Sarah Crane was right. So was Charles Bennett.

They are the respective student and veteran who disagreed so deeply about treatment of the American flag in Farmington this week. Crane littered the student center floor with Old Glory, to see how walkers would react.

Bennett objected, vociferously.

Fury has reigned since. On one hand, harsh criticism for Crane and the University of Maine at Farmington. On the other, praise for this “social experiment” and civil liberties as trumping the patriotic sentiments expressed by the right.

We’ve been here before. In Congress, a few years back, when a Constitutional amendment banning desecration of the flag died in a Senate cliffhanger. Then, as now, the argument was patriotism versus liberties, precious cloth against the Constitution.

Both sides flower from the same seed, however. Desire to protect the flag and thirst to uphold the Constitution are manifestations of the same, basic sentiment: the values and symbols of our democracy and society are sacred, solemn and so damn important.

This is what Bennett was saying, when he sat upon one flag with his cardboard placard proclaiming “disgraceful” before him. It’s also what Crane conveyed, by challenging her fellow students to solve the puzzle of symbolism in the wide hallway.

And it was displayed again Thursday, when a divided crowd gathered peaceably in Farmington to express their views.

There was no desecration, because there was no intent to desecrate. As many smart observers have said, unintentional desecration cannot exist. If so, every flag-emblazoned T-shirt is a desecration. So is every slightly weather-beaten flag flying from every car antennae.

As a society, we’re smarter than that. So we should be smarter than to call Crane’s display simple desecration. We should call it what it is: a controversial exercise about patriotism and civics, in which two cherished notions of American society clashed.

And in doing so, exposed essential elements of our democracy. The power to speak, the value of our symbols, the potency of our rights and liberty. Crane and Bennett, although on opposite sides of this issue, have proven that American patriotism is alive and kicking.

Bennett did through his civil disobedience and allegiance to his veteran brethren. Crane did through her innovative project, her defense of her beliefs, and her startling finding: some 95 percent or more of passersby refused to trod upon the image of Old Glory.

This should resonate, even more than the impassioned speech of Crane and Bennett. The walkers inside the Olsen Student Center voted with their feet, and they elected to respect one of America’s most sacred symbols by an overwhelming margin.

True, some walkers did step on Crane’s flags, either unwittingly or intentionally. But they were the decided minority, as they should be. We cannot expect, in a small sample or sprawling nation, uniform acceptance of American symbols, values or beliefs.

All we can do is defend them. Which is what Bennett and Crane did.

And why they are both right.

We salute them both.