To the Editors of The Crimson:

In his 7 October 1987 opinion piece, Mitchell A. Orenstein presents some dubious notions of responsibility that deserve further comment.

In reference to the cancellation by Law School officials of Adolfo Calero's speech after a protester (Tufts senior Joshua Laub) tried to attack the contra leader, Orenstein states, "Such panicked reactions [to protests]... stifle free speech on campus." Such logic is unfortunately warped. If the owner of a private forum in which to speak removes that forum, that does not constitute a restriction of free speech. A physical attack upon one who is speaking, however, is a "stifling" of that individual's right to free speech, and hence responsibility for any reaction thereto lies with the attacker.

Orenstein cites as a cause of unrest the fact that "...the University invites highly controversial speakers who provoke physical reactions--both violent and non-violent--in some people." Again, Orenstein implies that responsibility for an action lies with someone other than the initiator of that action. Calero enjoys no magical power to inspire violence in people--violence is a product of the individual. Responsibility for violence lies solely with its initiator.

Orenstein also claims that the cancellations "prevented [individuals] from exercising their right to protest." Right to protest? If protest necessarily involves an infringement of other individuals' Constitutional right to speak, as Orenstein implies (and as seems to be the case at Harvard), then the entire concept of a "right to protest" is a fallacy. If a protester's arguments are not strong enough to stand on their own, they should be thought out until they are strong enough, and then be presented in their own forum, to those who wish to listen. Consistent with Orenstein's ideas on abdication of personal responsibility, however, it seems most protesters at Harvard don't have the responsibility to make sure of their arguments' strength. Literally at a loss for words, those protesters' only means for ideological survival is to deny the existence of the opposition's right to prove them wrong. Therein lies the heart of Harvard's embarrassing freedom of speech problem, and hopefully its solution. Allen Barton '90