Free speech under fire

In recent years, colleges around the country have seen a steady increase in loud, disruptive heckling at public speeches on campus. Harvard has been no exception; in the last two years talks here by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, a Palestinian Liberation Organization spokesman and, most recently, Secretary of Defense Capser W. Weinberger '38 have all been interrupted by aggressive hecklers.

Concerned about the trend, President Bok and the Faculty Council, the Faculty's elected steering committee, are discussing ways to educate students about the need to protect all speakers' rights to free speech. The Council spent an hour discussing the issue at a meeting this spring, but reached no conclusion save a resolution to determine the best way to define, enforce and enlighten students about a clear University policy. Casting about for guidance, the group asked Bok to write an open letter on the subject and he has said he hopes to compose such a statement this summer or next fall.

"People basically agree--with a few exceptions--that we have to do something to remind the students, and the Faculty too, of the importance of the issue," says Council member Stephen Owen, professor of Chinese literature. The key issues before the Faculty are those of when one person's expression of free speech infringes on another's, and how to discipline offenders. The issue is particularly difficult because "you get into the line between registering disapproval and abridging someone's right to speak freely," says Bok. It is exactly that line which Council members hope Bok will help draw in an open letter.

During his 13-year tenure as president, Bok has written only seven open letters. The most recent, distributed last spring, was largely a reiteration of a 1979 statement explaining the University's position on the issue of divesting from companies doing business in South Africa. The widely circulated letters are reserved for Bok's opinions on issues he considers vital to the health of the University.

Although he has never dealt directly with freedom of speech in a public statement, Bok has written extensively on the related issue of academic freedom, strongly opposing restrictions on scholars based on their professional or political opinions. The issue first surfaced in 1971-72, Bok's first full academic year as president. At that time, a number of students--mostly members of the now-defunct Students for a Democratic Society--interrupted several of Pierce Professor of Psychology Richard J. Herrnstein's lectures. They were protesting what they called his racist views because of an article he had written which concluded that a significant measure of intelligence is inherited. When the issue came to a head that spring. Bok defended Herrnstein's right to his opinion, saying, "I consider such personal attacks to be deplorable regardless of their status under the rules of the University."

As difficult as defining a University policy on free speech will be establishing procedures for disciplining students who do infringe on speakers rights. In 1972, Herrnstein filed a complaint against the students under existing University guidelines--which are still in force--but the cases were eventually dropped when the panel investigating the incidents remained deadlocked.

At Weinberger's speech November 18 in Memorial Hall, he was repeatedly interupted by hecklers protesting the Reagan Administration's military policy in Central America. Although Weinberger was able to finish his speech, he was forced to repeat himself several times and some members of the audience said the were unable to hear him because of the heckling.

After the Weinberger incident, Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III warned two undergraduates that he had seen them heckling and that future similar actions might lead to disciplinary action.

The operative Faculty legislation on the issue, the 1970 Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities, states "that intense personal harassment of such a character as to amount to grave disrespect for the dignity of others be regarded as an unacceptable violation of the personal rights on which the University is based."

However, the resolution is vague on the issue of discipline, stating only that all grievances will be given a full and fair hearing to be conducted promptly and in good faith. The issue is further complicated by the fact that the body established to enforce the resolution, the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities, has lain dormant for almost a decade and is a political red flag to some students because of conflicts surrounding its formation.

Exactly what the University should do is unclear and most seem to be waiting for clear direction from Bok. Some, like Herrnstein, call for strict written guidelines which will make it easy for the University to swiftly punish offenders. But others, like Vice President of Government, Community and Public Affairs John H. Shattuck, warn against overly specific regulations which might force the University into an awkward position. People like Shattuck and Owens favor broader statements, in the vein of the Constitution, which would give the University more flexibility in handling future incidents.

Bok seems to agree, saying that the purpose of his proposed open letter would be to examine the issue carefully, but in general terms. Matters of discipline are traditionally left up to the Faculty and Bok says he would take up only possible ways to think about and discuss the issue, leaving specific recommendations about discipline to the Council.