Rindge Rent Plan Adopted In committee

The Cambridge School Committee voted 4-2 last night to adopt a policy that gives University officials the major responsibility for approving controversial student-sponsored speeches in public school auditoriums.

For Harvard, the new plan means that Dean Watson will clear requests for Rindge Tech Auditorium from organizations like the Harvard-Radcliffe Young Democrats. The YD's were refused use of Rindge for Stokely Carmichael's speech last week.

Watson would submit a letter to the Secretary of the School Committee certifying that "adequate facilities cannot be arranged at the university." The secretary would routinely approve the request.

Under the new policy, however, the Committee retains the right to grant use of its facilities "as it deems in the interest of the community."

Moments before adopting the new policy, the Committee voted down an amendment to strike the qualifying phrase. Committeeman Francis H. Duehay, assistant dean of the Ed School, and author of the amendment argued that the policy would be clearest and most effective if the Committee did not try assert any power to censor controversial speakers.

Barbara Ackerman and Gustave Solomons, who voted with Duehay to allow the Carmichael speech at Rindge, vigorously supported Duehay's amendment. Both stated last night that the new policy "does not clarify at all" the Committee's position on controversial Speakers.

Duehay, however, voted for the policy, even without his amendment. He insisted "some policy is better than no policy at all" and agreed with Mayor Daniel Hayes, who ogered the plan, that it is desirable to shift the censor's role to university administrators.

"The main point," Mrs. Ackerman argued "is that we would recognize any request from a responsible person at Harvard as a reasonable request" and would grant the use of the facilities.

Duehay said that all requests should be approved "as long as there is no danger of riot or undue commotion." George F. Oleson, one of the majority that kept Carmichael out of Rindge, agreed that fear for public safety was the only legiti- tonishly eager to hear and talk with the students, became increasingly annoyed as each word of his was drowned out by boos and jeers.

As someone once said in another connection: "How thin is the veneer of civilization."  FRANK E. A. SANDER  Professor of Law

Basic Issues

My impression is that many of those people signing the petition condemning Harvard students' breach of decorum during the visit of Secretary McNamara are doing so on grounds of etiquette and ignoring the more basic political issues. Justifications for extremist behavior, even of the mild sort witnessed at Harvard, are often very difficult to understand from the standpoint of an established society or an established policy. For people sincerely opposed to the war in Vietnam on reasoned grounds, I see three justifications for the treatment accorded McNamara.

To begin with, there is the right and necessity of moral protest. Americans in such strong disagreement with their country's policy have the option of either disassociating themselves from their country or taking every opportunity to register their moral and intellectual outrage. McNamara is an obvious symbol against which this protest can be directed.

Secondly, there is the hope of changing current policy. All other, more moderate, channels having been tried, anti-Administration policy has been escalated. The argument here, as I understand it -- and it strikes me as valid -- is that in order to promote a change in policy, a noticeable and vocal opposition is necessary. The growth of such an opposition is dependent, in good measure, on knowledge of its own strength. Communications media not having served extensively as forums for policy debate, the occasion of McNamara's visit could be used to publicize opposition at Harvard in the hope of encouraging its growth elsewhere.

Thirdly, there is the matter of intellectual responsibility: the continuing obligation to analyze policy and insist on a confrontation of opposing viewpoints. It requires no particular political commitment to see that this Administration has been reluctant to confront its critics at any high intellectual level, or even to release some relevant facts. McNamara may not be the man best equipped to represent the current policy in a debate, but, once again, he is its most obvious symbol.

It seems to me that these are the significant issues in evaluating the McNamara incident. Beyond these abstract considerations, there is a definite incongruity in insisting on proper decorum when the underlying question is of attitudes toward a vicious war, or of being concerned with not embarrassing a guest when the questions he raises concern the fundamental nature of our society.  NORM DIAMOND  Teaching Fellow in Government

Bodyguards

Is it wise for the University to provide students as body guards for visiting secretaries of defense? If the actions of several husky undergraduates Monday afternoon is any indication of future behavior, it certainly is not.

While it is sad enough that there are students in the college who resent the expression of dramatic dissent, it is even sadder that these same students were given positions of power by the Administration -- positions that they were able to use to annoy, harass, and