2. If free speech is so important, why did you and other Harvard officials issue such strong public denunciations of the Pi Eta letter?

The wording of the letter was so extreme and derogatory to women that I wanted to communicate my disapproval publicly, if only to make sure that no one could gain the false impression that the Harvard administration harbored any sympathy or complacency toward the tone and substance of the letter. Such action does not infringe on free speech. Indeed, statements of disagreement are part and parcel of the open debate that freedom of speech is meant to encourage; the right to condemn a point of view is protected by the right to express it. Of course, I recognize that even verbal disapproval by persons in positions of authority may have inhibiting effects on students. Nevertheless, this possibility is not sufficient to outweigh he need for officials to speak out on matters of significance to the community--provided, of course, that they take no action to penalize the speech of others. No such action was taken against members of the Pi Eta Club for having written the letter, and no such action should have been taken.

3. Doesn't an invitation to someone like Secretary Weinberger to speak at Harvard constitute an implicit endorsement of his policies and thus justify efforts to disrupt the speech by those who deeply disagree with those policies?

Since Secretary Weinberger was invited by a student organization, there could be no implication that the University endorsed his

* The views and arguments set forth in this letter are not presented as authoritative or binding on the University. In my opinion, they are in keeping with the main lines of Constitutional thought that have developed over the years concerning the principle of free speech. I also believe that they represent sensible adaptations of these principles to the circumstances of a university community. But I present them only as my personal views in the hope that they will help to clarify some of the confusion that can develop in considering what free speech means in concrete situations. If an occasion arises for applying principles of free speech in an official disciplinary proceeding, that task must be left to the bodies properly designated to hear and decide such cases.

"No one has the right to decide for others which speakers are fit to be heard or which public discussions deserve to take place." President Bok views. But even when the University itself asks individuals to speak, such invitations definitely do not constitute implicit endorsements of the speakers or their policies and ideas. If a university could only invite speakers holding views it officially endorsed, it would have to impose a form of orthodoxy on the campus that would prevent us all from listening to many kinds of unconventional, often disagreeable, but potentially stimulating and worthwhile ideas. Once again, we must ask who would decide which opinions and policies to endorse and whether we would really want to trust any group with such power. History is full of examples of censoring bodies that condemned ideas that later turned out to be correct. A university should be the last place to follow that example.

4. Aren't there some speakers, such as Prime Minister Botha of South Africa, who have done such terrible things that they have Forfeited their right to talk at an American university?

Different people have sharply different views on which public figures are particularly reprehensible. Once again, therefore, we have to ask who will judge which individuals are capable enough to lose their right to speak, but most important, we must remember that free speech is more than a personal privilege of the speaker to be forfeited for bad behavior. Society, universities, and listeners also have legitimate interests in the free and open communications of ideas. No one has the right to decide for others which speakers are fit to be heard or which public discussions deserve to take place. If members of this community consider a speaker to be reprehensible, they can refuse to listen or express their disapproval in other ways that do not interfere with the rights of others--for example, by engaging in a peaceful demonstration, by participating in discussion taking place after the speech, or by expressing contrary views in the local media. Such means of disagreement offer appropriate ways of seeking to counterbalance the speaker's access to a public forum.

5. Since Secretary Weinberger wasn't saying anything new that hadn't been reported in newspapers and speeches elsewhere, how can he be said to be contributing to the "marketplace of ideas" and why would it matter whether he could be heard?

Obviously, many people in the audience did not believe that the situation was as simple as this question implies, or they would not have paid three dollars and taken the trouble to attend the speech. Whether or not Secretary Weinberger was contributing anything new to the public debate--and protestors could hardly know this in advance--they have no right to interfere with the opportunity of other listeners to hear the speech, asks questions afterward, and ultimately decide for themselves whether something interesting or worthwhile was said.

6. When does heckling amount to an interference with the right of free speech?

Custom suggests that the latitude given to expressions of audience disapproval usually varies from one setting to another -- less latitude is given in a religious service than in the classroom and less latitude in the classroom than in a public speech or an open meeting. Regardless of the setting, however, sponsors of a meeting have discretion to enforce reasonable rules designed to make it easier for the speakers to speak and the audience to listen, provided the audience is warned in advance. Even if the sponsors have imposed no rules, expressions of disapproval begin to infringe on free speech when, they have the effect of either preventing the speakers from communicating their ideas effectively or of keeping the audience from hearing what is being said. Drawing these lines in practice may be difficult. In general, however, temporary booing or cheering at a public speech is not considered an infringement of free speech. Sustained noise does represent an interference if it lasts long enough or is repeated often enough to interfere with the orderly expression of ideas or to prevent a significant segment of the audience from hearing the speaker.

7. Isn't the act of shouting to interfere with Weinberger's speech itself a form of communication deserving protection?

It is true that those who protest at a speech are often communicating a message. Such communication is entitled to protection but only so long as it does not infringe unjustifiably on the rights of others. That point arises when the heckling and protests interfere with the speaker's ability to communicate and the rights of other members of the audience to listen. This is simply another application of the principle that gave rise to the celebrated maxim: "Your freedom to swing your fist stops at the point of my nose." This principle does not deprive anyone of the right to communicate. If persons opposed to a speaker's policies wish to publicize that fact they can do so in various ways that will not interfere with the rights of the speaker and the audience--by peaceful picketing, leafleting, petitions, and the like.

8. As a change of pace, how is it that Dean Archie Epps can tell the band that some kinds of material are in such bad taste that they can't be included during halftime shows at football games Isn't this a kind of censorship?