Burstein: My Protest Doesn't Restrict Hoge's Academic Freedom

To the Editors of The Crimson:

John A. Cloud's column "That's Outrageous" (September 26) egregiously misrepresented my actions and motives in joining with numerous leaders and workers--at Harvard, in Boston, and in New York--to protest against the appointment of James Hoge by the Institute of Politics.

As The Crimson itself has documented, our protest against the appointment of Hoge stems from his attempt to break the unions of the New York Daily News while he was publisher there. We find his actions quite despicable, particularly his hiring of so-called "permanent replacement workers" to take jobs away from dedicated career employees, including my father. We believe that such an individual is unworthy of being honored by Harvard with an appointment as an IOP fellow.

On both the occasions when Cloud and I spoke before the publication of his editorial, I explained very specifically that our position was that Harvard had made an unfortunate mistake in appointing Hoge, that this appointment never should have been made, and that this honor should be rescinded. Our protest has nothing to do with academic freedom, of which I publicly have been a diligent supporter, except that one of Hoge's many duties as a fellow is to teach a study group.

In our conversations, I explained quite clearly to Cloud that we are in no way trying to censor Hoge. He has every right to come to Cambridge, speak his mind, and even to gather together interested individuals to form a study group.

With this appointment, he of course has a much easier time doing this, in that Harvard has publicized his study group, and has given him a room in which to conduct class sessions. We are in no way denying Hoge the right to fulfill his duties in teaching a class; we believe, however, that he never should have been appointed as a fellow in the first place.

Cloud even asked me why we were trying to stop Hoge from teaching this class. I explained to Cloud that we were doing nothing of the sort. Were we to shout down Hoge at the IOP introductory meeting, disrupt his study group when it tries to meet, or block access to the building, then we would be in the wrong.

Cloud unprofessionally misrepresented our actions, which have been peaceful attempts to distribute information about Hoge's anti-worker policies. Incidentally, the IOP and Kennedy School of Government have faced protests in the past in which speakers were shouted down or cars were blocked; we never considered using such tactics in our protest.

Moreover, in his first reference to my involvement in this protest, Cloud wrote, "Joining [the protesting workers] is the director of the Civil Liberties Union of Harvard, Joshua E. Burstein '93. Pretty strange reasoning for a civil libertarian, even though he's acting independently of CLUH."

I find it quite absurd of Cloud to drag CLUH into a situation in which it has absolutely no connection, and to mention CLUH in his article even before he brought up my connection to the protest. Yet I would like to state publicly that the other members of the CLUH Executive Board have scheduled a meeting, without me present, to decide how the organization will respond.

I assume that Cloud agrees with me that I have the same rights to freedom of expression as does every other individual, even though I also serve as the director of CLUH.

In citing only as an afterthought the obvious fact that I am acting independently of CLUH, Cloud engaged in poor journalism at best, and intentional misrepresentation at worst.

I answer this ad hominem attack on me by asking Cloud to explain how he could have misunderstood my positions and actions, when I clearly explained them to him twice, and when I have also publicly promulgated them to the Harvard community.

Finally, Cloud quotes John W. Roberts, the executive director of the Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, where I worked this summer on police brutality and campus free speech issues. The part of the quote which Cloud chose to include in his editorial was, "Well, you don't want anyone drummed out because of their message."

Roberts informed me that the rest of his quote was, "...but as I understand it, the issue here was Harvard's appointment, not silencing speech."

The issue here is most certainly whether or not Harvard should honor a person who engaged in what we consider to be disgraceful, anti-worker policies. Cloud even considered these actions "pretty fascist for a newspaper publisher."

Reasonable people can differ, of course, and I respect the parts of Cloud's editorial in which he questioned where one should draw the line for IOP appointments.

But I believe the rest of his editorial misinterprets and misrepresents my motives and actions, unfairly attacks me on a personal level, fails to tell the whole story of our protest against Harvard honoring Hoge and granting recognition to his anti-worker policies, and selectively excludes relevant information and quotes which, if included, would show Cloud's argument to be a much weaker one. Joshua E. Burstein '93