If Dean Epps tried to tell the band members what material they could present at an event where they were playing in a private capacity, he would be skating on exceedingly thin ice (unless the band were disturbing people's sleep or otherwise invading their privacy). But when the band appears during halftime, it is officially representing the University. It is also appearing before a public audience that is somewhat "captive" since most people will have come to the stadium (dare I finish the sentence) primarily to see the football game rather than to hear the band. In these circumstances, the University has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that the band observes some limits on the material it uses, and the audience has an interest in not having to listen--or have their children listen--to material that seems, by generally prevailing standards, offensive, lewd, or in grossly bad taste. It is Dean Epps' unenviable task to see to it that these legitimate interests are protected while giving as much latitude as possible to the creative impulses of the band.

9. Would students be justified in disrupting a commencement speech on the ground that they should not have to choose between attending their own graduation and listening to a speaker whose views they abhor?

This precise question does not arise at Harvard, since the public address takes place not at graduation but during the alumni exercises in the afternoon. If such a question did arise, however, some students could justifiably expect the administration to exercise care not to invite a speaker who would be seriously offensive to large portions of the audience. If such a speaker were selected and the decision was announced, students might understandably ask the administration to rescind the invitation, provided that their intent was not to deny anyone the right to speak on campus but simply to avoid a situation that would make them choose between attending their own graduation and listening to a highly objectionable speaker. If the administration refused to rescind the invitation, students would be within their rights to express their disapproval publicly, even if the resulting publicity led to the speaker's refusing to appear. If such a speaker did come, however, students would not have a right to try to prevent the address from being heard, although they might try to express their disapproval in other, nonobstructive ways. Even if the administration showed poor judgment in its choice of speaker or in refusing to rescind the invitation, the importance of free speech to the university--an interest that exists apart from any particular administration--is too critical and the interests of those who might wish to hear the address are too important to justify such interference. In light of these interests, it is not too much to ask of disapproving students that they close their cars, wear armbands, picket peacefully, or simply suffer through a disagreeable speech rather than prevent others from hearing it.

10. Can a university or a student group insist that particular speakers be barred from campus appearances unless they agree to submit to open debate?

A sponsoring organization, be it the university or a student group, should be free to select the format in which its invited speaker will appear by indicating how long the speech should last, whether there will be a question period, whether other speakers will sit as a panel, etc. Invited speakers are naturally free to refuse if they do not feel comfortable with the format proposed.

The question naturally arises whether the University should insist that every campus organization require that all of its invited speakers subject themselves to questioning and debate. This is not a simple question to resolve. Some thoughtful people would favor such a rule because the special mission of a university suggests that it should make special efforts to promote open discussion and debate whenever possible. Nevertheless, a university requirement that all speakers agree to debate might inhibit more speech than it promoted. Some speakers might refuse to come under these circumstances. Some organizations might decide to invite speakers to private members--only meetings rather than have a contentious public debate. Moreover, such a rule could prove difficult to administer. It would surely be unreasonable to require all invited speakers to submit to questioning and debate; commencement speakers and guest preachers illustrate the point. Hence, the University would have to engage in a difficult process of drawing lines to determine when a student organization or other campus group had to conform to the requirement.

In view of these problems, I do not believe that it would be wise to insist that campus organizations require all speakers to submit to questions and discussion. It follows that no group should have the right to insist that speakers invited by others must subject themselves to debate. That is an issue for the sponsoring organization to decide. As a matter of good judgment, a sponsor would be well-advised at least to ask a speaker to engage in debate or answer questions whenever the subject is one that would naturally provoke interest in having such discussion. But a sponsoring organization has the right to insist on this point, especially if the speaker is likely to refuse to come under such conditions. If some speakers will only appear without a question period and an audience wishes to hear them on this basis, others have no right to insist that the speech take place on their terms or not at all. Should members of this community regard a particular speaker as biased, untruthful, or otherwise irresponsible, they have alternative ways by which to publicize their views and make their disagreements known.

11. Is a student organization that has invited a controversial speaker to address its members obligated to advertise the occasion and open a private meeting to nonmembers who wish to attend and question the speaker?

Organizations at Harvard should have broad latitude to conduct private meetings for their members in the manner they think best. It may be good judgment for an organization to invite others with a particular interest in an outside speaker to attend even if they have sharply opposing views. But the University should not insist that an organization invite nonmembers to hear a speaker whenever there is reason to believe that they might wish to come. For example, the Republican Club should be able to invite political figures to speak at private meetings without having to allow members of the Democratic Club to attend participate in the discussion. All manner groups in the University have traditionally invited people to address them without being under any compulsion to advertise the occasion or open their meeting to outsiders. No one has supposed that these groups have thereby violated any right of those who might have wished to attend.

Organizations at Harvard should have broad latitude to conduct private meetings for their members in the manner they think best. It may be good judgement for an organization to invite others with a particular interest in an outside speaker to attend even if they have sharply opposing views. But the University should not insist that an organization invite nonmembers to hear a speaker whenever there is reason to believe that they might wish to come. For example, the Republican Club should be able to invite political figures to speak without having to allow members of the Democratic Club to attend and participate in the discussion. All manner of groups in the University have traditionally invited people to address them without being under any compulsion to advertise the occasion or open their meetings to outsiders. No one has supposed that these groups have thereby violated any right of those who might have wished to attend. A contrary rule would sacrifice the interests of the members unduly in order to satisfy the desires of nonmembers. It might also discourage some outside speakers from coming at all. Moreover, such a rule would raise all manner of practical problems. When should a group be expected to realize that outsiders might wish to come? How widely should a group publicize its meetings and how far in advance? Who should cover the costs of publicity or procuring a larger auditorium? Should members at least be entitled to preferred seating? Such questions may not be impossible to answer, but they indicate the type of regulatory morass that the University would enter if it undertook to fix detailed rules to govern exactly how each student group conduct its meetings.

12. If a controversial speaker addresses a public meeting and questions are permitted, can the sponsoring organization deny admission or refuse to take questions from individuals of a different political persuasion (or a different ethnic, religious, or national group)?

Once again, the University will accord great latitude to student organizations in determining how to conduct their meetings. Since organizations may restrict private meetings to their own members, they may invite particular guests to an otherwise closed meeting on the explicit, prior understanding that only members will be allowed to participate in discussion. Once an organization opens its meeting to the public, however, it must not then discriminate on grounds such as race, religion, or political persuasion in deciding who shall be given the opportunity to ask questions. A moderator may limit the question period for the benefit of the speaker or audience, or call on members in the audience in any reasonable order, or take prudent steps to prevent members of the audience from being abusive, giving speeches, or otherwise interfering improperly with the proceedings. But a moderator may not use such authority in a public meeting as a device for limiting participation according to criteria that are arbitrary and suspect, such as race, religion, or political persuasion.

In closing, I would like to emphasize how much the principles of free speech require the understanding and support of all segments of the university community. The administration is primarily responsible for maintaining an environment in which free expression and debate can flourish. But even with the most vigorous efforts on the part of campus officials, free speech will not survive an environment in which many people are indifferent to its existence or hostile to the expression of unpopular thoughts. Only in a community that actively values the open exchange of ideas and strongly disapproves of all forms of censorship can the right to speak remain unimpaired. The effort to respect this fredom can require great strength and self-restraint in the face of trying provocations. And yet, the more controversial ideas this community can tolerate and the more unpopular speakers we can hear without disruption, the closer we will come to the highest ideal of a university. I hope that we will all be equal to this challenge.

"...free speech, though extremely important, must still be fitted together with other rights and legitimate interests."  President Bo