Protesters Given Fair Warning

To the Editors of The Crimson:

Your editorial of April 29, which criticizes the Law School for having photographs taken of students who were blocking access to the dean's office of the Law School, contains several incorrect or misleading statements.

Here is what happened. At 2:30 p.m.--after students had blocked the access of nine Law School employees to their offices; after those students had been informally asked to desist and informed that they were violating the rules; and after their disruption had lasted for more than six hours--University police appeared to take still and video photographs of the violators. At that time the students were formally directed by the vice-dean not only to cease blocking access, but also to vacate the area by 4:00 p.m.

When it became clear that a number of students were remaining beyond 4:00 p.m. and refusing to permit access to Law School offices, the police returned for their second, and last, visit, at 4:30 p.m., and took still photographs of those students. Your characterization of these events--that "police officers armed with still and video cameras repeatedly swept through the crowd"--is more than a little misleading.

You also complain that students who were simply watching the protest were photographed like anyone else. In situations such as this one, in which there may be students milling around in close proximity to others centrally involved in the disrruption, it is not always possible to photographs only those whose conduct clearly violated University or Law School rules.

But the photograph (all of which were taken in public areas at the Law School) were used only the identify those students who had blocked access to Law School offices, or who had violated the directive to leave the areas in question by 4:00 p.m.

Your rhetoric about "Orwellian techniques," "big brother tactics," and "willingness to suffocate [First Amendment rights]" simply lacks foundation. As I have stressed many times, students at the Law School are free to express their views on any subject in a variety of ways--in meetings with me, in letters and petitions and in rallies and demonstrations that do not disrupt the activities of others at the school or violate University rules. They do so regularly, and dissent at the Law School is not in short supply.

No one has been or will be threatened for expressing his or her views, whatever those views are--so long as those views are expressed in a fashion that complies with Law School and University rules and that respects the rights of all members of the community. Robert C. Clark   Dean of the Law School