Amid Boston Overdose Crisis, a Pair of Harvard Students Are Bringing Narcan to the Red Line
At First Cambridge City Council Election Forum, Candidates Clash Over Building Emissions
Harvard’s Updated Sustainability Plan Garners Optimistic Responses from Student Climate Activists
‘Sunroof’ Singer Nicky Youre Lights Up Harvard Yard at Crimson Jam
‘The Architect of the Whole Plan’: Harvard Law Graduate Ken Chesebro’s Path to Jan. 6
To the Editors of the CRIMSON:
I wish to commend you for publishing the persuasive and sensible article of Stephen Krasner in your issue of November 4. There are two further points which I think might be made in support of Mr. Krasner's position.
1) In a situation in which violence is used, almost always innocent people are hurt. Even assuming that a guilty person is occasionally given his just deserts, is it worth the cost to innocent people? The same principle should apply here as in law. Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence has always assumed a man is innocent until proven guilty. This assumption exists to protect the innocent. If an occasional guilty person goes free hereby, it is better than having innocent people adjudged guilty.
2) One of the main purposes of violence is to radicalize and polarize opinion. Radicals of right and left hate those in the middle much more than each other. Middle, rational men mess up the neatness of ideological extremes. Polarization destroys trust between people of varying views and finally a university community. In an atmosphere of absolute right and wrong, a university simply cannot function.
It is not a question of whether violence ever does any good. Occasionally it does do so, but almost always at the cost of other and equally important goods.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.