One can hardly congratulate the Young Democrats on their handling of the invitation to George C. Wallace. If they simply wanted the Alabama Governor to participate in an educative forum, the only justifiable reason for an invitation, one could reasonably expect a tempered, considered course of action. But their hasty invitation, their acceptance, of Wallace's refusal, their silence and their re-invitation--in short, their lack of coherent planning--suggest a degree of opportunism.

Nonetheless no argument has been presented yet which adequately justifies opposition to Wallace's speech at Harvard on November 4. In objecting to Wallace because he will not appear on the same platform with a person of different views, some people, especially dissident Young Democrats, show surprising belief in the gullibility of Harvard students. Besides, Wallace has agreed to forty-five minutes of questioning after his speech.

A second group maintains that Wallace will not tell the community anything new. Such an apriori judgment would apply to any person who has received nation-wide news coverage; it presumes to know exactly how Wallace will act and what his precise effect on Harvard students will be. Such an assumption is not axiomatic. To see how Wallace behaves in Sanders Theatre, in contrast to his hollow harangues before Alabama schools, may give insight into a man who, whether we like it or not, represents an important political faction in this country.

Finally, others contend that an invitation to Wallace shows insensitivity to the feelings of Boston's Negro Community. To accept this assertion one must first assume that there is a monolithic Negro point of view. Members of the Civil Rights Co-ordinating Committee find Wallace's presence objectionable. On the other hand, Mel King, Negro candidate for School Committee, feels Wallace's speech might sharpen the contrast between freedom in the North and oppression in the South to the Negro's advantage.

No one questions Wallace's legal right to free speech at Harvard. Therefore, the arguments used against the Governor are essentially ones of taste. In this sense, they share the problems of literary censorship: what standards must one use to pass judgment? When does a person become so objectionable that he should not speak at Harvard? Furthermore, who is to make such an arbitrary decision?

Arguments based on taste are double-edged. Certainly Harvard would oppose restrictions on a Communist like Gus Hall, even though his views might be no less repugnant than Wallace's. For that matter, how does Mme. Nhu differ from the Governor? In short, a decision against dissemination of ideas has implications beyond the personal merits of the speaker who expresses them.

On November 4 Governor Wallace will speak at Sanders Theatre, and CRCC will hold a protest rally. Students will follow their tastes and attend one or the other or neither. This is as it should be. Those whose sensibilities are offended by Wallace may question or avoid or picket his speech. But surely their subjective views should not prevent others from choosing to hear what the Governor has to say.