Free Speech Impasse

THE ENTIRE Harvard community shares blame for the University's firmly established reputation as a place where invited guests cannot expect to be respected when they speak their minds. Former U.N. Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick provided an indication of the direness of the situation last month when she reportedly cited disruptions of conservative speakers and fear for her own safety in refusing to visit Harvard.

Last week's uninterrupted speech by former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger '38 shows that Kirkpatrick's concerns are unfounded, that conservatives coming to Harvard are not automatic targets for harassment. However, her statement shows the extent of the damage the entire community has suffered as a result of the internal bickering currently going on between student activist groups and the administration. The University as a whole must now recognize that specific action must be taken if Harvard is to preserve its reputation as a leading center of intelligent discourse.

Harvard has always taken pride in considering itself the premier forum for intellectual exchange. Unfortunately, however, such prominence is not etched in stone.

Most distressing, none of the principal players in the free speech controversy--leftist protesters, the Conservative Club, and the administration--are willing to accept responsibility for their roles in the disturbances that have rocked Harvard in the past few years. And there is a definitely recognizable pattern to each disturbance.

Trying to finger specific blame is to be avoided. It does nothing to further the healing process and restore Harvard's reputation as the home of free intellectual discourse. But while the cliche says it takes two to tango, Harvard has seen that it takes three to shut off a speaker. Someone has to invite speakers controversial enough to be protested, someone has to protest in a way that focuses attention on the situation, and someone has to overreact to the speech and trying to make everyone involved look bad.

IT IS this pattern that has to end. A forum conducted by the Civil Liberties Union of Harvard last week brought together administrators, campus leaders and other students for one of the first constructive discussions of the state of free speech on campus. The forum revealed that students on both the left and right believe the University should take firm action. The administration's failure to define appropriate standards for protesting speeches, virtually everyone agreed, has contributed to an atmosphere of uncertainty in which some eminent speakers must wonder what kind of receptions they will receive.

Right-wing groups at Harvard have traditionally expressed themselves by inviting highly unpopular speakers in order to provoke political opponents. Leftwing groups, on the other hand, have traditionally expressed themselves by protesting. The University traditionally has walked a line, trying to defuse the effectiveness of both these methods by shutting down the speeches and ignoring the arguments of both sides.

This has done nothing more than exacerbate the situation, allowing both groups to blame each other and the administration for trying to restrict free speech at Harvard, and allowing the administration to dismiss student concerns as immature and uninformed. This vicious circle can only be broken through a change in the basic university policy.

THE UNIVERSITY must punish those who violently violate the rights of guests with serious penalties, such as requirements to withdraw. And the University should discontinue its wishy-washy response to those who engage in acts of civil disobedience. Those who violate clear standards of respect for speakers and listeners--standards which the University should promptly spell out--should be arrested. Finally, the university no longer should try to punish the students by closing down a speech, unless the speaker himself is unwilling to continue.

These are not particularly stringent guidlines, and there was tacit agreement at the forum that they were neccessary to end the current ambiguity that inevitably results in chaos. Students that understand the policy can more effectively plan both events and protests that can convey concerns and messages without unneccessary disruption.

Furthermore, Harvard should no longer try to protect its own image by embarrassing students when such problems arise. These tactics do nothing more than make the whole place look petty, small-minded and possibly dangerous. We need to prove over again that we are not.