Contras

To the Editors of The Crimson:

Robert A. Katz's April 5 editorial, "Not So Simple," was a well-written and logically sound attack on the tactics of protesters who recently shouted down a Contra spokesman. Nevertheless, he neglects several points which should be considered in any disscussion of the Contras' "rights to free speech."

For one thing, the Contras do not merely "advocate" murder; they practice it. It is disingenuous to portray this incident solely as a free speech issue. There is nothing wrong with open debate. But, unfortunately, the world is not a Gov section. While we calmly debate the merits of various opinions, Nicaraguans are today being killed--this is not some abstract concept nor merely my personal opinion, but documented reality.

A Nicaraguan woman from Esteli, in a sworn affadavit, stated, "[the Contras] had gang raped me every day. When my vagina couldn't take it anymore, they raped me through my rectum. I calculate that in 5 days they raped me 60 times." Imagine this woman were your mother, your girlfriend, your sister, or you. Would you support the "right" of these men to speak in an attempt not merely to express their opinion, but to gather public support for money to continue these and other equally ghastly actions? How much more carnage and suffering must we watch before drastic tactics are justified? I wonder if Katz were to travel in Nicaragua and talk to the families of the victims, whether he would feel the same way. His principles are admirable but his arguments seem detached from the realities in Central America.

Katz claims that the protesters were "attempting to ensure the ascendance of their interpretation of events in Central America." This is true; they are convinced, as I am, that it is a correct interpretation. But what he does not see is that the Reagan Administration is also convinced it is correct...and it is presently acting upon this presumption. You see, the pro-Contra forces love to call for restraint, moderation and tolerance in the domestic debate over Nicaragua. Why? Because they run the show, so they can afford to be "tolerant." If this academic debate were not occurring against a backdrop of thousands of murders, tortures, rapes and mutilations, then it would have been much more of an issue of free speech. It is the President and those people--Democrat and Republican--who share his assumptions that are imposing their opinions, not on an audience as the protesters did with slogans and red paint, but on innocent civilians with bullets, bombs and machetes. Katz would have us start to apply ethical and civil standards only at the point when people begin to resist the perpetration of this kind of brutality. As such, Katz's interpretation of "toleration" inadvertantly serves the cause of violence.

The purpose of shouting down the Contras was not to prevent people from hearing their point of view. After all, that point of view, as enunciated by the Administration, is trumpeted across front pages of newspapers all across the country. Rather this action was a protest against the presence of one who represents, perhaps participates in, and surely is actively attempting to continue the funding of the most heinous atrocities. It is the actions, not the opinions of the contras that merit the treatment they received.

I am not implying that only we can see the truth and others must be shielded from other opinions. Again, Contra atrocites exist not in my political opinion but in reality; this is an objective fact with ample documentation. I admit that some may think it is arrogant for me to assume I know what's right and wrong; nevertheless, I will venture to assert that the Contras' behavior is objectively wrong and no moral subjectivism can justify passively accepting it.

If Nazis came to Harvard 45 years ago to attempt to elicit government funds so as to continue to eliminate the "Jewish threat," I would hope students would not consider this as part of legitimate debate over a public policy issue. But wouldn't this draw public attention to their crimes? Not if the forces allied with them had the resources (political and economic power, media access) to spread lies and distortions which are only disproven days later perhaps on page 28 of the newspaper or in non-mainstream publications. In the meantime, the damage is done and this damage is measured in human lives.

Finally, I have a hard time accepting Katz's distinction between murdering innocent American civilians and innocent "foreigners." Perhaps he is correct that the latter is often considered a legitimate instrument in achieving some greater good. Nevertheless, I would hesitate to condemn those who reject this morally perverse assumption.

I have doubts as to whether the protesters tactics will be productive, as they may alienate many more moderate students. However, as a matter of principle, the protesters' actions were justified. Does my argument open the way for totalitarian results? Analogously, if one claims that some wars may be just, does it mean that he is condoning all war? If his arguments are twisted and distorted by others, this is unfortunate but doesn't detract from his thesis. I hear the objection: Where might your argument take us tomorrow? To this I answer: What is happening today? Jonathan M. Crystal '87