News
Progressive Labor Party Organizes Solidarity March With Harvard Yard Encampment
News
Encampment Protesters Briefly Raise 3 Palestinian Flags Over Harvard Yard
News
Mayor Wu Cancels Harvard Event After Affinity Groups Withdraw Over Emerson Encampment Police Response
News
Harvard Yard To Remain Indefinitely Closed Amid Encampment
News
HUPD Chief Says Harvard Yard Encampment is Peaceful, Defends Students’ Right to Protest
To the Editors of the Crimson:
John Larew's March 14 column praises the Dartmouth administration for punishing four student journalists whose article sharply criticized a professor. He complains that the students' article reflected an opinion about affirmative action which he does not share, and describes the article as provocative, unfair, illegitimate, profoundly and shockingly insensitive, uncivil, irresponsible, vicious, inflammatory, neo conservative, and racist.
An article with these characteristics may merit swift and thorough rebuttal, but a university committed to freedom of expression cannot respond with censorship. The First Amendment exists precisely to protect speech which challenges prevailing beliefs, provokes controversy, and presents ideas which others passionately hate. To be meaningful, freedom of speech must protect dissent, even when those in power perceive it as irresponsible or unreasonable. Mr. Larew rightly calls attention to the racial inequality still imbedded in our society, but his prescription of thought control must be rejected as dangerous and counterproductive. Alan D. Viard, GSAS
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.