We are the members of the steering committee of Harvard Alumni for Campus Fairness, a group formed last March to advocate against antisemitism and the demonization of Israel on Harvard’s campus. We write to take issue with the Editorial Board’s Tues., April 23 staff editorial titled “By Suspending the Palestine Solidarity Committee, Harvard Guarantees Chaos.”

We strongly support Harvard’s decision to suspend the Harvard Undergraduate Palestinian Solidarity Committee, the closure of Harvard Yard to the general public, and both interim University President Garber’s and College Dean Khurana’s efforts to enforce Harvard’s policies against all disruptive groups, regardless of their proclaimed purposes.

The editorial cautions the administration against the “madness” that could result from what “will be taken as a paranoid response to events at Columbia and elsewhere.” In our view, it was beyond sensible for the interim president and other administrators to assume that prompt, even-handed action could minimize the possibility of violence, the festering of hate speech like Harvard experienced over the fall and winter, and the newly re-asserted influence of unrecognized student groups.

While this strategy bore fruit only briefly and a pro-Palestine encampment has now been created in Harvard Yard, we applaud the administration’s intent and its new approach to the crises that the PSC and others have created at Harvard. Some semblance of rule enforcement has arrived at Harvard after months of protests that have at times involved physical confrontation, as with the PSC’s die-in last semester. Since last Sunday’s suspension of the PSC, even The Crimson has been hard pressed to find “chaos” to report!

“Cracking down on this nonviolent protest group will only inflame community relations,” the April 23 editorial attempts to warn us. All fall, PSC was at the center of highly “inflamed” community relations, but the administration’s work has had a cooling effect.

Were The Crimson to investigate if the predicted “madness” and “chaos” took root at Harvard, the Editorial Board would find that much is missing from its logic.

—Stuart Gedal, HGSE ’84; Andrew Levy ’66; Paul Meyer ’66; Benjamin Pollock HBS ’79; Susan Shwartz ’73; Naomi Korn Steinberg ’88

Letters to the Editor must respond directly and explicitly to either an opinion piece recently published on the Editorial page, or else to The Crimson’s manner of coverage within any section of the newspaper. Letters that respond to the subject matter of a non-opinion Crimson article, rather than The Crimson’s coverage of that matter, will not be accepted.

Letters to the Editor are evaluated at the discretion of the Editorial Chairs. They should be submitted to editorial@thecrimson.com and should run between 150 and 350 words. We require Letters to the Editor to be signed, with the signatures appearing on the page or as a hyperlinked list at the discretion of the Editorial Chairs. We do not accept Letters to the Editor from organizations or anonymous writers.