Faculty Takes on Academic Freedom

Five University officials, including Harvard’s top lawyer and top lobbyist, briefed the Faculty yesterday afternoon about the University’s responses to post-Sept. 11 national security legislation and its effect on everything from international travel to laboratory research.

The meeting in University Hall was called in response to concerns about academic freedom raised at last week’s Faculty meeting by Professor of Greek and Latin Richard F. Thomas and others.

University officials made a series of presentations about Harvard’s responses to new requirements facing foreign students, faculty members and researchers.

Each of the five panelists emphasized that many of the academic freedom issues facing the University have been exaggerated.

The University’s senior lobbyist said that restrictive legislation tops his agenda.

“Since Sept. 11 no issue has been higher on our radar screen, said Senior Director of Federal and State Relations Kevin Casey.

But Casey added that a lot of the national security legislation that affects universities is several years old.

For example, the federal government first tightened regulations on student visas when the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993.

But the events of Sept. 11 exacerbated “visceral” concerns for universities, he said, particularly because three of the terrorists hijackers had entered the country using student visas, he said.

“There was a general flavor post-Sept. 11 that universities represented a unique weakness in security,” he said.

But since then, the political climate has become more amenable for an institution such as Harvard, he said.

“People are willing to take a look at look at things from a different angle,” he said.

Director of the Harvard International Office (HIO) Sharon Ladd said her office has been working to comply with newly-enforced requirements that all educational institutions register international students in a national online database called SEVIS.

Although other schools have had difficulties with SEVIS, she said, the University has not yet encountered any major problems.

“What is really going to test the system is when large numbers of students enter this summer and this fall,” she said.

Ladd also talked about the problems many intenational stuents faced last fall when trying to get their visas to enter the country. More than a dozen students had to enroll late or defer their enrollment for a year.

Paul C. Martin, dean of research and information technology for the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, explained that he was unconcerned about an array of national-security regulations pertaining to so-called “select agents”—laboratory samples deemed potentially dangerous—because most research of this variety was not based within the Faculty.

General Counsel Representative Heather Quay discussed the requirements regarding the release of records for federal requests.

The University will produce records only when it is satisfied that a given request is legitimate, she said.

Several Faculty members who spoke during a question-and-answer session following the panelists’ presentations expressed their gratitude that University offiicals had arranged such the forum.

But Cabot Professor of Aesthetics and the General Theory of Value Elaine Scarry said the panelists’ explanations did not assuage her fears.

“Some of the reasons for not being concerned don’t strike me as reasons not to be concerned,” she said, remarking that the possibility for future restriction in the future concern her.

Several Faculty members urged the University administration to give out more information about the regulations affecting the Harvard.

Professor of History of Science Everett I. Mendelsohn said that he had performed an “experiment,” in which he asked a series of faculty members, staff members, and Harvard police officers alike how they would respond if the FBI asked for information about a specific student. Many did not seem to know how to respond, he said.

Dean of the Faculty William C. Kirby emphasized that discussion remained central to the interests of a University.

“One of the absolute best defenses of free speech is free speech,” he said.

—Staff writer Nathan J. Heller can be reached at heller@fas.harvard.edu.