Teach-In Set Without S. Viet. Ambassador

The "Counter Teach-In"-with a slightly modified cast of characters-will take place at 8 p. m. tonight in Sanders Theatre. The chief change will be the absence of the South Vietnamese Ambassador to the U. S., Bui Diem.

Despite the fact that his appearance had been advertised in posters and other publicity for the teach-in, Diem's appointment secretary said yesterday from Washington that the Ambassador's presence at the South Vietnamese National Farmer's Day reception tonight in Washington had been set for months.

Tentative Assurances

Laslo Pasztor '73, however, said yesterday afternoon after he called the Embassy that he had been given "tentative" assurances that Diem would be coming from the time he first made contact with the South Vietnamese two weeks ago up until Wednesday morning, which was the last time he had previously spoken with the South Vietnamese.

Nguyen Hoan, Counselor for Political Affairs at the South Vietnamese Embassy in Washington will replace Diem. Pasztor, organizer of the teach-in, said yesterday that Hoan was the last of four possible speakers that had been originally requested from the South Vietnamese for the teach-in.

Pasztor also stated yesterday that the name of the Thai Ambassador who will speak had previously been announced as Anan Sandering Ham, but was in fact Anand Panyarachun.

According to the Royal Thai Embassy in Ottawa, Canada, Anand Panyarachun is the Royal Thai Ambassador to Canada and the Acting Permanent Representative of Thailand to the U. N.

'No Such Person'

The information officer at the Thai Embassy in Canada said that "there is no such person as Anan Sandering Ham." He did note, however, that the building in which the Thai Embassy is named the Sanderingham Building.

The rest of the speakers, Dolph Droge, White House Vietnam advisor; I Milton Sacks, professor of Government at Brandeis; and Dan Teodoru will appear as advertised.

Despite the change in speakers, radical groups at Harvard have decided to go ahead with actions already planned for the teach-in.

'Heroic Struggle'

Harvard-Radcliffe SDS and the University Action Group, a group of radical faculty members and graduate students generally allied with SDS, will try to prevent the speeches with loud applause for "the heroic struggle of the Vietnamese people."

However, SDS-UAG spokesmen emphasized that the final actions taken would depend upon the situation at the 'counter-teach-in' itself. Both SDS-UAG and the Radcliffe-Harvard Liberation Al-liance have called for supporters of anti-war actions to meet at Sanders at 7 p. m. to decide on a course of action.

Members of the Liberation Alliance reaffirmed last night their plans to "turn the teach-in into an anti-war rally" by clapping, heckling, carrying Vietcong flags and other actions." The group as a whole has not voted to clap the speeches down.

Amy Brodkey '71, a member of the RHLA, said that she didn't expect the group to take any actions which would actually prevent speeches, particularly in a way that might be interpreted as a violation of the University Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities. But, she said, "clearly the administration will interpret these rules the way they want to."

Dean Epps said yesterday that clapping or heckling which led to the cancellation of a speech might be prosecuted in the CRR. But, he added that it was a question of degree, saying "it depends if the speaker can be heard."

All antiwar groups planning actions have ruled out any attempts to block the speakers physically-by picketing outside or demonstrating inside-along with any form of physical violence.

Marshalls?

The possibility of disruption has sparked countermeasures. Although Pasztor has repeatedly asserted that it is the University's responsibility to provide security, he nevertheless said yesterday that he had obtained the services of "25 to 50 marshalls who might wear blue armbands."

Pasztor said that "most of the marshalls will be students. Some, though, might be friends of mine from off campus-after all it is open to the public."

Archibald Cox '34, troubleshooter for the University, last night declined to make any comment on security measures that Harvard was taking. "After all," Cox said, "if you keep talking about security measures, then they're not going to give you any security, are they?"

Standby

When asked if Cambridge police would be standing by, Cox refused to comment, Cambridge police also refused to comment.

The appointments secretary at the South Vietnamese Embassy said that when Diem was invited by Pasztor two weeks ago, Diem said that he would send a representative. The secretary said that Diem would have to be in Washington tonight because of the importance of the National Farmers' Day in Vietnamese history, Vietnam expert Alexander C. Woodside, professor of History, however, said last night that he had never heard of National Farmer's Day and could not remember any Vietnamese holiday on March 26.

When Pasztor was informed by the CRIMSON of Diem's secretary's statement he called Diem and then confirmed Hoan's presence for tonight Pasztor continued to maintain, however, that Panyarachun was the Thai ambassador to the U. S.

Questioned as to why the Thai ambassador to the U. S. could only be contacted in Ottawa, Pasztor replied, "I don't know what he's doing in Ottawa. You know these guys-they're always moving around."

Pasztor said that the teach-in group, the H-R Students for a Just Peace in Vietnam, would pay for all the expenses of the speakers.

The money to pay for the accommodations came from donations, "about half from alumni, mostly in the Boston area, and half from contributors from outside groups," according to Pasztor. He said that the fund-raising had gone on for only "two weeks to a month."

Below is the full text of the Faculty Council's statement on the Teach-in which was released Wednesday. It was inadvertently omitted from yesterday's CRIMSON:

Two years ago, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences reasserted its faith in a free academic community. It stated that violence against any member or guest of the University, deliberate interference with academic freedom and freedom of speech (including that of any speaker invited to express his views) and forcible interference with the freedom of movement of any member or guest of the University are incompatible with a free University and unacceptable.

Recent incidents, and the possibility of new ones, make it important to reassert these principles, the violation or erosion of which would undermine the rights of all of us. The right of individuals or groups to dissent and to express their views, which the Faculty explicitly reaffirmed two years ago, cannot be protected and preserved if anyone claims the right to prevent others, however unpopular, from being heard.