To the Editors of The Crimson:

I was talking to a divestiture activist at a Cabor House dinner last night about the protest against the South African Consul General. I expressed my concern that the student movement in which he takes part is turning from non-violence and mature politics to violence. He assured me that no one tried to interfere with the Consul General's activities or attempted to do him any harm. Not knowing the details of the case, I was effectively silenced Today I read that students rushed him and tried to hold him, that they prevented his departure by lying down in front and in back of his car, and that some students wanted to detain him until midnight. My dinner partner, not to my surprise, now appears to have been ignorant or a liar of a supporter of these disgraceful tactics of protest.

The students who took part taken full advantage of these rights, straining the patience of those who do not favor divestiture, by handing out leaflets, holding rallies, shouting through megaphones, setting up tables at all the Houses to gather signatures, occupying Harvard buildings and now assaulting foreign diplomats invited by other student organizations. If they wish to have their rights protected to hold peaceful assembly, they should have the decency to recognize that not everybody agrees with their position and that others have the right to engage in similar yet opposed activities. I suspect, however, that most of those students involved in the incident do not have that decency and do not consider toleration one of the basic principles which a democratic society is designed to defend.

I have heard the argument that the Conservative Club was being provocative by extending its invitation to the Consul General and that such provocation was simply encouraging and outraged response. Therefore, the Conservative Club is to be blamed with the violence which resulted. When translated into straight English, that means that it is provocative for a student organization to invite any person whose views some may find repellent. I disagree with the policies of the Reagan administration, I think the Soviet Union is an "evil empire", and I strongly disapprove of the PLO but I will forever defend the right of Caspar Weinberger, a Soviet diploma or a PLO spokesman to speak on this campus I might protest their presence peacefully but will not interfere with their entry into or exit from the University, or the presentation itself, when I--as a member of a student organization--expect others to aspect my rights to invite and host outside guests. The case of the Consul General is no different simply because he represents a regime which nearly all of us find morally reprehensible. While we may not support his position, he deserves to be heard. His status as a foreign diplomat and an invited guest should have been respected.

No doubt the divestiture activists think that the tactics of the Sparticist Youth League are reprehensible, yet they think that similar interference on their own part is justified. Maybe these moral relativists would appreciate the principle of toleration if students heckled and harassed their beloved Jesse Jackson during his next speaking engagement at Harvard. Anthony L. Gardner '85