ONCE AGAIN, a minority of the Harvard community has disgraced itself. Just like last year, when Jerry Falwell and a PLO representative spoke in Cambridge, small groups of loud protesters made hypocrites of themselves by using one of the very same tactics they deplore in their enemies. The "enemy" this year was Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger '38, and the tactic was denial of free speech.

Certainly we disagree with many of the Reagan Administration policies, and Weinberger is the best human embodiment of some of the most objectionable. But when he came to Sanders Theater last Thursday at the invitation of the Law School Forum, and attempted to speak to an open admission audience of some 1200 persons, he exhibited far more courage and dedication to liberal principles than did those who opposed him.

Often it was impossible to hear the Secretary speak over the shouting to roughly a third of the audience. Even before he rose to speak, the Law School professor who introduced him was at times drowned out. A balloon full of red liquid was thrown at Weinberger, who fortunately was not struck. Shouts of "murderer" and other insults were hurled at him throughout the hour and a quarter he was on stage. Through it all the Secretary attempted to give a standard speech on the Reagan Administration's approach to nuclear defense: simultaneous negotiations for arms reductions and modernization of U.S. forces.

The strangest aspect of the whole sordid affair was its almost certain lack of effectiveness. No doubt the Pentagon chief returned to Washington more convinced than ever that he's making the right decisions--a result neither the hecklers not many responsible students and citizens could possible desire Moreover, it is entirely plausible that neutral members of the Sanders Theater audience and the TV news audience that evening felt sympathy for the Administration line, it only because the Secretary maintained his composure in the face of extreme discourtesy. Curiously enough, a silent protest during the whole speech involving people draped with blood-stained garments labeled "Grenada," "Nicaragua," "Lebanon," and so forth might have been effective: but the angry sound of many voices spoiled it.

But these practical considerations don't address the central problem. The Constitution guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and demonstrate against the government; but this should have been limited to either the silent protest described above, or the vocal demonstration held outside Sanders earlier in the day. A certain amount of vocal audience reaction is unavoidable and indeed desirable. Students should not sit meekly and just listen, in fact, everyone has the right to express approval or disapproval of a speaker's points, through clapping, hissing, booing, and so forth. And the 40-minute question and answer period allowed ample opportunity for disapproval to be voiced. However, free speech is violated when this vocal response infringes on the speaker's right of expression; and this line was definitely crossed last Thursday.

Presumably the hecklers have a strong belief that the Reagan Administration is pursuing wrong courses of action; but how can they further their views in this manner? As Weinberger himself said at one point, the final method of American democracy is not protests but elections--a method which everyone, including the hecklers, should be strongly encouraged to use. What would these people do to their opposition if they found themselves in power? Would they permit free speech?