Speakers in University Halls.

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

This letter does not suggest that free speech is being destroyed at Harvard, or any other such ludicrous proposition; but only that the Corporation has suddenly reverted to an unsound and discarded policy in one aspect of university administration.

President Lowell refused permission for the use of a College hall by the Harvard Deutscher Verein for a meeting to be addressed by Mrs. F. Sheehy Skeffington--or rather, the day before the meeting withdrew the permission that had already been given by the College Office. Due to the courtesy of the Harvard Union, to the fact that a room happened to be available that evening, and to the Union's willingness to make an exception and admit all members of the Union, the meeting was held in a small room in the Union; and so, as it happened, no harm was done beyond having to change the announcements and to turn away a few would be hearers. The reason that the Corporation threw the Verein upon the kindness of the Union was that "college halls are not to be used for propaganda."

The custom of the University in not allowing undergraduate societies to secure speakers to address the Cambridge and Boston public in College buildings is understandable; but it has long been the policy of the Corporation to allow the undergraduates to have in College halls what speakers they will, provided the meetings are open only to members of the University. The Corporation has felt that the students ought to be thinking about the controversies of the day, and has recognized the desirability of allowing persons who in good faith bring a message to be invited by the student organizations, and of allowing the use of unoccupied College rooms for this purpose. Under this broad policy we have had many propagandists: advocates of the initiative and referendum (W. S. U'Ren. December 2, 1912, in Emerson D), the Progressive Party (Governor R. P. Bass, February 26, 1912, in the New Lecture Hall), and to mention only some of those disclosed by the CRIMSON files for one College year taken at random, 1913-14--Socialism (W. E. Walling, December 1, 1913, and John Spargo, December 9, 1913, both in Emerson D); World League to Secure Peace (Hamilton Holt, April 7, 1914, in Emerson D); pacifism (Norman Angell, February 14, 1914, in Emerson D, and April 16, 1914, in the New Lecture Hall); Christian Science (Virgil O. Strickler, March 13, 1914, in Emerson D); Woman Suffrage (Helen Todd, November 8, 1913, Mrs. Desha Breckinridge, April 2, 1914, and Norman Hapgood, March 20, 1914, all in Emerson D); Scientific Management (F. W. Taylor, three lectures in 1913, in a College room). In all these cases, in accordance with the very proper College rule, the meetings were thrown open to members of the University only.

The Skeffington meeting was to have been open only to members of the University (although some newspapers, through their own error, announced it as open to the public). Even so, the hall was refused on the ground that this was "propaganda." Keeping out "propaganda" was attempted in 1911 by the exclusion of Mrs. Pankhurst. Whatever the merits or demerits of Mrs. Pankhurst's opinions might be, this policy was seen to be objectionable, and was apparently abandoned--witness the suffrage speaker's noted move. I am not aware that it has been revived till the Skeffington case.

Aside from other objections to this anti-propaganda is exceedingly difficult of practical definition. Perhaps a majority of Harvard professors urge upon their students views of moot questions and pet doctrines well within the dictionary meaning of the term--always indicating to the class, of course, that the matter is in the field of contention. All the speakers mentioned in the list above apparently were considered not propagandists. Neither was Captain Ian Hay Beith, whom the CRIMSON accurately referred to as having "been sent to this country by the British Government to explain Britain's part in the war," who was permitted to speak in Sanders Theatre on December 11, 1916 (the meeting open to the public, tickets one dollar, the proceeds to go to the Cambridge Surgical Dressings Committee). My sympathies in the war happen to be with the Allies, yet I fail to see how Ian Hay is less a propagandist than Mrs. Skeffington. Of course, the truth is, they are both propagandists; and Harvard students were fortunate in having the chance to hear both.

It is sometimes said that Harvard cannot allow propagandists to speak in College buildings because the University will then appear to be backing the speaker. But is this the case? Harvard has allowed Ian Hay to speak in Sanders. Nobody intimated that Harvard was, for that reason, pro-Ally. But when, the next month, Harvard excludes Mrs. Skeffington, the Boston Herald relates the incident on its front page with the statement that "it was generally understood among the students that the action of the College authorities was taken because of Mrs. Skeffington's supposed anti-British sentiments." There was also a foul blast from another Boston sheet to the effect that Harvard suppresses the truth. If Mrs. Skeffington had been allowed to speak in Emerson Hall it is fairly certain that the newspapers would have chronicled that simple fact without any hint of the sentiments of the College authorities.

The comment to be made is obvious. If the University allows every expression of opinion, both from its Faculty and from lecturers brought by the student organizations, it cannot be accused of giving support, as a university, to the opinions of any. On the other hand, as soon as we begin to pick and choose we lay ourselves open to misconstruction, and, to my mind, well-founded adverse criticism.  W. T. FISHER '13.