To the Editors of The Crimson:

Last Saturday, OSTWS forced the Adams House Film Society to cancel its screening of "Birth of a Nation" on the grounds that the film was to be shown in a context which did not adequately mitigate its offensive racist elements. On Sunday, about fifty members of this organization gathered outside the location where the Currier House Film Society had planned to show "Birth of a Nation" at an introductory meeting for old and new film society members. The OSTWS demonstrators seemed intent on preventing the screening, as they had at Adams House. As it turned out, the issue was academic, as the Adams House Film Society had refused to release to CHFS their copy of the film.

We, the undersigned members of CHFS are seriously disturbed by the OSTWS protest. This protest not only runs counter to the principles of academic freedom and freedom of expression but also reflects a widespread ignorance of the nature of film societies.

Campus film societies were organized by Harvard students for two reasons: (1) to serve as a neutral vehicle to bring films rarely shown in commercial theaters to the university community for the benefit of students of the cinema and anyone interested in the medium and (2) to provide a forum for the primarily aesthetic questions about films and film-making raised by the pictures shown. Film societies select movies for their artistic merit and/or their importance in the history of the craft.

Virtually all film society screenings are open to the public; meetings are restricted to film society members. Admission is charged to pay for renting and showing of films. Because last year some Harvard film societies reneged after a fashion on their original raison d'etre by showing commercially available "entertaining" movies, some people outside the film societies have assumed that the organizations exist in order to make money off cinematographically trivial but popular movies. Of course, it is to be hoped that students enjoy film society presentations but entertainment is by no means the sole purpose of film socieites.

Until this weekend, Harvard film societies have enjoyed freedom from repression, coercion and any restrictions excepting those imposed by the Harvard Film Studies Council which stipulates that a film society may not be a profit-making enterprise nor show films scheduled by Cambridge theaters. Such license has enabled the societies to explore unusual and controversial aspects of the cinema and has led to the development of innovative programs and program formats among many thriving organizations. We feel that actions such as those of the OSTWS during the past weekend threaten the quality of future film society programs--and perhaps even their very existence--and undermine the concept of a free university.

As a political organization, film societies are certainly obliged to consider ethnic or racial sensitivity of members of the university community and to deal with all the issues raised by each movie it presents once it has decided to book and show the film. Film societies are not obligated to recruit a response but they cannot ignore any which arises spontaneously within the community be it from groups or individuals.

We recognize the grievances of OSTWS as valid, although we doubt that "Birth of a Nation" is such potent propaganda that it would foment race prejudice among college students or that a majority of the students attending our meeting came to cheer on the white oppressor. OSTWS should remember that in addition to "Birth of a Nation" we announced a screening of "The Great Train Robbery." Both are very early silent American films. Each in its way is a landmark in the development of film-making; each represents prodigious advances in film technology, direction and cinematography. The subjects of the two films are entirely different, a fact which we feel minimizes the importance of "Nation's" racism in terms of our reason for showing the film. Those who believe that the racist elements of the "Birth of a Nation" cannot go overlooked no matter why the film was shown, are welcome to come to film society meetings to express their feelings, should the occasion arise again. They will not find themselves alone in this.

Let it be emphasized that individuals vehemently opposed to the current formats of the university film societies may join one of the societies at any time. They are all open organizations--may they remain so. Paul Whittlesey   President, Currier Film Society   Hester Fuller