Fenno Proprietor of Right, Not Good

What are the bounds of freedom of speech when the person who speaks is unwilling to take responsibility for his or her own words? This is the question that has been rocking Harvard Law School (HLS) since a hotly criticized Dec. 6 column in the Harvard Law Record by the pseudonymous satirical writer Fenno.

In the now infamous column, Fenno--a column which began in the 1950s making anonymous student caricatures of the Law School's professors, students and administrators in order to comment on HLS's social norms--said that government programs "only help colored folk and pointy-headed Jews, but God helps those who help themselves." We affirm the right of the Record to have a Fenno, and we believe that Fenno serves an important purpose in the competitive atmosphere of HLS. However, the content of Fenno's remarks was highly inappropriate and undermines the very purpose of open discourse that Fenno is supposed to uphold.

In an attempt to elucidate the purpose of Fenno in the Law School community, the publisher of the Record, Robert H. Friedman, explained, "Fennos have conferred a piercing critique of HLS and have balanced their words upon the narrow line that separates candid commentary from mean-spiritedness." In such a role, Fenno serves as the mouth-piece for the law school student body on issues that might otherwise go undiscussed.

Although there is little controversy over the usefulness of open debate and criticism at HLS, the more crucial question centers on the anonymous nature of Fenno. The danger of anonymity is that the writer bears no public responsibility for his or her comments, thus promoting a sense of complacent security that lends itself to offensive writing. A letter signed by 42 professors at HLS captured this concern perfectly: "Perhaps the pseudonymity of Fenno contributed to the decision to print a disgusting and cruel column that we doubt would have been published under the name(s) of the author(s)."

We agree with Fenno's defenders that anonymity serves a useful function in works of criticism. As Weld Professor of Law Charles R. Nesson '60 illuminated, there is a "long tradition of anonymous publications" which challenge official institutions. The Federalist Papers were, in fact, originally published under the name Publius. The Supreme Court recently declared a ban on anonymous publications for a political campaign unconstitutional. Seen in this light, Fenno becomes one in a long line of writers challenging dominant perceptions through an anonymous voice because of an environment otherwise hostile to criticism.

However, Fenno's recent comments represent an abuse of that privilege. As Professor Nesson noted, instead of using the column as a forum to discuss critical issues, Fenno has abused it as a means of "imposing awful things about other people from behind the mask." The letter from the other professors underscored this point, saying: "Fenno's imaginings are so repugnant and mean-spirited that it is difficult to understand why the Record would publish them."

Although we again affirm the thought behind a Fenno, we are highly disappointed in the content of Fenno's writing and in the editorial staff of the Record that allowed such destructive and racist comments to flow freely in its pages. We encourage the Record to be more responsible in its selection of the individual whom it designates as a social critic and for whom it provides a public forum. Any free speech, especially with the latitude of anonymity, needs to be wielded responsibly. Both the human hand that holds Fenno's pen and the editorial board that oversees it need to insure that the Record is a credible voice with the Law School community.