Four Harvard students were arrested for disrupting a speech by FBI director Robert Muller. Some of them wanted justice for former Black Panther Herman Bell. One of them was upset about history, shouting, “We will never forget the role of the FBI in McCarthyism!” Another wanted to “stop the unconstitutional repression of the environment.”

Two of them were Harvard Crimson editors.

This is, of course, unprofessional and inappropriate behavior for a newspaper editor, who is supposed to be covering the news, not engaging in protest, and promoting free speech, not threatening it.

Nor is it the first time in recent memory that Crimson editors have behaved in ways that cast doubt on the paper’s objectivity. A couple years ago, several Crimson editors threw a party to cheer up Larry Summers after his ouster. Given the high feelings at the time, and widespread concern that the Crimson was pro-Summers, it was exactly the wrong thing to do.

I wrote about that at the time and received a deluge of mail from Crimson folks explaining to me that the term “Crimson editor” doesn’t actually mean that they are a Crimson editor, it’s a blanket term referring to anyone who was at some point a Crimson editor. As in “Crimson editor David Halberstam….”

There are only two reasons I can think of for this bizarre usage. One is for the Crimson to associate itself with successful alumni. The second is to create bonds between current and former Crimson people, so that the alums will hire the current students.

But the policy does more damage to the paper than good. Two Crimson editors impinging on the free speech of a Kennedy School speaker? That makes the paper look awful.

There’s a simple solution: the word “former.” As in, “…former Crimson editor David Halberstam…” (Which, to be fair, the Crimson does seem to use.)

Of course, I don’t actually know if the two students arrested the other night are former editors. But if they aren’t, they should be.

Perhaps the ombudsman should weigh in?