We should give MIT a break for punishing the graduate student who urged his supporters to “stop being nonviolent”:

1. MIT’s action is well within their rules.

2. The recent history of this issue is highly asymmetrical: Pro-Hamas demonstrators have broken rules in many universities, including MIT. Punishment has been minimal.

3. The writer says (referring to the problematic article). “Yes, “On Pacifism” argues for violence, but that is not the same as inciting violence.”

4. It depends on the context: Statements like: “It is time for the movement to begin wreaking havoc,” and, “We have a mandate to exact a cost from the institutions.” “We need to start viewing pacifism as a tactical choice made in a contextual sphere,” and, “We must act now.” Given recent history, that all sounds pretty inflammatory.

5. We should understand MIT’s apparent desire to restore some balance to what has been a very unbalanced situation on their campus and many others.

J. Staddon, Duke University