In its discussion of the proper disciplinary response to the sit-in, the staff leaves open the possibility that no action whatsoever would be taken against the protesters, restricting its position to “this sit-in.” The staff—and the University—should decide the appropriate discipline for a protest on principle, not on specific likes or dislikes of an individual cause.

Regardless of whether one agrees with the need for a living wage, as I do, and regardless of what one thinks of the sit-in, there is an argument for some type of discipline for individuals who were disruptive to the first-years living in Mass. Hall, who denied administrators access to their offices and who cost the University tens of thousands of dollars in police overtime.

I am certain that the staff would unambiguously support some type of University discipline—even mere probation or official admonishment—for protesters with whose demands it disagreed. If students seized a University building for 21 days to protest against a living wage, or to call for an end to abortion access at University Health Services, the staff would undoubtedly write that they should not walk away unpunished. And even if the University eventually agreed with the protesters’ demands, the protesters would not deserve a get-out-of-jail-free card that would be denied to others whose cause is less favored by the president or the dean of the College.

Harvard students are owed some measure of due process and fair treatment with regard to discipline. And a university’s mission to promote a climate of academic freedom and open discourse requires that its disciplinary policies judge the conduct of its students rather than the content of their ideas.