Students, Faculty Discuss Harvard's Protest Policy

A group of students and faculty representatives met last evening to discuss how the Harvard student body can best influence university policy on free speech and protest.

Last evening's meeting was the second in a series of open policy discussions co-sponsored by the Civil Liberties Union of Harvard (CLUH) and Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57.

"The point [of these meetings] is not just to talk about what is good policy, but to come up with something" that the University can enact," said moderator and CLUH president Gregory G. Nadeau '89.

The purpose of the series of discussions will be to create a list of policy regulations that would allow students to better understand their rights and responsibilities concerning protest at public speeches, Nadeau said.

Once compiled, this policy list will be submitted to the Faculty Council, which is the steering committee for the full Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

The University's methods of dealing with political protesters have come under fire from both the left and right in recent years. Last year, 15 students were placed on probation for attempting to blockade a South African diplomat who was delivering a speech sponsored by the Conservative Club.

At that time, both the protesters and the Conservative Club criticized the Harvard administration for not arresting the blockaders.

The bulk of last night's discussion, attended by about 20 people, was devoted to matters of procedure rather than issues of free speech.

Deciding who will sponsor future meetings was the most controversial issue, consuming more than one hour of the two-and-a-half-hour meeting.

Nadeau announced at the start of last night'smeeting that the CLUH would not moderate furthermeetings of the discussion group.

"The Civil Liberties Union has a definiteposition on this issue, and so we don't feel weshould moderate," Nadeau said. He also said thatthe CLUH does not have the resources--human ormonetary--to continue sponsoring the meetings.

Nadeau suggested that the Undergraduate Counciltake control of the group, but members of theConservative Club objected to that idea.

Club member Alexander E. Shustorovich '88argued the council has not proven itself a goodadvocate in negotiations with the faculty. "TheUndergraduate Council has a history of sellingstudents down the road," he said, citing the waythe council handled the creation of the JudicialBoard last year.

However Kenneth E. Lee '89, councilvice-chairman, said that the Undergraduate Councilis well-suited to chair the meetings because it isthe only campus group that represents the entirestudent body.

Eventually, a compromise agreement was reachedin which the council will publicize and moderatefurther meetings of the discussion group. But themeetings will not be publicized as council eventsand the council will not negotiate with thefaculty in the name of the discussion group,except in an open forum.

But Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III saidthat plans for negotiations were premature.Although Epps agreed that students should have avoice in creating University policy on freespeech, he said that he could not guarantee thatthe faculty would negotiate with representativesof the discussion group.

Furthermore, Epps said that he would not evenpromise that he would endorse the group to theFaculty Council