The Harvard University Police Department’s (HUPD) response to a group of unruly protesters at last week’s speech by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Robert S. Mueller III demonstrated blatant disregard for established rules, past procedure, and—most importantly—common sense. The decision to arrest Michael A. Gould-Wartofsky ’07, Kelly L. Lee ’07, J. Claire Provost ’07, and Maura A. Roosevelt ’07 without warning sets a dangerous precedent that should not be repeated.

The incident in question occurred a few minutes into Mueller’s speech at the Institute of Politics (IOP). During a pause, the four protesters—one of whom is an inactive Crimson editorial editor and one of whom is an inactive Crimson news editor—sequentially walked out and shouted a few short prepared sentences about specific injustices for which they believed the FBI was responsible, ranging from McCarthyism to the prison at Guantanamo Bay. They were swarmed by police, removed from the auditorium, and Mueller continued his speech, remarking about how wonderful it is that people can express dissent so openly in America.

The whole thing lasted under two minutes, and the protesters planned on leaving quietly as soon as they were warned to do so by police. Instead the protesters were forcibly ejected, arrested, and charged criminally with disturbing a public assembly without ever receiving a warning.

Students should have the right to protest without fear of unexpected arrest. In an academic community founded on the bedrock principle of the unfettered exchange of ideas, the threat of unwarned arrest would no doubt have a chilling effect on the quality of debate and discussion that goes on at Harvard. Furthermore, the punishment of the HUPD—charging the students with a crime punishable by a fine and up to a month in prison—was wildly disproportionate to the alleged wrongdoings of the protesters.

That’s not to say that we condone the type of disruptive and ineffective protest the four protesters staged, which we believe detracts from actual dialogue. A more effective and appropriate tactic would have been to ask pointed questions within the framework of the event, such as questions asked of former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami at his IOP appearance last fall which garnered national media attention. But even if one thinks that this particular protest was not in good taste, the fundamental right to protest peacefully must be recognized as sacrosanct.

HUPD’s actions were even more shocking because they not only violated what the University should do, but also because HUPD acted in flagrant violation of cut-and-dry standing regulations. Recognizing that “there is often ambiguity about where the line should be drawn in terms of the rights of speakers, protestors, and audience,” the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) lays out clear procedures for the treatment of protesters in its Free Speech Guidelines, which have been in force since 1990. These rules stipulate that “because the definition of disruption is subject to interpretation, a single warning procedure would avoid confusion about what constitutes disruption.” The only exception to the one warning policy is cases of physical violence.

These guidelines exist for a reason. HUPD is not able to arbitrarily decide when the rules do not apply—nor should it. Even if the appearance of a high-profile FBI official warranted a greater security presence and the unwarned removal of the protestors from the IOP, there was still no justification to arrest and charge the protestors after it became clear that they posed no immediate threat. By acting against University rules, HUPD damages its both its relationship with the student body and its own legitimacy.

Furthermore, in similar circumstances in the past, HUPD has had no problems dealing with protestors while abiding by FAS guidelines. When controversial DePaul University Professor Norman G. Finkelstein came to Harvard Law School in 2005, many students shouted at and heckled the speaker, but no one was ejected, no one was arrested, and no charges were filed. Similarly, when in 2003 Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao was met by a protester who interrupted his speech shouting pro-Tibetan slogans and unfurling a Tibetan flag, they were removed from the auditorium without incident or arrest. There is no reason why HUPD could not have acted in a similar, appropriate manner this time.

Making matters worse, HUPD attempted to cover its tracks by submitting a police report that appears to be riddled with inaccuracies. While the official write-up alleged that protesters shouted phrases like “the FBI are murderers” and continued crying out as they were being escorted from the event, video footage reveals an entirely different course of events. Whether the HUPD report was the product of sloppy police work or an outright attempt at deception, it only further calls into question the already alarming police conduct.

In light of HUPD’s inappropriate actions, the protestors should not face criminal charges. Students are entitled to being judged by the standards laid out in published rules; anything else is arbitrary and unfair. We commend the University for calling for the charges to be dropped and hope that it goes beyond a mere statement in pushing for their exoneration. It is clear from the University’s statement that the Harvard administration recognizes that while it is important to maintain order at speaking events, it is far more important to uphold the validity of the FAS guidelines.

The protesters should also not face sanctions from the Administrative Board of Harvard College. They have already been put through a trying ordeal thanks to University mistakes. Further punishment is neither necessary nor warranted.

If HUPD fails to respect both common sense and the FAS’ rules, it fails to serve its function. We hope that the events of last week were an aberration and trust that in the future HUPD will pay closer attention to the standards and practices of the community it represents.