Free Speech

STUDENTS ON CAMPUSES around the country recently have forced several controversial figures to cancel or cut short speeches U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, for example, was driven from a lecture platform at the University of California at Berkeley, forced to withdraw is commencement speaker at Smith College when her could not be guaranteed, and repeatedly interrupted while addressing at University of Minnesota group. In an attempt to end such disruptions, a coalition of college presidents, faculty members and students led by the American Council on Education (ACE) last week issued statement urging the academic community to "respect the rights of others to listen to those who have been invited to speak on campus." Student protestors, one hopes, will pay more attention to the statement than they did to Kirkpatrick.

More than any other institution, a college or university must serve as a place for the exchange of ideas. When the exchange is hindered, a university no longer properly serves its function, and one of the most basic tenets of democracy is jeopardized.

The ability to dissent is of course just as important as the freedom to put forth an idea. But violent protest is more often than not counterproductive. Those who attacked Kirkpatrick unwittingly played into her hands: Now kirkpatrick can ignore the very legitimate criticism of her policies by attributing criticism to disruptive radicals and kooks.

Other means of dissent can get a point across adequately-listen before or after a presentation, leaflets, silent protest with posters letters to newspapers. Granted, such tactics do not have the immediately discernible, effect of radical disruptions. But they also lack their drawbacks: and, in the long run, they tend to prove more successful.

While hoping Kirkpatrick and others will be allowed to have their say on the future, though, we must inquire why the call for free speech that arose after the Kirkpatrick fiasco seems to apply only to those of the ambassador's political persuasion. The United States government recently refused entry visas to the widow of former Chilean leader Salvador Allende and to Nobel Prize-winning author Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Both had been invited to address organizations in this country. Both are leftists. And both, like Kirkpatrick, should be able to make their voices heard in the United States without having to fight suppression-whether it be through violent disruption or political discrimination.

According to our Constitution, Kirkpatrick is not guaranteed the right to speak at any particular university. Nor are Allende and Marquez guaranteed the right to visit the United States. But questions of law in all these cases matter less than respect for others and openness to other ideas-values covered in no legislation, but essential to keep a democracy working.