To the Editor: On Epstein and Freedom of Association

In their recent open letter to Harvard’s Corporation and Board of Overseers, 156 Harvard affiliates ask the University to impose “consequences” on anyone, including faculty members, who “took substantial steps to legitimize” Jeffrey E. Epstein following his 2008 conviction. Possible consequences, they propose, include “termination of employment,” “revocation of emeritus honors,” and “bans on participation in University events, activities and governance.”

We believe this proposal is deeply misguided and poses a threat to faculty’s academic freedom, which includes freedom of speech and association.

An individual’s rights to free speech and association are guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Over the years, certain narrow, well-defined constraints have evolved; for instance, speakers must refrain from slander, and parolees must not consort with known criminals. Moreover, Harvard has imposed a few limitations of its own: discrimination on the basis of certain protected characteristics, bullying, and harassment are proscribed.

But nowhere, to our knowledge, is there a constraint on legally defending, corresponding with, or soliciting funds for non-Harvard projects from a convicted sex offender, even if these actions might have the effect of “legitimizing” him. Thus, as matters currently stand, Harvard has no basis for prosecuting someone on such a charge. (Of course, someone can be sanctioned for violating an actual Harvard rule, such as the ban on gifts from Epstein to the University.).

Still, this leaves open the question of whether the University should have such a rule. We think that the answer is clearly no. As countless writers have pointed out before us, free speech and association provide the foundation for a university’s mission of independent inquiry. Someone seeking to limit freedom must provide a compelling argument for doing so — which the letter’s authors have not.

Seventy-five years ago, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy held sway in America. Dozens of academics lost their jobs for having been members or suspected members of the Communist Party. Perhaps some Harvard affiliates believe that they got what they deserved. After all, the Party membership of academics helped legitimize Joseph Stalin, whose crimes vastly outstripped those of Jeffrey Epstein.

But nowadays, most people think of the McCarthy era as a dark time in our nation’s history — a mistake not to be repeated.

— Jeffrey S. Flier, Higginson Professor of Medicine and Neurobiology and co-president of the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard;

Edward J. Hall, Norman E. Vuilleumier Professor of Philosophy and co-president of CAFH;

Jennifer L. Hochschild, Henry LaBarre Jayne Professor of Government and co-president of CAFH;

Randall L. Kennedy, Michael R. Klein Professor at Harvard Law School and co-president of CAFH;

and Eric S. Maskin ’72, Adams University Professor, professor of Economics and Mathematics, and co-president of CAFH.

This letter represents the writers’ own views and not necessarily those of the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard.

Letters to the Editor must respond directly and explicitly to either an opinion piece recently published on the Editorial page, or else to The Crimson’s manner of coverage within any section of the newspaper. Letters that respond to the subject matter of a non-opinion Crimson article, rather than The Crimson’s coverage of that matter, will not be accepted.

Letters to the Editor are evaluated at the discretion of the Editorial Chairs. They should be submitted to [email protected] and should run between 150 and 350 words. We require Letters to the Editor to be signed, with the signatures appearing on the page or as a hyperlinked list at the discretion of the Editorial Chairs. We do not accept Letters to the Editor from organizations or anonymous writers.