To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Some members of the University have recently argued that certain individuals are war criminals and therefore should not be permitted to teach. We feel that this kind of assertion is deplorable and confusing because it merges two separate issues. Is any individual answerable to the public for his public activity? and Should any individual-even if so answerable-be permitted to teach?

We feel that the freedom to teach should not be predicated upon the settlement of the issue of whether or not an individual is answerable for his political activity. As a citizen, every individual must submit to public judgment of his public activity. The issue which confronts Harvard as an academic community is whether individuals, regardless of their political fortunes and convictions, who can contribute to the intellectual vitality of the Harvard community, should be permitted to do so without harassment. An academic community cannot turn itself into a judicial tribunal to judge the implications of the public activity of its members. An academic community can properly punish its members for violations of the purposes to which it is dedicated. The political activity of such members, when distinguishable from their activity as teachers or students, should he judged by the larger political community, rather than by the academic community.

An academic community is never strengthened by the forcible exclusion of an idea. One great strength of an academic community is that its members, not being publicly accountable for what they say as teachers or students, are free to engage in "irresponsible" speculation, Should Jonathan Swift have been punished for his Modest Proposal that Irish babies be eaten to alleviate famine? Bad ideas should be permitted to fall of their own weight, or to provoke better ideas. We believe that the proper purpose of an academic community is to permit people, to the greatest possible extent, to stand outside society in order to judge it better. In such a community, all kinds of ideas are tolerable; intimidation is not.

Peter Gourevitch

Francis G. Hutchins

Patrick Riley

Marc Roberts