Why Single Out the Spartacists?

To the Editors of The Crimson:

We are writing to protest the threat of administrative disciplinary action against two undergraduate students who were two among six hundred students who vocally protested during Caspar Weinberger's November speech (two weeks after the U.S. invasion of Grenada) at the Harvard Law School Forum. We ask: why has the administration chosen to single out two students who are members of the Spartacist Youth League (SYL), a small campus group? Do they seriously believe that these two students orchestrated and led this mass protest? We doubt it; in fact, it may be the very smallness and unpopularity of the SYL, as well as the controversial nature of their communist politics, which has led the administration to begin its attack with them. But if we stand by and allow this "beginning," it may be the end of unwanted dissident opinions at Harvard.

Administration officials argue that "continued disrespect for freedom of speech" will lead to disciplinary actions-possibly expulsion-for these two students. But the debate about whether or not periodic interruptions of a public speaker constitutes a violation of free speech is an entirely separate issue from University Hall's attempt to saddle two students with responsibility for the actions of hundreds. There were numerous students who were as vocal as the SYLers; and while a small minority of students may have hoped to drown Weinberger out completely, the great majority were simply exercising the right (recognized even by the British Parliament!) to periodically voice their dissenting opinions. By openly victimizing students who are professed communists, the administration is not only engaged in a selective "redbaiting," but is making a clear effort to intimidate the broader Harvard left.

It has become fashionable these days to charge "McCarthyism of the left," an allegation Kirkpatrick likes to throw out. While we cannot deny that historically there have been examples of severe repression carried out in the name of the "left," in this case, such a charge is preposterous. After all, Caspar Weinberger is not a private citizen hounded by the custodians of a repressive state apparatus. To the contrary, as Secretary of Defense he is an official voice of government policy. His position gives him immediate access to newspapers and television. His views are well known. It is not the right of members of an audience to express their our rage and disapproval of such views, particularly when an event is covered by the national media where these same views are explained and propounded daily? And, for the record: at no point was Weinberger effectively prevented from speaking. In fact, he ultimately delivered his text and everyone in the audience could hear it. He had the use of a public address system; the protesters did not.

The Harvard administration officials must be gambling on the possibility that the other 598+ students will remain silent as they go after defenseless members of an unpopular group, with whom most students (including the signers of this letter) have major political differences. The administration does not go after members of any of the larger, more popular student organizations involved in the protest, nor the unaffiliated students who formed the largest part of the protesters. We hope that not only the signers of this letter, but also a diverse range of campus opinion will condemn this blatant selective victimization. Debra M. Satz   teaching asst., Social Studies   Joseph Schwartz,   teaching fellow, Government and Social Studies   Carlos Forment,   teaching fellow, Social Studies   David K. Brian, graduate student, Socialogy   David L. Evans,   Senior Admissions officer