Paulin, Summers Provoke Debates on Free Speech

Tom Paulin is a world-renowned poet.

He is also known for expressing controversial views toward Israel in his work and in the public forum—referring to the Israeli military as the “Zionist S.S” in one of his poems, and calling the nation a “historical obscenity.”

And when the Department of English invited Paulin to give the annual Morris Gray lecture this March, many within the University objected to the idea of offering the poet the honor of speaking at Harvard.

After protests, meetings, and the exchange of several opinions which weighed controversial speech against cultural sensitivity, Paulin’s invitation was rescinded and then reinstated.

Paulin incited heated debate across campus, but the incident was only one of several major episodes this year in which the right to free speech was tested.

However, while this year’s battles over free speech were always accompanied by emotionally-charged arguments, for the most part the principle of free speech emerged battered but intact.

Effect v. Intent

Morning prayers at Memorial Church are meant to be a quiet time for the University community to reflect.

But in September, a morning prayers speech delivered by University President Lawrence H. Summers quickly moved from quiet reflection in the Memorial Church into angry debate across campus and on the editorial pages of national publications.

In the short talk, in which he said he was speaking not as a president but as a private citizen, Summers addressed the topic of anti-Semitism on campus.

He referred to a petition signed by faculty and students urging Harvard to divest its financial assets from Israel, as well as a plan by the Harvard Islamic Society to donate money to the Holy Land Foundation—a plan the group aborted when it was learned that the Holy Land Foundation was suspected of having ties to the terrorist group Hamas.

Summers referred to these and other events as “anti-Semitic in their effect if not in their intent.”

He said repeatedly that this was his personal opinion, but he received criticism from members of the Harvard community who said they were upset that the president had not distinguished between critical political viewpoints and true anti-Semitism.

“To lump people who are working for peace in Israel with racists is really unfair,” Professor of Philosophy Richard G. Heck said at the time.

Supporters of the divestment movement said that criticizing the political policies of Israel fell within their right to free speech.

“Attempts to silence free speech have continued, and especially on matters concerning Israel and Palestine,” Rita Hamad ’03, Georgetown University student Shadi Hamid and University of Massachusetts at Amherst student Yousef Munayyer wrote in a November editorial in The Crimson.

‘Abhorrent’ Views

When the Department of English invited Paulin to give the Morris Gray Lecture, they never imagined that a honorary lecture would snowball into a campus-wide protest.

After Paulin was invited in November, Lecturer in Literature Rita Goldberg e-mailed her students, encouraging them to abstain from attending the poet’s talk.

As Goldberg’s message spread, so did the unrest over the poet’s invitation, and within a week Department Chair Lawrence Buell announced that Paulin’s invitation had been withdrawn.

While acknowledging possible “counter-charges of censorship,” Buell said at the time that the department wanted to prevent any “undue consternation and divisiveness” that might result from the poet’s visit.

But instead of quieting outcry on campus, Buell’s announcement had the opposite effect—pitting proponents of free speech against those who advocated the use of discretion when offering Harvard up as a bully pulpit.

As the controversy refused to die down, the English department changed its mind yet again, reinviting Paulin and citing concerns about “an unjustified breach of the principle of freedom of speech.”

The department also distinctly stated that although they had reinvited Paulin, they did not endorse his beliefs.

But many who were against Paulin’s invitation said that while they respected Paulin’s right to free speech, they were upset by Harvard’s official invitation to a poet known for making anti-Semitic remarks.

“The Faculty would have never invited anyone who defames blacks, Hispanics, women, or homosexuals,” wrote Ruth R. Wisse, Peretz professor of Yiddish literature and professor of comparative literature. “Anti-Semitism, on the other hand, is quite the trend.”

But others said that Paulin’s views should be heard, regardless of the message he expressed.

“It is vital that this campus…should support academic freedom of speech,” Hamad wrote in a letter to the editor published in The Crimson on November 21.

However, in a letter published in The Crimson on the same day, Shai A. Held ’94 retorted that just because Paulin had the right to express himself did not mean that Harvard had the responsibility to “provide him with a platform.”

“University communities should be committed to freedom of speech, but also to the responsible and intelligent use thereof,” he wrote in another letter to The Crimson.

Despite the offer, Paulin—who has asserted on numerous occasions that he is not an anti-Semite—did not give the Morris Gray lecture after citing teaching responsibilities at Oxford University.

In Paulin’s absence, the English department hosted a forum in November that addressed controversial passages in literature.

Summers, who according to The National Review had been privately “horrified” by Paulin’s invitation, issued a public statement affirming Harvard’s commitment to free speech.

“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.

Unmoderated or Uncomfortable?

But not all free speech debates at Harvard this year involved prominent international figures or newspaper headlines.

In March, conflicts surrounding open e-mail lists in Lowell and Eliot Houses brought issues of free speech directly to undergraduates’ personal computers.

In Lowell House, the debate centered around daily e-mails containing facts about black history. The e-mails—meant to celebrate February as Black History Month—were sent to the House open list by a Lowell resident and member of the Harvard Black Students’ Association.

Calling the e-mails “spam,” some students said the e-mails were a misuse of an open list meant as a forum for House issues.

But others defended the black history e-mails as legitimate posts.

“Black history e-mails are one small step in a broad attempt to create a sensitive, multicultural community,” three Lowell residents wrote in a Crimson editorial.

Still, those who had objected to the e-mails protested the way they had been treated for expressing their opinions.

“My arguments were dismissed as racist,” said Lowell House resident Catherine E. McCaw ’03.

The debate prompted Lowell House Masters Diana L. Eck and Dorothy A. Austin, and Senior Tutor John L. Ellison to send an e-mail asking all residents to be more considerate when posting to the list.

In the same month, a student in Eliot House used the word “slut” on the House Open list.

Another student wrote back that slut was a “sexist, derogatory term.”

E-mails fired back and forth, and the exchange resulted in the suspension of the Eliot House list.

The House Committee sent an e-mail to the list emphasizing that the list is “uncensored, unmoderated,” but at the same time requested that House residents “try to remain civil when speaking to one another on the list.”

The list was restored after being offline for less than 24 hours.

—Staff writer Hera A. Abbasi can be reached at abbasi@fas.harvard.edu.