The Blockade

To the Editors of The Crimson:

The events on Thursday, May 2 have received a great deal of attention. As people retively involved in those events we feel that we must reemphasize the intent of our protest and the purpose of our actions.

The brutal and unacceptable South African apartheid regime is universally opposed institutionalized racism is a crime against all humanity. In South Africa the Black majority has been more and more insistently struggling for its human rights against an increasingly repressive police system. In this country the issue of our lies to apartheid has taken on a similar urgency.

For this reason, we regard the invitation of Abe Hoppension, the South African Consul General to New York, to a reception in our every homes as an irresponsible and unmistakably provocative act. He is not only an active participant in the South African government, but a spokesperson for that regime. As a high-ranking diplomat he is paid to response apartheid in the United States.

Upon learning of his plans to speak in Lowell House, a diverse group of students spontaneously chose to protest his presence. Our was that it would be gross neglect of civic duty to knowingly allow a spokesperson for racial supremacy to be welcomed into our community without a presentation of deepest outrage. How is one to express that conviction? Which means of action are open to students confronted with the responsibility to protest?

Some chose, first, to make his entry difficult, but not impossible, by placing their bodies in his path. Later, after he had spoken, we chosen to blockade his exit. We were committed in spirit as well as in word to non-violence. The police at the door heard and acknowledged the commitment. This was the situation; among the 200 present, about a dozen were standing in the loyer with arms linked, passively, before the door to the ICR. We had no possibility of conferring or denying rights. Between the South African Consul General and the Lowell House courtyard stood only our bodies. Our intention, means and protest were clear.

What was the corresponding legal duty of the police? We were not formally asked to leave. We were not arrested. Our expectation consistent with the history of civil disobedience was that we be arrested. By that arrest the Consul General could have peaceably gone free. This exchange of liberty was the basis of our actions; on our campus, as in his country his impunity requires that opponents of apartheid are failed.

What was the University's administration's response? Instead of allowing the issue to be areued before a court of law. Harvard police chose a response consonant with that of the South African police. Without warning they charged out of the door pushing aside grabbing elbowing choking and trampling protesters. Although we had unhesitatingly let out Conservative Club members, remaining ones joined the police in the charge, as did unmarked, unidentified security people. What is the motivation for that sort of behavior? Who initiated this violence?

Obviously, this forum is too limited to present a complete argument, but we have given voice to some important considerations. A South African Consul General was being honored in our dormitory. Did the University hope for us to sit in the dining halls, discuss the visit, and let it pass routinely by? Jeff L. Jorgensen '85   William M. Mallard '85   Zachary Robinson GSAS   Jen Nessel '88   Pauls Raudseps   Richard H. Draylon '86   Benjamin B. Robinson '85   Scott Nova   Melinda B. Daetsch '85   Elizabeth E. Ruddick '88