Missing the Point

To the Editors of The Crimson:

As a student who was present at Boylston Auditorium on April 2, who witnessed the sad trampling of all the principles of free and open debate, I was both angered and confused by the reactions in the pages of The Crimson; notably, Robert Katz's piece, "Not So Simple" and Joseph Crystal's response in your "From Our Readers" section.

Mr. Katz's article did manage to deplore the actions of those protesters who sought to impose their personal views on the entire Harvard community by interfering with the presentation of Jorge Rosales of the Nicaraguan FDN (Contras), calling them "totalitarian," and rightfully so. Unfortunately this one creditable statement was in danger of being lost in a morass of obfuscation and extraneous debate. Most of the article deals with a rather torturous examination of whether the Contras as "murderers" ("which [Mr. Katz] tend[s] to agree is the case") should be allowed to speak. The very title of the piece, "Not So Simple" is indicative of the confused nature of the argument, which can be summarized as "well, the protestors were wrong to try to keep these murderers from speaking, I guess." The matter, contrary to Mr. Katz's formulations, is really quite simple: the rowdies in Boylston Auditorium who threw glass and red paint at the speakers violated the central tenet of academic discourse, the free expression of all sides of an argument. On a matter as emotional and divisive as U.S. policy in Centra America there is simply no room for such attempts to squelch opposing viewpoints.

My confusion came in reading Mr. Crystal's letter commenting on Katz's article. Mr. Crystal bristles even at Mr. Katz's weak formulations, boldly declaring that "the Contras' behavior is objectively [his emphasis] wrong" and thus justifies the extreme actions of the protesters. Mr. Crystal, however, in his zealous pursuit of convenient truth, completely avoids discussion of the fact that the actions of the Sandinista government with regard to its deplorable treatment of the Miskito Indians, or its suppression of civil liberties, especially the organs of the Church, which have voiced dissent over government policies, are objectively wrong and deserve approbation. It is precisely because of the spiking of these stories by such groups as the Committee on Central America (COCA) that I, for one, ventured to Boylston Auditorium to hear what those who oppose the Sandinista regime had to say. Mr. Crystal ends his letter on a note of high pomposity by saying, "I hear the objections: Where might [the protestors] argument take us tomorrow? To this I answer: What is happening today?" By this formulation, Mr. Crystal, assuming that he and those who agree with him already possess the moral high ground, absolves the protestors' actions because of what he sees as the special immediate circumstances. One wonders if Mr. Crystal would see such extenuating circumstances if the Conservative Club were to shout down or physically abuse a Sandinista speaker in anything approaching the way of the anti-contra protesters.

Contrary to whatever Mr. Katz might try, there can be no hedging on the simple fact that it was wrong for those protestors to throw their bottles and red paint at men who only wanted to participate in what has been a highly controversial debate over a very volatile area of the world. Mr. Katz's unwillingness to flatly declare that the actions of the protestors were wrong was unfortunate, but he at least could see his way clear to voice some denunciation, while Mr. Crystal's refusal to accept even this is the very essence of the "I'm right, case closed" mentality that is the root of totalitarianism. As Harvard approaches its 350th anniversary, I feel that it is time that the members of the Harvard community unite against such attacks on the free exchange of ideas. We must not bow down to the tyranny of radical minorities who seek to squelch opposition, for it is only a short step from "No free speech for the Contras" to "No free speech for anyone." Ronald J. Granieri '89