Protest May Have Broken Speech Code

The student protesters who disrupted a high-profile government class last week may be in violation of the University's free speech guidelines and could be subject to disciplinary action, administrative sources said yesterday.

"If the Crimson's account of the events was accurate, it would certainly appear that our standards have been violated," Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 wrote in an e-mail last night.

At 2 p.m. Friday, in a packed Lowell Lecture Hall, Government 1091, "Liberalism and Conservatism in American Politics" met for the first time.

Kenan Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield Jr. '53, Professor of Government Michael J. Sandel and Visiting Lecturer on Government George F. Will are co-teaching the class.

As the first session began, members of the week-old group "Strategic Offensive" disrupted class for about five minutes by walking on stage, shouting and carrying signs that read "Keep Harvard Straight" and "Keep Harvard White."

Their intent, according to group member James Clayton '97, was to offer "a fake support of the white supremacist views of [Will and Mansfield]," who are known political conservatives.

Mansfield said yesterday that he had "inquired" to Lewis whether the demonstration infringed on his rights as a Harvard professor.

In his e-mail, Lewis cited the University Free Speech Guidelines pamphlet, adopted by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in 1990, and the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities, which appears in the student handbook.

"While there are many forms of dissent and protest that are both acceptable and effective, the Free Speech Guidelines clearly state, "The classroom is a special forum, and the teacher should be the one who determines the agenda of discourse in the classroom," Lewis wrote.

The sentence before that in the pamphlet reads, "The following [free speech] guidelines are intended to apply to all gatherings under the auspices of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, but they are not intended to govern classroom procedures."

Lewis cited another University document:

"Also, the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities (which appears in the Handbook [for Students]) states, 'interference with members of the University in performance of their normal duties and activities must be regarded as unacceptable obstruction of the essential processes of the University."

Friday's disruption, therefore, could be interpreted as usurping a teacher's right to "determine the agenda of discourse" in the classroom.

Joshua Oppenheimer '96-'97, one of the organizers of the protest, said last night that he had received "no indication" that he would be disciplined.

His Allston Burr senior tutor, Elizabeth Minott, contacted him yesterday to tell him that the Ad Board requested that they meet to discuss Harvard's free speech guidelines.

"The issue was [already] considered by the Ad Board, as far as I understand it," Oppenheimer said. "And the Ad Board's decision in this case...was to have us go over the free speech issues."

Oppenheimer said the meeting was "not the initiation of the disciplinary process," but was merely a discussion for his own future reference.

Adam K. Richards '96, one of the demonstrators, said yesterday that the protest was not specifically intended to interfere with the class.

"The point of the demonstration was not to disrupt the classroom experience per se," Richards said, emphasizing that he was speaking for himself and not for the group.

"It was to highlight and bring attention to Harvey Mansfield's specific politics and how he uses them, specifically in regards to his testimony in Colorado as an 'expert witness' against homosexual sex," Richards said.

Mansfield said his intention in asking Lewis about the disruption's legality was not to get the demonstrators in trouble.

"I think there was a certain levity and that they didn't quite realize how serious this is," Mansfield said, adding that he only wanted to give the demonstrators warning that such behavior would not be tolerated in his classroom.

"I don't remember even from the late 1960s the actual invasion of a classroom," Mansfield said. "Worse things were done and passions were much higher, but so far as I recall it wasn't done in the classroom."

Clayton said yesterday that Mansfield's objections were unfounded.

"I don't know that the class even lasted two hours, so I really doubt we infringed on anyone's time, because I doubt they used all their time," Clayton said. "If they had asked us to leave, we would have done so immediately.

Final clubs and other groups disrupt class with streaking and other pranks, Clayton said, and are not reprimanded.

"Basically it just appears that Harvey Mansfield is using his clout to try to squash any opposition to him," Clayton said.

Mansfield's objection could even backfire, Clayton said.

"The more attention we receive from people struggling to sort of punish us, the more attention the act will get, and in the end a larger audience will reach what we have to say," he said

Friday's disruption, therefore, could be interpreted as usurping a teacher's right to "determine the agenda of discourse" in the classroom.

Joshua Oppenheimer '96-'97, one of the organizers of the protest, said last night that he had received "no indication" that he would be disciplined.

His Allston Burr senior tutor, Elizabeth Minott, contacted him yesterday to tell him that the Ad Board requested that they meet to discuss Harvard's free speech guidelines.

"The issue was [already] considered by the Ad Board, as far as I understand it," Oppenheimer said. "And the Ad Board's decision in this case...was to have us go over the free speech issues."

Oppenheimer said the meeting was "not the initiation of the disciplinary process," but was merely a discussion for his own future reference.

Adam K. Richards '96, one of the demonstrators, said yesterday that the protest was not specifically intended to interfere with the class.

"The point of the demonstration was not to disrupt the classroom experience per se," Richards said, emphasizing that he was speaking for himself and not for the group.

"It was to highlight and bring attention to Harvey Mansfield's specific politics and how he uses them, specifically in regards to his testimony in Colorado as an 'expert witness' against homosexual sex," Richards said.

Mansfield said his intention in asking Lewis about the disruption's legality was not to get the demonstrators in trouble.

"I think there was a certain levity and that they didn't quite realize how serious this is," Mansfield said, adding that he only wanted to give the demonstrators warning that such behavior would not be tolerated in his classroom.

"I don't remember even from the late 1960s the actual invasion of a classroom," Mansfield said. "Worse things were done and passions were much higher, but so far as I recall it wasn't done in the classroom."

Clayton said yesterday that Mansfield's objections were unfounded.

"I don't know that the class even lasted two hours, so I really doubt we infringed on anyone's time, because I doubt they used all their time," Clayton said. "If they had asked us to leave, we would have done so immediately.

Final clubs and other groups disrupt class with streaking and other pranks, Clayton said, and are not reprimanded.

"Basically it just appears that Harvey Mansfield is using his clout to try to squash any opposition to him," Clayton said.

Mansfield's objection could even backfire, Clayton said.

"The more attention we receive from people struggling to sort of punish us, the more attention the act will get, and in the end a larger audience will reach what we have to say," he said