Pro-Lifers' Free Speech Violated

The Civil Liberties Union of Harvard is writing this open letter to the Harvard community to protest the actions of officials at the Institute of Politics and the Kennedy School of Government at a recent speech by U.S. Senator Arlen Specter. These Harvard officials, among them Albert Carnesale, Dean of the Kennedy School, showed an outrageous disregard for the principles of free speech and respect that are vital to our community.

Senator Specter is a pro-choice candidate for the Republican Party's nomination for President of the United States, and as such he has faced many protests by pro-life members of his party. At Friday's speech, members of two official student organizations, the Harvard Republican Club and the Harvard-Radcliffe Alliance for Life, attempted to display banners expressing their opposition to Specter's views. These banners were not offensive in tone; they read "Lincoln's Party Will Never Abandon the Unborn" and "America Votes Pro-Life '94-'96." They were hung silently and without disruption in front of the protesters' own seats. They were hung in such a way that not a single audience members' view would be obstructed.

However, despite the pains taken by the protesters to demonstrate without disrupting the speech, officials of the Kennedy School almost immediately removed these banners. When one banner was found to be difficult to remove from its place, the officials literally tore the banner in their haste. The banners were removed so quickly that Senator Specter never even noticed them.

When the removal of these banners was called to his attention by a questioner, Specter expressed his view that the banners should have been allowed to remain; he recognized them as an essential part of the political dialogue. Yet almost before the senator had finished his words, Dean Carnesale, who was moderating the speech, declared that it was the policy of the Kennedy School to prohibit all signs in the ARCO Forum. He announced, "I'll take the responsibility," and observed that there were no "advertisements for gas stations" hung on the wall, either. However, in overlooking the distinction between speech pertinent to political discourse and that which is not, Carnesale undercut the very dialogue that the Institute of Politics attempts to create.

Free and uninhibited discourse is an essential component of the search for knowledge and the resolution of political questions. The Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) unequivocally commits itself to protecting open and robust debate; apparently, the Kennedy School has no such commitment.

Although not binding upon the Kennedy School, the conclusions of FAS provide a model for protecting free speech--a model the Kennedy School would do well to adopt as its own.Free Speech Guidelines, which was adopted by FAS in 1990 and is available at University Hall, reflects the Faculty's commitment to protecting the rights of both speakers and protesters and carefully balances the needs of all so as to ensure uninhibited discourse.

Regarding protests, the Guidelines set out a principle intended to ensure that the members of the Harvard community are allowed to compete in the contest of ideas, as stated on page 16: "The University must affirm, assure and protect the rights of its members to organize and join in political associations...publicly demonstrate and picket in an orderly fashion, advocate and publicize by print, sign and voice."

In order to protect the rights of protesters during controversial speeches, the Guidelines narrowly define those categories of actions that should be prohibited because of their disruptive nature, as stated on page 6: "...the definition of disruption is any repeated or continuous action which effectively prevents members of the audience from adequately hearing or seeing the event."

The silent, unobstructive protest of the Harvard organizations is in no way a prohibited activity under this definition (which notably is the only sentence in the report in bold-faced font). If only Senator Specter's speech had been organized by Harvard College rather than the Kennedy School, the Harvard students would not have been deprived of their right to challenge the speaker's views, and the Harvard community would not be deprived of the end-product of this clash of ideas.

The actions of Dean Carnesale and the officials of the Kennedy School have made a travesty of the University's commitment to open debate and its quest for knowledge and truth. Any policy of the Kennedy School that prohibits unobstructive, non-disruptive protests fails to consider the needs of the Harvard community and its individual members. Perhaps the Kennedy School is concerned that its speakers will be annoyed by protesters; yet annoyance and even outrage are basic components of political debate. The conflict of ideas is truly a battle. Perhaps, aware that C-SPAN was taping Specter's speech for later broadcast on television, Dean Carnesale was trying to protect the image of the University, yet instead he announced to the entire nation that Harvard does not tolerate the open dialogue that is essential to the pursuit of knowledge.

We, the Executive Board of the Civil Liberties Union of Harvard, call on the dean to apologize for the removal of these banners and for the Kennedy School to adopt a policy on public speeches similar to the one adopted by FAS. Robert W. Yalen '95   Civil Liberties Union of Harvard