Vice-Consul Defends His Right to Speak

In an interview before his interupted speech, South African Vice Consul Duke Kent-Brown said he was surprised at and mildly annoyed by the security precautions that surrounded his visit.

"I find it quiet amazing in a country that has the luxury of free speech that one has to go to these measures to guarantee one the right to speak," he said.

In an interview with The Crimson yesterday afternoon, Kent-Brown said that he has not encountered such stringent security measures "at any other University," adding, "I find it rather irritating."

Although police lined the walls and video cameras scanned the audience of only Harvard affiliates, protesters blockaded the doors of Science Center D, abruptly ending Kent-Brown's speech.

After the attempted blockade, which was foiled when police escorted Kent-Brown out through a side door, the protesters said they were only trying to force the South African diplomat to walk out the main doors and see the rally outside.

But Kent-Brown said before the event, "I would be quite happy to walk by [the protestors.] There's no reason to back off."

Attempting to blockade a diplomat "is crude, and a bit much," Kent-Brown said before the speech. "It shows a lack of understanding of [freedom of speech] that goes beyond normal behavior."

Kent-Brown, who is the vice consul for media at the South African consulate, said yesterday afternoon he did not understand why students staged a protest against his visit. "They are simply going against their own constitution," he said. "I find it rather strange that they want to protest. I came to tell them my ideas and they will have ample opportunity to ask questions."

"People at Harvard should be giving more attention to finding a solution [to South Africa's problems] than in pulling down what's there," Kent-Brown said. "We're doing that ourselves, only a little bit more slowly than the rest of the world would like."

In the interview, which touched on a wide range of topics, Kent-Brown said that he found it "unacceptable" that most Black South Africans who live in urban areas cannot vote in national elections. Under South African law, Blacks are considered citizens of tribal homelands and can only vote for candidates for the homeland governments. But most urban areas are not in the homelands and Blacks who live in them cannot vote.

However, Kent-Brown said he did not support a complete revision of the constitution to permit a one man, one vote system of elections.

"We're willing to share the kitchen, but we're not going to put our head in the oven," he said.

The South African parliament currently consists of three houses, one each for the whites, the coloreds--people of mixed Black and white backround--and the Indian population.

Kent-Brown said he though adding a fourth representative body for the Black population would not work, because Blacks' would vote solely along tribal lines.

The Durbin-native suggested a way for South Africa to move beyond the apartheid system. "We would have to think in terms of a federal system that would be a government that promotes democratic ideas and at the same time protects minority cultures," he said.

A new South African constitution would "have to be unique, and [find a way] to get different cultures and races to work together," Kent-Brown said. He added that he was optimistic that such a solution could be found, "if we didn't have people sniping at us from the sidelines."

The interview took place at the Sheraton Commander Hotel because Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III said that the College could not provide adequate security for Kent-Brown at WHRB's offices in Memorial Hall, where the interview was originally scheduled to take place. "The notice was simply too short," Epps said.

Officials of WHRB had originally planned to host a panel discussion with Professor of the History of Science Everett I. Mendelsohn, but eventually decided against it. Said Mendelsohn, "If Kent-Brown was to debate any one, it should be the African National Congress. To let him feel he was participating in a debate when he could set all of the terms was foolish."