. Schor, senior lecturer in Women's Studies, Richard F. Thomas, professor of Greek and Latin, and Bert R. Vaux, assistant professor of Linguistics, signed the letter.

The Faculty members argued that any substantive punishment would go against the spirit of University administrators who have applauded the students for their "moral courage."

"Our feeling is that the outcome of this whole affair was a triumph for the Harvard community as a whole," Herzfeld said yesterday. "It would be inconsistent...to punish them for teaching us an important lesson."

The seven Faculty members urged against disciplinary probation because such an action would remain on the official records of the students involved in the sit-in.

"We would oppose [probation] because we do not find, and are of the view that a large portion of our community does not find, that the students' actions give "serious cause for concern," in terms of the motives that led to their actions or in terms of the peaceful and civil manner in which they have conducted themselves," the Faculty members wrote.

"We understand the administration's desire to do things by the book," Herzfeld said. "But we hope the moral consensus that seems to have emerged will be respected in equal measure."

--Staff writer Daniela J. Lamas can be reached at lamas@fas.harvard.edu.