More Kennedy

To the Editors of the Crimson:

In a recent talk at the Law School, Assistant Professor of Law Randall Kennedy praised the disruption of political speakers whose views are "beyond the pale" and asserted that some political speech "shouldn't be tolerated." There can be little doubt that most thoughtful Americans are strongly opposed to the repressive policies of the current South African regime. But surely freedom of speech, if it means anything, means freedom to speak and listen to ideas which do not comport with law professors' subjective assessments of community values. The suggestion that Mr. Kent-Brown's speech is less worthy of protection because it is only political is particularly offensive; taken seriously, it could lead to the effective silencing of any political speech which a small number of students found offensive.

Perhaps Professor Kennedy would prefer the atmosphere of some European universities, where groups on both sides of the political spectrum routinely hire thugs to disrupt meetings of their opponents. At such institutions, productive dialogue between students is completely absent.

Like many of my fellow students, I came to Harvard to be exposed to a wide variety of ideas, including unpopular and controversial ones. An uninhibited exchange of ideas--even ideas we find offensive--is essential to the pursuit of truth and knowledge. To this end, the university justifiably asks its members to show at least some minimal level of tolerance, self-restraint, and respect for the rights of others.

As Justice Potter Stewart aptly observed in his dissent in Young vs. American Mini-Theatres: "[We] must never forget that the consequences of enforcing the guarantees of the First Amendment are frequently unpleasant. Much speech that seems to be of little or no value will enter the marketplace of ideas, threatening the quality of our social discourse, and, more generally, the serenity of our lives. But that is the price to be paid for constitutional freedom." Linton J. Childs '84, 21.