While walking through the Yard on the first day of classes this semester, many Harvard students noticed a conspicuous absence in the Yard. The tarpaulin-covered geodesic dome and information tent, previously the only remaining outdoor symbols of the Occupy Harvard movement, were removed from Harvard Yard on January 13.

While the majority of Occupy Harvard’s tents were dismantled by members of the movement in preparation for winter break, the dome and information tent were taken down by members of the Harvard administration. In explanation, university officials cited safety concerns about the dome: it had blown several feet on a windy day and nearly hit a passerby.

However, members of Occupy Harvard noted in a press release that after the dome blew, they spoke to Harvard’s grounds manager about securing the structure safely and received his assurance that the dome could stay in the Yard if it was secured. As observers, we do not know exactly what sparked University officials to remove the dome from the Yard while protesters were working to secure it: Conflicting accounts make it unclear whether the dome and tent truly posed a safety hazard. Although the administration’s removal of the dome may not have been intended as a political action, the windy day did provide an opportune moment for officials to take down what had undoubtedly become a distasteful symbol of Occupy’s legacy in Harvard Yard.

Issues of safety aside, the removal of the dome raises the larger issue of how free speech can proceed to flourish unhampered on campus. Occupy Harvard has held marches, rallies, and demonstrations everywhere from the Yard to the Institute of Politics to the Office of Career Services. Their diverse tactics have also included an informative teach-in and the production of the “Occupy Harvard Crimson,” a collection of essays. Now that the last remnants of the tent city have been consigned to the dustbin, Occupy Harvard does appear to be in a state of transition. Rallying, demonstrating, and leafleting may return as the principal activities of the movement. However glad many on campus might have been to see the dome go, we should make sure that students and faculty are allowed to continue the activities that are within their rights.  As members of an educational and academic community, the students and staff involved in Occupy Harvard must have the freedom to engage in these forms of protest without fear of disciplinary or financial retribution. Harvard should not impinge upon the right to dissent and to critique, both of which are, after all, important aspects of the free speech that our community holds dear.

We hope that the administration’s action to dismantle the rest of Occupy Harvard’s tent city will allow the movement to proceed in a more productive fashion. Occupy Harvard’s press release about the eviction declares, “Occupy Harvard will redouble its efforts promoting social accountability, public integrity, open academia, and other key values of the Occupy movement for socio-economic justice.” Indeed, without spending time and energy maintaining a physical encampment, Occupy Harvard will be able to focus on more productive issues and more effectively address its stated grievances.

We look forward to seeing what direction Occupy Harvard will take now that its tent city has been entirely disassembled. We hope that the University will guarantee their right to do that with free speech.