To the Editors of The Crimson:

I think Dean Michael Spence is correct in stating that the University has a clear interest in the number and incidence of controversial speakers appearing here. The reason for this is clear enough: such speakers are a flashpoint for turmoil. This turmoil emanates from the unwillingness of foes of controversial speakers to regulate or dampen the emotionalism associated with their opposition. Thus turmoil-inducing events must be managed through University machinery--University police, administrative proctors, etc--and there are not infinite resources to be allocated to this task.

There is a rub however. Defining beforehand precisely who is or is not a controversial speaker is not always easy. Anti-Israel and pro-Ku Klux Klan speakers are clearly controversial. But do pro-Socialist and pro-Capitalist speakers--say, Paul Sweezey, editor of Monthly Review, and George Gilder, head of Manhattan Institute, respectively--fit the controversial label? Martin Kilson

  Professor of Government