Paulin’s Cancellation Constitutes Blacklisting

To the editors:

Like many of my fellow students at the College, I categorically disagree with the sentiment expressed by poet Tom Paulin regarding the state of Israel and its citizens. However, I applaud the decision of the English department to extend anew its invitation for him to speak at Harvard ( News, “In About-Face, English Dept. Re-Invites Anti-Israeli Poet,” Nov. 20). Paulin had been invited to Cambridge in his capacity as a poet, not as a political thinker. He did not come here to impart an anti-Semitic manifesto.

Paulin’s visit was not intended to spread hatred or to raise divisive issues. He was coming to read some poetry, and his politics are a separate issue from his art. I cannot say that I have read any of Paulin’s work, but my guess is that neither have the vast majority of the 100 or so who protested his appearance. Even if he were the most rabid anti-Semite in the Western hemisphere, the English department’s initial decision to cancel his appearance was irresponsible, especially when those who protested most likely hadn’t been planning to attend the event until they had read Paulin’s quotes.

To cancel his appearance is a two-fold affront to free speech: it both denies him the right to have an opinion—however controversial—and silences speech of his based on his personal opinions which are unrelated to that speech, akin to the blacklisting of the 1950s when screenwriters in Hollywood could not find work because of their supposed political affiliations. I only fear that at this point, what was intended to be a poetry reading will become a political fracas, and that those who want only to hear Paulin read a few of his poems will not, after all, have that chance.

Ian R. MacKenzie ’04

Nov. 20, 2002