Competing Rights

WHEN A NICARAGUAN Contra member came to speak on campus a week ago at the invitation of the Conservative Club, he was shouted down by a few protesters who later threw blood and other projectiles at him. Their actions were unacceptable--though not merely because they violated his right to free speech.

There were other rights at issue in the incident as well: the right of the hecklers to their own speech and of the audience to hear what the Contra had to say. What was wrong with the hecklers' actions was their decision to enforce a subjective judgment of what rights the speaker did or didn't have--a decision they advertised with the slogan "no free speech for murderers."

Especially at a university, protection and encouragement must be given to the free exchange of ideas. Such exchanges can certainly express the kind of intense outrage and political imperative which inspired last week's disruption but must not do so in a way that involves direct physical intimidation or that stifles speech.

Moreover, the argument that the disruptive protesters offered in defence of their actions, while not convincing, raises an important point about the incident that can not simply be ignored amid knee-jerk appeals to the First Ammendment. The Contras are murderers, guilty of gross crimes against humanity. Their record of atrocities--usually against unarmed civilians--has been well documented by a number of independent groups. And the Conservative Club's speaker last week was not just another apologist for these thugs, but actually claimed to be one of them. His legal rights must be weighed against the evil that he not only advocates but perpetrates.

When someone like a Contra member comes to campus it is not only appropriate, but imperative, that his message and his role be protested vigorously. Such protest could involve demonstrations like the non-violent one which took place outside the room where he was supposed to speak, or even more intimidatory forms of protest in the tradition of civil disobediance. Protesters should act publicly and accept the possibility of arrest or Harvard disciplinary action.

What is at stake in the wake of last week's clash is not just protecting the rights of people who speak at Harvard, but also creating an atmosphere of open intellectual and political discourse at the University. But political discourse need not be limited to tones of mealy-mouthed moderation. There should be room for political confrontation as well as decorous dialogue. Let the Contras speak. And then let them know exactly how you feel.

Dissenting Opinion

THE MAJORITY MAKES a false distinction between freedom of speech and freedom of movement. Protesters should not interfere with any of a speaker's rights. Harvard is a nice place to visit, but who will come to speak if he can't leave?