The Students for a Just Peace (SJP) announced yesterday that they are cancelling their second teach-in, which had been scheduled for May 3 in Sanders Theatre.

"This cancellation is as eloquent a testimony to the lack of freedom at Harvard as the inevitable disruption would be," SJP said in a statement released last night and signed by Stephen Rosen '74.

The teach-in would have been SJP's second attempt this year to present pro-administration spokesmen. Their March 26 Counter Teach-In was disrupted by protesters' clapping and shouting. The Indochina Teach-In Committee, which sponsored an antiwar teach-in February 22, had planned a walk-out at the May 3 teach-in.

SJP's statement said that the disruption of the Counter Teach-In "revealed the lack of free speech at Harvard, and the University's inability or unwillingness to defend that right."

Declined?

Harvard declined, in its negotiations with SJP on protection of the upcoming teach-in, "to use all available powers to prevent a recurrence of the March 26 disruption." Stophen Rosen '74. Program Director of SJP, said yesterday.

Dean Epps said last night that the University was prepared to take "responsible steps" to protect freedom of speech, but that "we were not prepared to use means inconsistent with the very principle of the thing." The University's role in this teach-in would have been the same as its position in the Counter Teach-In, he said.

According to SJP's statement, two speakers-a spokesman for the South Vietnamese government and a State Department expert-had accepted the invitation to speak on May 3.Others, including speakers from the Pentagon and the White House, declined SJP's invitation, as did Henry Kissinger.

SJP attributed the speakers' reluctance to come to Harvard in part to fear, and to the University's failure to apologize to the previous speakers.

Rosen said "it was clear that SDS had plans for some sort of disruption," and SJP did not want to subject the speakers to harassment. He added that SJP did not aim to cause SDS reaction by scheduling a pro-administration teach-in.

"Our primary purpose is to present an alternative view," said Daniel J. Pipes '71, "and since we felt we couldn't do it, we cancelled."

Last night's statement said that the Counter Teach-In "did not achieve its original purpose, which was to allow a panel of experts to challenge views on the war common at Harvard."

The SJP statement concludes that "it is up to the University to enforce it [free speech]: students fighting students in order to speak would only lead to anarchy, not liberty."