The battle with the city of Cambridge rages onwards. Earlier this year, students were enthused by the Cambridge License Commission’s decision to allow House parties to run until 2 a.m. Yet the recent debauchery of Mather Lather seems to have temporarily shattered hopes for an improved social life on campus. Last week, in response to overcrowding at Lather, the Cambridge Licensing Commission hastily revoked their previous decision, mandating that Harvard parties end at 1 a.m.

The Mather House Committee (HoCo) is partially to blame for Cambridge’s rash action. After applying for a permit that allowed a party for 400 guests, according to HoCo representatives, the House sold 300 to 400 extra tickets. But they did not provide adequate crowd control, allowing hundreds of wet and wild scantily clad undergraduates and prefrosh to stream out into the cool night air. But the mistakes of one House on one night should not damage the social opportunities for the entire undergraduate population.

The City cites safety, an important concern, as the motive for revoking their earlier decision. After the heinous night club fires in Chicago and East Warwick, R.I., overcrowding at parties should be a primary concern. A city can be liable for disregard of safety measures, as evidenced by the recent civil suits against East Warwick. However, limiting party hours does not solve the problem of overcrowding and could only prove to enhance it, as Undergraduate Council President Rohit Chopra has pointed out. Cutting down hours or the number of parties on a given night will only drive students to existing parties—crowding them further and heightening danger and potential for lawsuits.

Beyond their misguided attempt to protect students, the Cambridge Licensing Commission made their decision hastily, and University officials did not even know about it. If the Commission indeed failed to notify the school of its decision, it was an extraordinarily sneaky move. After all, it was only after Mather HoCo tried to apply for another permit that the decision was revealed. A change that so immediately affects undergraduate life should not be made without adequate discussion. The Commission should have instead consulted the University to work towards a compromise whereby houses are forced to follow adequate safety procedures and more carefully monitor crowds but can hold longer parties.

The Undergraduate Council needs to be given an opportunity to respond to what was clearly a knee-jerk decision. It previously presented the Commission with a convincing, well argued case to extend party hours. But the impending May 27 hearing that is planned for discussion of this policy change does not allow adequate time for the Council prepare a response—falling right after finals when many students will have already departed for the summer. The University should work with the city to move the hearing to the fall so that the Council can present a balanced case. The University should still confront the city about its misguided decision, advocate to delay the city’s hearing and help broker a compromise so students can continue to party freely after 1 a.m.