THE RELEVANT facts of the Kent-Brown protest are clear. Some 40 minutes into the South African diplomat's remarks, 20 members of the Southern Africa Solidarity Committee rushed toward two of the auditorium's three exists and linked arms. Their goal was to force Kent-Brown out of the hall's front door and into and confrontation with protestors gathered outside the Science Center. Harvard police responded appropriately, breaking the blockade and escorting Kent-Brown from the room.

The majority--which like the protestors does not take issue with these facts--accepts the bizarre argument that restricting the vice consul's movement was justified by the protestor's own right to express their opposition to him. They consider his freedom of movement to have remained intact because his legs were not prevented from taking him out the only unblockaded door. We find such reasoning illogical and dangerous.

Following the protest the participants endorsed a statement that read in part:

[W]e deliberately committed ourselves to the principle of respecting Duke Kent-Brown's right of free speech. This principle was the guiding consideration and standard by which we formulated our plan....we decided to engage in a symbolic blockade....The intent of this action was to ensure that Kent-Brown interact with the numerous protestors against apartheid who were outside the Science Center.

We reject the assertion that a group can prevent a man from moving as he pleases, force him to interact with a hostile crowd--and not violate his rights. Is a "symbolic blockade" anything but an obvious oxymoron?

In a community like this, protest is unavoidable and often commendable--but not when it interferes with a guest's freedom to express his views. The protestors were free to ignore this principle, and they did. Now they should accept responsibility for their actions; doing so, despite the majority's confused view, is a requisite of civil disobedience. The idea that University administrators are to blame for not taking the offensive and actively securing Kent-Brown's right to speak is ludicrous. As members of the Ad Board hear cases stemming from the protest, they should reflect upon their obligation to defend this community's principles against those who seek to constrain the range of views that can be expressed here. Steven L. Ascher   David S. Graham   Michael J. Lartigue   Steven L. Lichtman   Michael D. Nolan   Jeffrey S. Nordhaus   Gary D. Rowe