{shortcode-f69ef0666080ff9927c4e6895694b9abf7e0ace2}

Most people understand that if you break rules, you get punished. The fallout from a pro-Palestine “study-in” in Widener Library last month shows that not all Harvard students do.

The facts are quite simple: The main document governing protest at Harvard — the University-Wide Statement on Rights and Responsibilities — generally prohibits protests in academic areas, explicitly including libraries. Harvard Out of Occupied Palestine, an unrecognized pro-Palestine coalition group, organized a silent study-in in Widener’s main reading room. Now, it’s facing the (minimal) consequences and calling them unfair.

The protesters’ argument that they’re faced with a double standard makes little sense to me — if they broke rules, they should get punished — but, more than that, it’s unclear that they’re being treated unfairly at all.

A protest is a public demonstration, usually collective, expressing political dissatisfaction or dissent. The study-in — a group effort with uniform, taped-on signs publicized as a response to Israel’s recent strikes on Lebanon — certainly fits the bill. Attempts by HOOP to claim they never marketed the event as a protest in so many words are disingenuous, relying on the same technicalities they accuse the University of using against them.

In short, HOOP’s actions were clearly a protest, and protests aren’t allowed in Widener, so they should be punished. Thankfully, administrators this week fulfilled their responsibility to the vast majority of us students who abide by the rules, punishing the protesters for their actions.

But instead of denying that the protesters broke the rules — the same rules that apply to every single other person on this campus — HOOP has called the administrative response a “Palestine Exception,” a phrase used to contend that pro-Palestine speech and advocacy face unduly harsh treatment.

Unfortunately, this behavior is nothing new.

In April, after being suspended for breaking generally applicable rules, the Palestine Solidarity Committee claimed they faced repression and called Harvard’s actions “illegitimate.” They were similarly outraged when the College punished them for participating in a weeks-long encampment in Harvard Yard that flagrantly and unquestionably disregarded rules governing campus protests.

In each of these cases, it seemed pro-Palestine protesters focused their arguments less on whether their conduct violated the rules than on whether those rules had been applied more harshly to their protest than protests past.

While it’s true that similar demonstrations in the past few decades seem to have received fewer consequences, those decisions were made under a different administration. The University administrators who made those decisions are not the same as those of today.

Moreover, circumstances have changed. Due in large part to the actions of the pro-Palestine coalition, Harvard faces a wide-ranging congressional investigation, threats to withhold federal funding, a lawsuit regarding potential violations of the Civil Rights Act — the facts of which show Harvard could plausibly have failed its Jewish students — and a donor revolt that could result in a long-term downturn in giving.

Needless to say, Harvard was in crisis, and it’s sensible for administrators to reconsider the College’s approach to regulating protest in light of that crisis.

The only real evidence of a Palestine exception would be a similarly rule-breaking protest with a different focus that occurred in the past several months and received no or fewer consequences. The only trouble? No other group is currently engaging in the type of rule-breaking behavior that the pro-Palestine protesters are.

The Crimson has not reported on any “study-ins” in our campus libraries other than from the pro-Palestine coalition. To my knowledge, no other groups have interrupted classes — you know, the essential function of a university — with bullhorns. And I am unaware of any group occupying large swaths of University property for weeks on end.

Unless and until another group behaves like the pro-Palestine coalition has and does not face punishment, there is no basis to suggest that they are facing discrimination. The “suppression” they claim to face might just be the consequences of their actions.

Undeterred by reality, they remain aghast that their actions should be subject to the same scrutiny anyone else would face. If anything, their words and actions have suggested that they feel they should be able to say and do whatever they want with complete impunity — but no one else can.

For example: In an event that, in my opinion, would make an excellent South Park episode, HOOP decided to boycott The Crimson in part for naming a student who gave a public speech at a publicized rally.

The protesters’ justification? They had hoped to “insulate her from potential disciplinary sanctions.”

They have again and again said the quiet part out loud: They should be allowed to say or do whatever they want without facing consequences.

Such childish — nay, infantile — behavior would be surprising to find among middle school students; among my peers at one of the world’s leading colleges, it is nothing short of shocking.

Henry P. Moss IV ’26, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a History concentrator in Eliot House.