Harvard's Free Speech Hypocrisy

The University places special emphasis... upon certain values which are essential to its nature as an academic community. Among these are freedom of speech and academic freedom, freedom from personal force... and freedom of movement. Interference with any of these freedoms must be regarded as a serious violation of the personal rights upon which the community is based.

--Harvard's Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities (pages 303-4 in the Handbook for Students)

Despite the words of this statement, Harvard students were denied their right to leaflet at the Harvard Business School (HBS) last Thursday. The students were raising awareness about the involvement of McPherson Professor of Business Administration Regina E. Herzlinger in a labor dispute involving a Teamsters union strike against Cardinal Health, a pharmaceutical distribution company. Herzlinger is a member of the Board of Directors of the company and is thus publicly responsible for its actions.

Why was the Business School so upset when students called on Herzlinger to urge the company to put the strikers back to work? Why did they react so strongly and in such flagrant violation of the rights to "freedom of speech and academic freedom?" It seems that professors do not want to be held accountable for actions they take outside of the University. Furthermore, the HBS administration has shown itself willing to go to extreme lengths to protect their sacred space.

The students involved in the action were part of the Progressive Student Labor Movement (PSLM), a Philips Brooks House Association-affiliate, and within a couple of minutes of our arrival on campus, we were greeted by members of a private security firm, Security Systems International (SSI), who physically prevented us from handing out pieces of paper to people walking by. Along with several Business School administrators, they detained us until the HUPD arrived.

In the Nov. 7 issue of The Crimson, an official is quoted, replying to a student's inquiry about our right to free speech: "We don't have a policy like that here."

But the basic purpose of an academic institution is to allow for the free distribution of ideas, as the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities makes clear. When asked if the Business School had a policy on leafleting, an assistant dean replied that there was an "unspoken and unwritten agreement" that it was not encouraged. That does not qualify as a legitimate policy by any stretch of the imagination; as students, we had every right to leaflet on University property and they had no business preventing us from doing so.

The right of students to distribute information in a peaceful manner is not the only issue at stake here. There is also reason to be concerned about the role that professors play on the boards of companies.

In this case, the problem concerns Cardinal Health, and its actions against striking workers. On April 4, 170 workers voted unanimously to go out on strike. This was in response to an offered contract that included a long-term wage freeze, benefits cuts and a decrease in work standards that were believed to pose a serious safety risk.

Less than two hours after the vote, Cardinal Health bused in 300 replacement workers. The short response time clearly indicates that this was a planned action on the part of the company; they knew that the Teamsters would reject their offer and had made it explicitly to break the union.

Additionally, Cardinal Heath hired a private security force which, over the course of the next several months, has been charged by the police with numerous legal infractions. Examples include spraying a woman with a fire extinguisher and then using it to physically assault her and attacking solitary workers with baseball bats and lead pipes.

In light of the company's use of violence as a means of breaking the strike, it becomes ironic that they have fired 36 workers in recent weeks for what they term "picket line violations." These include such offenses as "swearing." Last week, after a group of strikers went to a board meeting to ask the CEO about the strike, 15 workers were fired within the hour.

If a professor is engaged in an activity outside the University that causes severe economic hardship to hundreds of people, it should be brought to the attention of the Harvard community. Herzlinger, as a member of the Board of Directors for Cardinal Health, is accountable for its actions, and students are urging her to tell the company to put the strikers back to work. The administration should not restrict the right to freedom of expression, even if they do not agree with the specific content of the material.

Moreover, force should not be used to prevent unwanted information from entering the public discourse, much less should private security forces be employed against students. What Professor Herzlinger is doing as a representative of Cardinal Health is wrong, and the members of our community have a right to freely discuss the effects of her actions.

If a professor is engaged in an activity that causes severe economic hardship to hundreds of people, it should be brought to the attention of the Harvard community

Daniel R. Morgan '99 is a member of the Progressive Student Labor Movement.