Endangered Rights

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE is a time-honored and effective method of protest. However, when protesters cross the line between peaceful demonstration and forcible coercion, even when the crossing is not pre-meditated, they only serve as a detriment to their cause-and to the rights of the entire community.

This line was crossed last Thursday, when 200 apartheid protesters prevented South African Consul General of New York Abe S. Hoppenstein from leaving a speaking engagement with the Harvard Conservative Club, protesters injured club members as well as bystanders, blocked a police car, physically car waiting to escort the speakers form the premises.

While the actions of the South African regime remain abhorrent, and while protesters may still freely oppose Harvard's South Africa-related investments, the protesters have no right to prevent the presentation of an opposing view point, no matter how distasteful they find the stance.

All public and private figures, regardless of political views, have the rights to free speech and free movement. The protesters clearly infringed upon Hoppenstein's right to free movement. His right of free speech was disrupted by violent hecklers outside the building. In addition, because the right to leave a speaking engagement is inherent in the right to speak freely, his liberties were further abridged.

THERE IS CERTAINLY enough blame to go around for Thursday's incident. The Conservative Club, despite its right to hold a closed-door meeting on any topic it chooses, was blatantly provocative in doing so Thursday, especially in light of the recent escalation of divestment activism. The fact that the group failed to publicize the event only makes its actions more questionable.

Further, Harvard Police should be condemned for their billy-club handling of the sensitive situation. They were not, however, to blame for the ugly incident. They did not break any windows, nor did they shove the South African dignitary: only the blockade did. Most of all, the police did not initiate a blockade protest, which is inherently violent.

In addition to breaking the law forcibly, the protesters also did a disservice to their own cause. By blockading Hoppenstein's visit, they distracted attention from a potentially effective non-violent teach-out in front of Lamont Library. Many of the scheduled events of the teach-out were cancelled, and those that were held attracted only a small audience.

It remains ironic that demonstrators, although their actions were not premeditated, nevertheless saw fit to violate many of the same civil rights that they have made the centerpiece of their protest for Blacks in South Africa. Thursday's protest was neither civil nor effective, it was violent and self-indulgent. They incident does damage to individual liberties, as well as to the credibility of the divestment movement.