{shortcode-0609b01a87c8d051ef46d339d8901280f7648706}

Harvard’s disallowance of a recent silent demonstration reveals a serious problem with the University’s rules about protest.

On Sept. 21, students held a “study-in’’ in Widener Library. Participants wore keffiyehs and taped pieces of paper to the back of their laptops with messages including “IMAGINE IT HAPPENED HERE.” They silently studied, read, and completed problem sets, while other students in the library did the same — precisely the normal and intended use of libraries on campus.

Administration’s claim that this behavior is somehow prohibited by University policy violates widely accepted norms for free expression on campus, and is inconsistent with the value of free speech described as “essential’’ in the University-Wide Statement on Rights and Responsibilities, a document which since 1970 has outlined the importance and limits of free speech on campus.

To be clear, it is reasonable and necessary for Harvard to require approval for events that interfere with normal campus activity, irrespective of their content. The statement on rights and responsibilities and the recent campus use rules both do just that, imposing clear restrictions whether the event is a protest, a party, or a performance. According to an email sent to library staff, at least one student was moving around the space filming during the study-in, which may have interfered with others’ library use.

However, the students who sat quietly and studied did not interfere with normal campus activity, and Harvard thus has no compelling reason to prohibit their speech. Indeed, our commitment to free expression requires us to allow it.

Don’t take our word for it. The statement on rights and responsibilities promises that “by accepting membership in the University, an individual joins a community ideally characterized by free expression” and that interference with values like freedom of speech “must be regarded as a serious violation of the personal rights upon which the community is based.”

Rather than being guided by these wise principles, it seems to us that University leaders are relying on a Jan. 19 statement to prohibit all protests in libraries (and presumably also dormitories, residence halls, dining halls, and more).

Crucially this statement offers no definition of “protest.” The Crimson Editorial Board has quite reasonably wondered “Why was this study-in considered a protest?” and “Is every student in a Trump hat or Harris t-shirt protesting?” Not only do we not have answers to these questions, but it seems implausible that the University could determine what constitutes a “protest” in a content-neutral manner.

Thankfully, there is no need to make such determinations: The rules can and should instead depend on criteria unrelated to the content of an event, such as whether it interferes with normal campus activity.

Vice President for the Harvard Library Martha Whitehead explained the prohibition of the study-in, telling staff in an email “even when it is quiet, such an assembly changes a reading room from a place for individual reflection to a forum for public statements and a challenge to some users. It undermines our commitment to provide an inclusive space to all users.” We appreciate the library’s intention to provide an inclusive space, and we certainly think this commitment requires them to keep Widener quiet for work and study. However, policing what groups of students write on their own laptops goes too far, needlessly curtailing free expression.

Harvard offers students an opportunity to be part of a diverse and passionate student body. Part of that opportunity is the chance to come across and interact with new ideas and opinions that differ from their own. Sometimes that is challenging.

We have faith that our students are up to the challenge. We believe they can study in the library side by side with others whose shirts or laptops or water bottles carry slogans with which they disagree. Outside the library, we believe our students can engage in thought-provoking civil discourse with those who hold opposing opinions.

Indeed, Harvard offers them a unique opportunity to do just that.

Melanie Matchett Wood is the William Caspar Graustein Professor of Mathematics, the Radcliffe Alumnae Professor at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, and a co-president of the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard. She writes on behalf of her six CAFH co-presidents, professors Jeffrey S. Flier, Edward J. Hall, Randall L. Kennedy, Eric S. Maskin, Tarek E. Masoud, and Steven A. Pinker.