Faculty Discusses Speech

With the controversy surrounding the English Department’s re-invitation of poet Tom Paulin looming over the proceedings, last night’s Faculty meeting addressed the general issue of free speech at the University before discussing the upcoming curricular review.

But Dean of the Faculty William C. Kirby began the meeting on a somber note by reflecting on the life of Marian H. Smith ’04, who died Friday.

He extended the Faculty’s condolences to “all who have suffered from this loss” and reminded faculty members that today’s memorial service will be held in Memorial Church at 5:30 p.m.

Kirby then turned to the issue of free speech, arguing against censorship by quoting from the Faculty of Arts and Sciences’ “Guidelines on Free Speech.” The document reads in part, “We are committed to maintaining a climate in which reason and speech provide the correct response to a disagreeable idea.”

Kirby also cited former University President Derek C. Bok’s 1984 influential letter “Reflections on Free Speech: an Open Letter to the Harvard Community,” a frequently cited document that addresses occasions when the University wants to distance itself from views presented by speakers on campus.

Kirby then pointed to a speech delivered by University President Lawrence H. Summers in November in which Summers defended free speech on campus.

“We are ultimately stronger as a university if we together maintain our robust commitment to free expression, including the freedom of groups on campus to invite speakers with controversial views,” Summers said at the time.

But Kirby emphasized that while the University was responsible for protecting free speech on campus, certain forms of protest would not be tolerated.

“We do, however, have one very important policy regarding speech,” Kirby said. “In our community, there is no room for intimidation of, or threats against, those with whom we disagree.”

Summers supported Kirby’s statements.

“We are an academic community that places great emphasis on the principles of free speech. We also have a commitment to consider how best to exercise that freedom,” he said.

When the floor was opened up to questions from faculty members,

Cabot Professor of Aesthetics and the General Theory of Value Elaine Scarry asked how the University planned to address the USA Patriot Act. Part of the act requires extensive disclosure of information about foreign-born scholars, including their library and e-mail records.

“I would like to know what is being done about the consequences falling on some of our community members as a result of the Patriot Act,” Scarry said.

Scarry told the Crimson that the act also affected other members of the academic community, such as librarians, who might be forced to monitor their colleagues.

Summers said at the meeting that he would address the act’s ramifications, which he characterized as being “of enormous importance,” when he meets with the General Counsel today.

“In the past, Harvard has had the tradition of sticking up for members of its community when there have been attempts to infringe on their liberties,” Summers said. “That obligation is a continuing obligation.”

Kirby then went on to discuss the upcoming curricular review and, as has been his custom at the meetings, took time to read out loud from several letters submitted by faculty members voicing concerns about the review.

Faculty members then raised curricular issues from the floor, including the inefficacy of large Core courses and the current lack of emphasis on language proficiency for students wishing to study abroad.

Many, including Gutman Professor of Latin American Affairs John H. Coatsworth, stressed that the faculty must remain open to new ideas throughout the review process.

“We will have missed a huge opportunity if all we do is tinker,” Coatsworth said. “We don’t get to do this that often.”

Other speakers suggested listening more carefully to students and combining the Core and regular departmental courses under a single administration.