As any administrator would agree, being a leader isn't easy.

Conflicting interests pull leaders and administrators in many directions, and personal interests often interfere with a leader's preferred approach to a problem.

That said, there is little legitimate excuse for the initial reaction of the Calvin administration for the prank that was played last week with the ``Names and Faces'' books. Halting the distribution of books after the discovery of a sticker in some of the books revealed several interesting characteristics of an administration that Chimes has commended recently for reactions to other campus events. In this situation, it looked to many students as if the personal feelings of administrators regarding pranks were overruling their sense of humor and balance in reacting.

If the books had been distributed as usual, students would have laughed about the sticker and then returned to their busy schedules. Cutting off the supply exacerbated a minor problem. The administrators wasted nearly a full day on managing a problem that didn't need to exist.

The administration allowed their anger to take their actions a step further by attempting to bargain with whomever carried out the prank, asking them to turn themselves in or let the rest of the student body pay the cost of reprinting the books. At least their first reactions were just that - conceived in a moment of anger - but the Student News e-mail asking students to turn in tips and leads went too far.

Shirley Hoogstra noted her sadness at the destruction of trust in community. Interestingly enough, the pranksters didn't seem to trust the adminstration to deal with them justly - they didn't turn themselves in. The promises of the administration to ``discuss a more positive response'' were belied by the attempted blackmail of the student body. The pranksters were not the only ones who showed themselves not to be worthy of trust - the administration's response seemed to suggest that they themselves were not trustworthy.

If money was missing, or confidential files were rifled through, this response would have been appropriate. That would have been a crime, and the appropriate response would have been to call the police. One individual in the administration wrote to Chimes this week, suggesting that police action was the apropriate response to an incident like this. One might be justified in thinking that this reaction was not the result of informed reflection on the incident (even other administrators did not go that far), but rather the result of unchecked anger.

The ``Names and Faces'' books weren't defaced in any way that was seriously damaging. Many students said that, while they wouldn't want to pay for a regular book, they would pay for one with a sticker. Most students thought the prank was funny, and as much as most administrators thought that the prank was inappropriate, a number of them also related their amusement.

Moreover, the prank suggested to many that it was a critique of the administration's miserliness regarding funds. Apparently missing the point, Shirley Hoogstra's response to the prank emphasized the potential monetary costs of such pranks.

The administration could choose from two possible goals: trying to stop the pranks or trying to laugh at them and enjoy them. In this case, the administration failed on both counts. They have yet to prove to Calvin students that, one, the campus is prank-proof, or, two, that they can appreciate a prank.

If the administration's initial reaction had not been so extreme, it is unlikely this discussion would even be happening. This isn't to say, however, that pranks should be ignored. Truly destructive pranks should be discouraged, while pranks involving unexpected feats should be tolerated, at the least, for their planning and preparation.

Pranking is another way for Calvin students to display their creative abilities. Historically, Calvin has reminisced about certain pranks quite fondly, after a sufficient amount of time had passed. Many other pranks have long disappeared from the collective memory of the college, something to keep in mind whenever administrative response is planned.

It must be acknowledged that, after the deadline for the pranksters to turn themselves in passed, steps were taken to find a more reasonable response. Administrators specifically sought the opinion of student leaders on a response that would help to regain the trust and respect of the student body. That response will reach the students in the form of a letter, placed in each ``Names and Faces'' book, which will be distributed at the end of this week or early next week.

While some students may argue - perhaps correctly - that such a response still wastes paper and the effort of students and administrators who likely have more academic and spiritual pursuits they should not neglect, it is surely a better response than asking students to betray friendships or reprinting thousands of books.

Discipline for breaking the rules is not an unreasonable concept, but the administration must make sure the punishment fits the crime. Particularly in the case of pranks, punishment is often assigned based on an administrative interpretation of the prank's meaning.

Too often, punishment is given in proportion to the number of bruised egos, not in proportion to the actual impact of the prank.

This is not to say that pranks can be ignored unilaterally, nor that they should be. However, it may be time for students, professors and administrators alike to develop the sense of humor they claim to have when it comes to pranks.