The decision of a group of protestors—which included several Harvard students—to stage a “sleep-out” in support of climate-change legislation last Monday evening in Boston Common might strike observers as odd. Yet while setting up tents in the very tame wilderness of central Boston is peculiar, the cause the demonstrators supported is not. The students, through their transient tent city, intended to call attention to climate change and show support for introducing a bill that would require Massachusetts to be powered with 100-percent renewable energy by 2020. As expected, the protest was broken up by Boston police officers, and now nearly 70 participants have been served citations for trespassing on public property. But the Harvard administration’s lack of support for its protesting students has added a mini-drama to this strange story that could have been avoided at little cost.

Given Harvard’s rhetoric about sustainability and “Green is the New Crimson” campaign, it is disappointing that, when the university was approached by Harvard students interested in staging a sleep-out for climate change on the Harvard campus, administrators rejected the students’ petition. Allowing the students to stage a protest here would have helped to raise awareness on campus, showcased Harvard’s commitment to dealing with the pressing problem of climate change, and avoided what is now a headache for the administration and protesters alike.

Last night, HUPD officers brought the long arm of the law to bear over an attempted sleep-out in Tercentenary Theatre. Around 10:15 p.m., protestors were forced to dismantle their tents and head back to more conventional accommodations while policemen stood by. This sort of silly incident should have been avoided—peaceful, respectful protestors harm no one with their decision to sleep in tents outside a freshmen dorm.

Also, while Harvard’s officers didn’t hand out any arrests or citations last night, city police might not be so accommodating. Yet students who chose to return to future sleep-outs planned in Boston will have to do so knowing that Harvard’s standard protocol stipulates that any student who is arrested is subject to a six-month mandatory leave and that the university has declined to state whether it would apply the same standard to those arrested while sleeping out.

The administration already made the poor choice of not allowing students to stage a sleep-out in a controlled environment where there was no risk of lawbreaking—it should not compound one folly with another. This cause in particular is in line with Harvard’s mission, and its supporters should not be needlessly burdened. The administration should refrain from blocking harmless protests and potentially meting out unwarranted punishments and instead show that it agrees that climate change is a cause worth sleeping for.