A Tale of Two Protests

Tuesday’s twin protests of a career panel that included the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) marked the best of times and the worst of times for campus activism and free speech. While the Harvard Social Forum (HSF) offered a peaceful, reasoned demonstration against perceived abuses of the agencies, another group of student hooligans attempted to disrupt the event with shameful tactics. We have one question for this latter group: How could you go so wrong?

The disrupters’ methods are particularly disheartening because HSF’s protest was such a victory for students’ freedom of speech at Harvard. There was much controversy surrounding the admissibility of a protest at the event, due to the group’s late registration and lack of college affiliation. Yet Associate Dean of the College Judith H. Kidd and Assistant Dean of the College Paul J. McLoughlin II were entirely reasonable with the HSF and fellow protestors; they allowed them the space to protest peacefully outside of the Science Center. We can only hope that Tuesday’s outrageous “protestors” do not interfere with other group’s—such as the HSF’s—ability to hold meaningful protests.

That said, however, it should be noted that even if the proverbial Big Brother had been involved, he likely could not have done a better job of weakening the hecklers inside the panel. Because of their actions, the only people restricting free speech were opponents of CIA/DHS practices, who would not even honor speakers’ rights to give their presentations. Attempts to shut off debate, especially when coupled with outrageous behavior, will not win over additional supporters.

With the two protests covering the same event, the HSF will have a very hard time separating itself from the unrestrained behavior of the unaffiliated group. In an e-mail to members on Thursday the Harvard Republican Club mistakenly called for the Harvard Democrats to resign from the HSF because of “the HSF’s destructive demonstration during the [career panel].” In fact, HSF’s demonstration was before the event and outside of the Science Center building, where the actual panel took place. Such an oversight, however egregious, is likely to be common amongst those seeking only a superficial understanding of Tuesday’s protest—yet it points to the way in which a few can label the many.

It is unfortunate that confusion such as this is likely to continue and that the HSF and other critics of the CIA are now likely to be less effective in articulating their positions. The CIA and DHS are not without their fair share of abuses and it is essential that strong voices of dissent exist to stimulate debate on such issues as the indefinite detentions of suspects at Guantanamo Bay, or the specter of eroding civil liberties at home. This page has redundantly expressed its discontent with many of the practices of these agencies; yet we by no means espouse efforts to silence other opinions.

By disturbing the students who attended the panel and those who spoke, the hecklers directed their ire at the wrong target. Many students are sensitive to the concerns of CIA/DHS critics. Attendee Nathan A. Sharp ’08 told The Crimson: “I hate torture as much as the next protestor…but the best way to address the humanitarian disregard or the incompetence of the CIA is not by harassing their recruiters.” Trying to prevent good and fair-minded students from entering the CIA or DHS, does not seem to be the most effective way to reform the organizations either. Perhaps the more effective way to better an organization is to encourage people to do so from within.

Yet even though the HSF rightly focused on the CIA and DHS for their protest and not the students and speakers of the conference, it faces the difficult task of disentangling itself from the group that did the opposite. Thus it is important that the University discipline those who resorted to the shenanigans that disrupted the free expression of those in and attending the career panel. Those demonstrators who acted outside the bounds of accepted and appropriate means of protest should face the Administrative Board. Ideally, comparable actions should be taken against others associated with Harvard. Recently, there has been a disturbing trend toward heckling and harassment at events where speakers should be allowed to express their viewpoints. Those who support an open debate, such as the HSF, should be praised. Those who attempt to stifle free speech should be punished.