To the Editors of the Crimson:

In their Crimson letter (April 28), the Black Law Students Association and Muhammad Kenyatta enmesh themselves in contradictory statements. Thus they reject the charge I and Professor Orlando Patterson made (April 25), that they used the PLO representative's appearance here on April 20th to thumb their nose at those precious intellectual norms of fairness and free speech, and then proceed unwittingly to reveal that they in fact have very little respect for these norms. I have several reactions to their letter:

1. It is disingenuous of Muhammad Kenyatta and BLSA to label the PLO representative's talk "a private teach-in on the Palestinian issue." For, as I and Prof. Patterson argued in our letter, at Harvard or any other university the norms of fairness and free speech mandate that a "teach-in" be an inclusive event, not an exclusive one.

2. Suppose that a hypothetical Harvard Anti-Abortion Association and a Harvard Pro-Sexism Club invited Phyllis Schlafly to a "private teach-in on pro-sexism". Would the norms of fairness and free speech be violated? You bet they would, and the Harvard feminist groups would, view them as having been violated (and rightly so). Or suppose a not so hypothetical Harvard Conservative Club and the editors of the Harvard Salient invited the Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan to a "private teach-in on states rights". Would the norms of fairness and free speech be violated? You bet they would, and the Harvard Black Students Association and--yes--the Harvard Black Law Students Association would view them as having been violated, and would charge the conservative students associations with provocative and racist insensitivity to Afro-Americans (and rightly so).

3. But these analogies to the BLSA's phony characterization of the PLO representative's talk as "a private teach-in" are probably not necessary, because the BLSA claims in its letter that "they (Harvard Jewish Law School Association members) were invited to observe the teach-in." It seems Muhammad Kenyatta and BLSA want to-have-their-cake-and-eat-it with a vengeance.

Members of BLSA should have gotten their arguments together better before committing them to paper, because they can't have it both ways--a "private teach-in" that includes outside observers, but conduct the event in an exclusive, anti-free speech and anti-fairness manner. Indeed, the teach-in's moderator, Muhammad Kenyatta, implicity understood this gaping contradiction--albeit a bit late in the day--for he sought to circumvent it by ignoring the request of Prof. Alan Dershowitz and members of HJLSA for an explanation of how the moderator would handle a discussion period.

4. The lesson to be drawn from this shameful assault on free speech and fairness is that these fragile norms must always be treated sensitively and vigilantly defended. Blacks, Jews, Palestinians, and other victims of oppression must recognize their special stake in vigilant defense of fairness and free speech. That some Black students at Harvard Law School fail to recognize this is, as I and Prof. Patterson emphasized in our letter, tragic indeed.

5. Finally, the BLSA's account of the vulgar disruption by some Jewish students at last year's talk is mistaken in one crucial respect. They state that "Neither the Dean nor other members of the faculty spoke out against this disruption and violation of free speech". I know that Muhammad Kenyatta knows this account is in error, for he has commented favorably to me about a letter I published in the Crimson strongly criticizing this disruption, and I supported the BLSA's concern for presenting Palestinian issue at Harvard. Prof. Dershowitz also criticized the HJLSA's disruption.

I still favor discussion of Palestinian issues at Harvard--issues that are not going to disappear just because some Jewish students consider them illegitimate. But such discussion must be governed by full respect for the norms of fairness and free speech. Martin Kilson   Professor of Government