Campus Free Speech Explored

Tackling the controversy that has recently flared up on campus around free speech, the Harvard Political Union convened a student discussion group last night to discuss free expression on campus and the Harvard speech code.

About a dozen students participated in the 90-minute discussion, which was held in response to the student demonstration three weeks ago that interrupted the first lecture of Government 1091, "Liberalism and Conservatism in American Politics."

The discussion also addressed the recent poster war between the Association Against Learning in the Absence of Religion and Morality (AALARM) and the Bisexual Gay and Lesbian Student Association (BGLSA). Last week, BGLSA put up posters in the Yard reading "AALARM: Hatred=Death" in response to AALARM posters reading "AIDS: Sodomy=Death."

Initially, debate centered on the clause in the University Free Speech Guidelines which states that "the classroom is a special forum, and the teacher should be the one who determines the agenda of discourse in the classroom."

According to this rule, a professor may suppress any kind of speech in his class that he deems inappropriate, including the sort of demonstration that occurred in Government 1091.

The discussion then focused on whether the classroom merited its own free speech standards.

Derek T. Ho '96, who is editor-in-chief of Perspective, disagreed with the classroom exemption. "I don't see the classroom as a different forum or a special forum where special rules apply," he said.

He recommended that the admin- istration set more specific guidelines for the classroom. "I'd rather have the University decide it than every professor decide for himself," he said.

But Bert I. Huang '96, chair of the Student Advisory Committee at the Institute of Politics, said that both students and professors enter into a contract with the University. Under this implied contract, the students understand that the University will provide them with a wide exposure to ideas, and in turn, professors can expect to be able to present their ideas without disruption.

With regard to the AALARM-BGLSA controversy and the question of free speech outside the classroom, discussion organizer E. Michelle Drake '96 said Dean of Students Archie C. Epps met with the leaders of AALARM this past week to discuss what kind of speech is "appropriate" on campus.

Drake, who met with Epps yesterday afternoon, said the dean was not able to define "civil discourse" in precise terms and therefore should not have demanded a meeting with members of AALARM.

AALARM has not been recognized as an official student group by the University since 1993.

"It's very close to the University siding with different students groups" while maintaining a pretense of neutrality, Drake said. The University should declare its views openly instead, she said.

One discussion participant suggested that rather than use his authority with the AALARM students, Epps should have written a letter or editorial in a publication like the Crimson.

William Zerhouni '98 disagreed. "I think administrators do have a role in maintaining a certain decorum in campus speech," he said.

At this point, the discussion turned to a broader consideration of what kind of speech deserves protection.

Some students felt any words should be allowed when addressing an individual unless they pose a physical threat.

Ho said he would impose restrictions on irrational and harmful speech, citing that "use of racial epithets does not make some sort of rational point."

"If the harm is such that it's undermining the stature of a certain group in the eyes of the whole society, I think there should be steps taken to prohibit it," Ho said.

Drake disagreed with the idea of rationality as a criteria for protecting speech, arguing that many accepted forms of speech circumvent rational processes. Drake said, "You can't distinguish between art that makes a rational point and art that doesn't."

But Ho said that while it was difficult to differentiate between rational and irrational, and between harmful and innocuous, speech, society should nevertheless try to make that distinction

But Bert I. Huang '96, chair of the Student Advisory Committee at the Institute of Politics, said that both students and professors enter into a contract with the University. Under this implied contract, the students understand that the University will provide them with a wide exposure to ideas, and in turn, professors can expect to be able to present their ideas without disruption.

With regard to the AALARM-BGLSA controversy and the question of free speech outside the classroom, discussion organizer E. Michelle Drake '96 said Dean of Students Archie C. Epps met with the leaders of AALARM this past week to discuss what kind of speech is "appropriate" on campus.

Drake, who met with Epps yesterday afternoon, said the dean was not able to define "civil discourse" in precise terms and therefore should not have demanded a meeting with members of AALARM.

AALARM has not been recognized as an official student group by the University since 1993.

"It's very close to the University siding with different students groups" while maintaining a pretense of neutrality, Drake said. The University should declare its views openly instead, she said.

One discussion participant suggested that rather than use his authority with the AALARM students, Epps should have written a letter or editorial in a publication like the Crimson.

William Zerhouni '98 disagreed. "I think administrators do have a role in maintaining a certain decorum in campus speech," he said.

At this point, the discussion turned to a broader consideration of what kind of speech deserves protection.

Some students felt any words should be allowed when addressing an individual unless they pose a physical threat.

Ho said he would impose restrictions on irrational and harmful speech, citing that "use of racial epithets does not make some sort of rational point."

"If the harm is such that it's undermining the stature of a certain group in the eyes of the whole society, I think there should be steps taken to prohibit it," Ho said.

Drake disagreed with the idea of rationality as a criteria for protecting speech, arguing that many accepted forms of speech circumvent rational processes. Drake said, "You can't distinguish between art that makes a rational point and art that doesn't."

But Ho said that while it was difficult to differentiate between rational and irrational, and between harmful and innocuous, speech, society should nevertheless try to make that distinction