To the Editors of The Crimson:

When we heard of the Conservative Club's invitation to a representative of South African apartheid, we saw in it a moral imperative to respond by demonstrating the feeling of the Harvard community that support for apartheid is indefensible. As we discussed what action to take as a group, we deliberately committed ourselves to the principles of respecting Duke Kent-Brown's right of free speech. This principle was the guiding consideration and standared by which we formulated our plan. As we wrote in the letter of intent distributed at the time of the action, "we respect his right to speak here unimpeded. We collectively endorse the right of free speech of all members of the University." (All quotations hereafter are from this letter of intent, circulated at the event and headed, "Our Principles.")

In accordance with this principle SASC decided to invite Mr. Kent-Brown, through his host, the Conservative Club, to participate in a debate during his visit with a speaker from the African National Congress. Also in accordance with this principle, we formally rejected any organizational endorsement or sponsorship of any form of heckling which might have forced the speech to end. Instead we decided to engage in a symbolic blockade as a peaceful and non-violent act of civil disobedience, designed as a militant and powerful affirmation of our outrage which would, however, not interfere with Mr. Kent-Brown's right or ability to speak here.

The intent of this action was to ensure that Kent-Brown interact with the numerous protesters against apartheid who were outside the Science Center. As it seemed clear that the University's plan was to spirit him out the back doors of Science Center D in the same way that he was brought in, we acted to block the back doors peacefully and nonviolently "only so that he will leave by the front doors." We remained silent throughout this action and made no attempt to rush the podium or obstruct passage through the lobby doors; our intent was to ensure his eventual exit through the lobby and to demonstrate peacefully and silently our opposition to the system of apartheid which Kent-Brown was defending. We never considered using force to deny Kent-Brown's freedom to move wherever or whenever he wanted. Our intent was rather to form a symbolic blockade, supported by the audience, which would lead to Kent-Brown's exit through the lobby doors, after the speech.

We believed that as our action was accompanied by a clear statement of our peaceful intent to protest without shutting down the speech, the deans and police would be able to respond reasonably and commensurably to this statement of our intent by our appointed negotiator, after which the speech would continue with our group sitting in silent protest at the sides of the stage.

In planning the protest we envisioned two possible University responses. They could have heard our intent, negotiated, agreed to have Kent-Brown exit through the lobby doors, and then let the speech continue.

Alternatively, they could have removed or arrested the protesters in an orderly fashion and allowed the speech to continue. With either of these responses the University would have met its obligation to protect Kent-Brown's right to speak. Instead of acting calmly along either of these lines, the University forcibly broke through the protesters without any warning and whisked Kent-Brown from the room, forcing an end to the speech.

At the construction of the shantytown last April, the university acted reasonably, taking the time to evaluate the intent and nature of the action, which led them to decide that it was in fact a legitimate exercise of free speech. We expected that they would again act reasonably, and believe that had they done so, they would again have found our action to be a legitimate expression of free speech which did not threaten the continued speech of Kent-Brown.

It is now clear that the University planned to respond to any group movement in the room by whisking Kent-Brown out and ending the speech, without any attention to evaluating the nature or intent of the action. That they gave no attention to the actual magnitude of the "threat," that they in fact did not perceive the simple action of sitting in front of the doors as a hazard, is evidenced by the utter lack of attention to the group at the left door. Had the nature of our action been considered hazardous or dangerous, the group at the left door would have been treated as an equal part of the action. Instead, the University appears to have acted according to a predetermined plan which left no scope for any legitimate and peaceful act of civil disobedience which would have prevented the speech from continuing.

Harvard seems to have adopted a policy that makes it impossible for members of the community to respond to objectionable speakers with acts of non-violent civil disobedience, even when such acts are carefully designed and executed so as to pose no threat to the free speech of others. The University has an obligation to defend the rights to free speech not only of Mr. Kent-Brown but also of those who oppose his views. In this case they did neither. In order to develop a policy that would accomplish these ends, Harvard must decide not to act rashly but to consider the stated intent and the observed actions of the protesters. In this case that intent was consistently articulated before, during, and after the event.

While the University administration could have acted reasonably to protect the free-speech rights of both Duke Kent-Brown and the protesters, they chose instead, to act in a rash and violent manner, forcing the end of the talk and infringement on the rights of both parties.

This statement was approved by the students who participated in the protest, according to SASC members Dorothee E. Benz '87 and Noah M. Berger '89.