Ugly smears of unfavorable publicity seem to be Harvard's inevitable lot as a result of the Browder affair. This time it will be the liberal press to start up aghast at a "suppression of free speech" by the nation's ancient stronghold of academic liberalism. The mere fact that Browder has been denied the use of a University platform will be enough for most earnest advocates of civil rights. Others of liberal persuasion will see in this a part of the current Dies-ignited red-baiting campaign. The total effect is another black eye for Harvard--and Harvard undergraduates can only reflect that the whole business is unfortunate, unjustified, and unnecessary.

Actually, the undoctored facts of the case argue that the question of free speech is not involved here. The decision seems to have revolved around an entirely different issue. To conclude that liberal rights are being sabotaged, it is necessary to poke around beneath the facts and to emerge with some dubious interpretations. It is necessary to attribute to Mr. Greene the most blatant sort of insincerity. At the very least, it requires imputing to him a certain amount of unconscious hypocrisy--an over-readiness to squirm out of a previous decision in Mr. Browder's favor. Only by reading between the lines can the bogey of suppression be conjured up.

Nevertheless, University officials will roast over a fire of their own kindling. For -- again on the merits of bare facts -- the Communist leader should have been allowed to speak at Harvard in accordance with the earlier permit, in spite of his subsequent indictment. The case of the John Reed Society is considerably more convincing than the case of Mr. Greene. There is even a precedent which denies the stand taken by the University. In 1920, Norman Thomas--on trial before the New Yorks courts for violating a city speech ordinance,--was nevertheless granted permission to speak at Harvard.

Obviously--as Mr. Greene admits--there is no legalism preventing an appearance by Browder. Less obviously, good taste does not prevent it, since Browder would appear in his capacity as a Communist spokesman rather than in his role as a passport violator. Granted that he has broken some highly technical regulations laid down by the United States government, his integrity or capability as leader of the Communist party are not impugned by this fact. He remains the most articulate exponent of one view on War and Neutrality, and as such, he should be heard by Harvard students.

Mr. Greene was entirely justified in raising the question of good taste. But a sounder course of action for him would have been to protest on this ground and to suggest that the project be abandoned, but finally to abide by his previous commitment if the John Reed sponsors still wished it. The University could still remove itself from a compromising position by regrinding to Mr. Browder his permit to speak in the New Lecture Hall. Failing in that, Harvard will have to struggle as best it can against unjustified charges of reaction.