Big Brother Should Stay Away

"If we mean to deviate in some fashion from the First Amendment, then we're up to some very serious business indeed." President Derek C. Bok during discussions of the free speech guidelines last year

ONE MIGHT THINK that with all its Constitutional scholars, the Harvard Law School would be a vigorous protector of civil liberties and due process. But events in the last few weeks have led us to question that assumption.

The Law School's troubling actions began on April 10, when students seeking greater faculty diversity blocked the entrances to the office of Dean Robert C. Clark.

The daylong blockade of Clark's office undoubtedly disrupted the "normal duties and activities" of those at the Law School. But the ill-considered responses of Clark and other officials to the protest display an appalling lack of concern for the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

POLICE WERE PRESENT at the Law School protest all day. And early in the afternoon, they moved in. Not against the protesters--but against photographers trying to record the events for the University community. By the end of the day, Harvard police had used physical force to throw three Crimson photographers out of Griswold Hall. A Boston Globe photographer was ejected as well.

What was most disturbing about the ejections was that they were carried out selectively. Only press photographers--the photographers with the intent of disseminating information about the sit-in to the public--were thrown out. A law student and police officers were allowed to photograph the protest and those without cameras were not even told to leave the building.

Police Chief Paul E. Johnson said Law School officials had instructed him to remove all reporters and photographers from Griswold Hall. At the time, a University spokesperson stated that photographers could be ejected from buildings at the discretion of the administration.

Where the right of the community to be informed about newsworthy events is involved, such unbridled discretion to control the flow of information strikes us as perilous and unwarranted. The University must recognize that limiting press coverage is not a legitimate way to deal with student protest.

WE ALSO TAKE ISSUE with the administration's use of official police photographers to identify and intimidate students. During the protest, Harvard police officers armed with still and video cameras repeatedly swept through the crowd. One snapped so many pictures of the same students that it was clear his intent was to frighten rather than simply identify them. Those students who gathered to watch or report on the protest--hardly a violation of University rules--were photographed just like everyone else.

The use of official photographs to intimidate protesters can stifle free expression. Clark's use of the pictures clearly betrays that intent. Dozens received letters from Clark threatening suspension, including many people who had not actually blocked the entrance to Clark's office. We trust that the faculty of the Law School needs no lecture on how such guilt be association can result in a "chilling" of permitted, expressive activity.

Support for police photography of protests is by no means unanimous. Last year, General Counsel Daniel Steiner '54 ordered Harvard police to stop videotaping a militant ACT-UP protest. We hope he will continue to show an enlightened attitude and ban the use of such Orwellian techniques.

WITH SUFFICIENT PERSONNEL, police should be able to control any demonstration. What cannot be accepted are "big brother" tactics which infringe on the right to dissent and the community's right to be informed.

It is ironic that although the courts have long recognized that First Amendment rights need "breathing space" to survive, the Law School shows continued willingness to suffocate them.