Punishment Can’t Be the Only Outcome of the Harvard Encampment

In the five days since pro-Palestine protesters set up their encampment, Harvard Yard has seen one unauthorized congressional visit, multiple keffiyehs draped over John Harvard’s shoulders, and three Palestinian flags hoisted over University Hall.

If this is the extent of it, Harvard is in great shape.

Even Harvard’s police chief has admitted that the protesters continue to demonstrate peacefully. They’ve observed quiet hours at night. During the day, the Yard occasionally rings out with chants before falling back to pleasant, tourist-free silence.

We said it on day one of the protests and we’ll say it again: While the encampment remains an exemplar of peaceful protest, there’s no place for the police here.

Now, for the same reasons, as the University increasingly signals that stern disciplinary action is to come, we feel compelled to say that there’s no place for draconian disciplinary action either.

Of course, participants entered into the encampment expecting to be punished. Civil disobedience is, after all, still disobedience. But anything as severe as mass expulsion or suspension would be an egregious overreaction to what have been obviously mild-mannered protests.

Disciplinary action can’t be administrators’ only reply to the protesters’ demands. As the impasse between University leaders and student activists continues, silence will only ratchet up tensions — and ensure more disciplinary cases come before the College’s Administrative Board.

Administrators must negotiate openly with protesters. Disclosing the extent of Harvard’s investments in companies doing business in Israel would be a basic first step, allowing for a more well-informed campus conversation about the investments that fund our community. Transparency is a good thing.

In 2014, Harvard signed on to the United Nations’ Principles for Responsible Investment, which commit companies to abide by industry standards for ethical investment, including avoiding investment in human rights abuses.

If Harvard’s leadership is holding true to that commitment — with respect to Israel’s war against Hamas and otherwise — financial transparency would be welcome proof. If not, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

The troubling truth is that our leaders might not know either way. University President Alan M. Garber ’76 recently admitted to The Crimson that he’s unsure whether the endowment remains invested in Israel at all.

With a plurality of Harvard faculty endorsing divestment from companies that operate in the West Bank and many students calling for the same, Garber should know and we should too.

In the past week, the University has made it plenty clear that disciplinary consequences await the protesters. Here’s hoping that punishment isn’t the only outcome of their activism.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.