Coping with the Conservative Club

IN MANY WAYS, the way in which the Conservative Club organized last week's speech by William Coors betrays a strategy designed to create splits within the student body. This event was not the first time the club tried such a strategy; every time the Club plans a event, provocation seems to be their primary objective.

Conservative Club members try to create the perception that all liberals are radicals opposed to basic American values. The club does this by provoking the campus with inflamatory speakers and then pointing to protests as evidence of widespread leftist hooliganism.

The Conservative Club initially announced that it would hire cadets the Navy's Reserve Officer Training Corps to guarantee the safety of the audience. The intention was to create tension at the site of the speech and give the impression that radicals were massing to "attack."

Other Conservative Club tactics also contributed to the impression that something serious might happen. Student marshalls were instructed to check coats and bags. In addition, video cameras filmed the audience, suggesting that films could be used to identify protesters. Harvard Police guarded the Science Center with an impressive show of force.

THE CONSERVATIVE Club event reminded me of neo-fascist Youth Front rallies I have observed in Italy. The similarities are striking. Both the Conservative Club and the Youth Front manufacture disorder, carefully orchestrating events to provoke the left.

The speakers at Youth Front rallies are always controversial and are usually remnants of the old Fascist regime. The Front often organizes a group of bodyguards, usually Army paratroopers, whose presence in Pisa sometimes results in confrontation with civilians. Police always are present in more than ample numbers, and--as with Coors' speech--participants are searched and filmed.

Youth Front rallies clearly are designed to provoke and to create tension. Those who organize these types of rallies--both in Italy and at Harvard--hardly care about what their speakers have to say. Rather, they take pride simply in bringing controversial men to the podium, drawing attention to themselves and their otherwise floundering causes, and creating a scene.

THE SPEECH Coors delivered--while occasionally offensive--was really pretty tame, as the Conservative Club no doubt anticipated. But Coors came to Harvard with the reputation, deserved or not, of a racist who disregards the rights of his employees. It was his presence that motivated the protest outside the Science Center, and that was what the "speech," from the point of view of its organizers, was all about.

It is inexcusable that the Harvard administration allowed itself to play into the hands of the Conservative Club and went so far as to incur financial expenses above and beyond the call of duty to provide police and cameras.

William Coors probably did not object to playing the role of inflamer. However, the students who attended the event were deceived into believing that they were threatened by a potential leftist attack carried out by members of the College. Given that all students wishing to attend the speech had to present a Harvard ID card, the presence of surveillance equipment and police was unnecessary.

Two years ago the Conservative Club invited the South African consul to defend apartheid. This year they invited Coors. Who are they going to invite next year to give "the other side of the controversy"?

In Italy, those whose political strategy is to drive others to riot are put in jail. In America, we can recognize those whose aim is agitation rather than presentation of their views. But--appropriately--we can do very little more.