MEMBERS OF THE Southern Africa Solidarity Committee this week released a 35-page report striving to justify the protest which lead to the premature ending of a South African consul's speech last month. I wanted to question SASC on statements in the report, but I thought that requests for interviews would be refused by SASC, a non-hierarchical organization which would not let any member assume a leadership position in the public's eyes. Under pressure to produce copy, I used the report itself to make up an interview.

THE CRIMSON: THE REPORT states that SASC's goal was to "symbolically blockade" the vice-consul in Science Center D. How does a symbolic blockade differ from a real blockade?

SASC Leader: A real blockade is when real people situate themselves in such a way as to deter movement across a barrier. Our blockade didn't prevent Kent-Brown from leaving. He could have left by the upper doors, or he could have navigated around the protesters at the lower doors. The protesters at the lower doors weren't there to prevent the vice-consul from leaving by those exits. They were there only to make a point.

The Crimson: Why then didn't it make sense to block the upper doors? That way you could have made your point while letting the diplomat leave by the door he wanted to.

SASC LEADER: BECAUSE, we wanted Kent-Brown to leave by the front doors so that he could see the protesters outside the Science Center.

The Crimson: So you were doing more than just trying to make a point. You actually hoped to force the consul to leave by the upper exits. Doesn't this make your blockade more than just symbolic and therefore a restriction of Kent-Brown's freedom of movement?

SASC Leader: It depends how you define freedom of movement. We think that as long as the consul had at least one way of leaving the room, he maintained his freedom to move. We kept open the way that would force the vice-consul to engage the protesters outside and defend his country's policies. Don't forget though, that the consul merely had to ask, and the blockaders would have let him leave by the lower doors.

The Crimson: If you wanted to confront the vice-consul, why didn't you take advantage of the question and answer period which was scheduled to occur after the speech, but which your actions prevented?

SASC Leader: We saw no value in the question period because we have no confidence that Harvard students could formulate the right questions to appropriately challenge the vice-consul.

The Crimson: Then why didn't SASC members use their superior knowledge and intelligence to ask Kent-Brown questions during the question period?

SASC Leader: We believe that even if we asked the right questions, the vice-consul would have answered cleverly enough such that Harvard students would believe what he was saying.

THE CRIMSON: DO YOU believe that SASC members who participated in the blockade should be disciplined? Many who participate in civil disobedience feel that an essential part of protest is accepting responsibilities for actions.

SASC Leader: But we didn't do anything, so we don't have to take responsibility for anything. We didn't disrupt the speech. The vice-consul was free to continue speaking after the blockade was formed, while members of the audience filled the auditorim with a rousing rendition of "We Shall Overcome" and a member of the ANC sollicted the audience for money. No one put a gag on Kent-Brown. No one beat him with a club. It was the fascist Conservative Club and the bubble-headed police who took Kent-Brown out. They should be put before the Ad Board for quashing free speech, not us.

The Crimson: Did you really expect that the Harvard police would allow the vice-consul to leave by the front door and confront a hostile group of protesters? Did you let the police suppose know that the blockaders were there only for symbolic purposes and not actually to blockade Kent-Brown?

SASC LEADER: WE ONLY decided 15 minutes before the speech that this was the most clever way to act, so there wasn't time to tell the police. Besides, we didn't fully realize that our blockade was only symbolic until after the event.

The Crimson: Given the fact that you now face potentially serious discipline for your actions, would you do the same thing again.

SASC Leader: We'll all get away with just a slap on wrist, probably disciplinary probation which means nothing. If things look like they're going bad at the Ad Board, we'll throw a symbolic blockade up around the members. They'll learn to see things the right way. In any case, there won't be a next time because we have Dean Spence in our symbolic pocket, so to speak. Next time we'll just remind him that the controversial speech quota has been filled, and the speech will be cancelled.