Free Speech Paradox

THE LAW SCHOOL Republican Club took extra special care last Friday to secure a forum for contra leader Adolfo Calero. The organization reserved 300 of the 350 available seats for conservative students--the rest going to the press and, oh yes, the public. Just 20 members of La Alianza, the Latin American Law School group, were allowed inside to hold signs in protest.

One leftist troublemaker did manage to sneak in, however. Joshua Laub, a senior at Tufts and a member of the International Committee Against Racism (INCAR), attempted to attack Calero as the contra made his way to the podium. Harvard police quickly and successfully subdued Laub, but Law School officials nonetheless cancelled the event, despite Calero's willingness to continue.

These Law School officials should be ashamed. Such panicked reactions--which seem to be habitual with the Harvard administration--stifle free speech on campus.

HARVARD OFFICIALS have displayed this readiness to cancel events in the face of minor incidents several times, most notably during the Kent-Brown incident last year, when several Harvard students attempted a blockade during the South African diplomat's speech. Harvard Police rushed Kent-Brown out of the room as the blockade formed, and Dean Epps ended the speech without an attempt to negotiate with the protestors--even though the students presented no physical threat to the speaker and had left the front entrance to the auditorium clear.

The Harvard administration seems to want either speech without disruption or no speech at all. But paradoxically, this ivory tower attitude has become a major obstacle to freedom of speech on campus. Not only are speakers prevented from finishing, but protestors are often prevented from excercising their right to protest. Worse still, the administration blames these speech endings on student protestors rather than accepting the responsibility itself.

OBVIOUSLY, the University must not tolerate violent protests such as Laub's attack. However, there is no need to cancel a speech every time a minor disruption occurs.

Harvard security takes every precaution when a controversial speaker is invited to campus. Bags are searched and ID's are checked at the door. Police flank the podium and video cameras film the audience. Escape routs are planned in advance.

At the Calero speech, the audience was even ideologically screened. What could security have feared after Laub had been subdued? Certainly an audience of 350 conservatives and press people was not going to riot. Even the remote possibility that another 20 Laubs were out there should not have daunted the Harvard Police. The only hindrance to the continuation of Calero's speech was Harvard's sqeamishness in the face of physical protest.

It's as if the University doesn't want to suffer the indignity of dealing physically with an audience. Harvard officials are reluctant to admit that anyone would want to protest physically. They would like all protest in writing and obviously cannot grapple with protest that goes beyond the scope of academia into the realm of heated emotion.

AND YET THE University invites highly controversial speakers who provoke physical reactions--both violent and non-violent--in some people. If Harvard seriously wants to protect the "rights" of such speakers on campus, it should do so by responding to violence with force and to non-violent protest with negotiation. A speech should not be cancelled until the Harvard Police--or the speaker himself--begin to fear for the safety of the speaker.

Calero wanted to finish his speech. And during last year's Kent-Brown incident, the protestors presented no violent threat at all. Yet the administration closed down both of these speeches. This is a bizarre way to promote the freedom of speech which the Administration claims to value so highly.