FEW MEMBERS of this community object to the University's insistence on freedom of speech and movement for all visitors, no matter how controversial the visitors' views. But at times proponents of these high-minded principles fail to consider individual situations in a practical and reasonable manner. Citing the necessity of maintaining basic freedoms at an academic institution, many people have condemned protesters for blocking two to three exits of the Science Center auditorium in which Duke Kent-Brown, a South African diplomat, appeared last month. But those who employ such rhetoric to criticize the protesters tend to ignore the legitimate and laudable efforts by protest groups to publicize their views. The community might do well to go beyond basic principles and necessary freedoms that most people accept already and begin to develop an ad hoc strategy to ensure free speech for all while recognizing the legitimacy of minority dissent.

Without minimizing the importance of protecting the right of free speech and movement, this community has experienced enough protest activity to realize that more is at stake. For instance, while everyone has the right to speak, should everyone have the right to speak without difficulty or voiced opposition? University principles dictate that students should not make visitors their prisoners, no matter how unpopular the visitors' views. But should every visitor have the right to move anywhere and everywhere like an honored guest? And, perhaps most importantly, who should enforce these rights and how and when should they be enforced?

The answers to these questions lie in appreciating time-honored protest tactics by those who wish to offer alternative views. Just as Duke Kent-Brown has the right to speak, the Black Students Association has the right to heckle, even though heckling makes speaking more difficult. And when members of the Southern Africa Solidarity Committee blocked two of three exists to the Science Center auditorium, ideally forcing Kent-Brown to exit past demonstrators in the Science Center courtyard, they made movement difficult but by no means impossible. As long as protesters respect the peaceful limitations inherent to civil disobedience, their actions enjoy legitimacy.

But in order to protect the rights of free speech amid such protests, the administration must take it upon itself to ensure that controversial speakers enjoy their rights. In the recent case, police, presumably acting with the pre-ordained blessing of the administration, reacted almost instantaneously to SASC's blockade by clearing one of the two blocked exists and whisking the confused Duke Kent-Brown out of the room. The speaker did not return to the room and the audience was cleared out. Despite claims to the contrary by Dean of the Faculty Michael Spence, the police and administrators on the scene might well have exercised other options. They should have dealt fairly and effectively with the protesters and given Kent-Brown an opportunity to finish his speech.

For one thing, authorities did not necessarily have to remove Kent-Brown from the auditorium as if he were in physical danger. The protesters did not touch or other wise physically accost him. He could have continued his oration with the protest in progress and exited at its conclusion. In another possible scenario, Police could have allowed Kent-Brown to return to the podium after a brief period of administrative action within the auditorium. Dean of Students Archie C. Epps might have negotiated with protesters; police might have removed them from the exists and escorted them out of the Science Center; or even, as police usually do in such situations, officers could have arrested them. The speech did not have to come to an end.

Administrators currently hope through discipline that they will make an example of the SASC blockaders and thereby prevent future blockades, a passive strategy. In fact, a more active, and a generally accepted alternative would be for police to guarantee a visitor's right to speak on the scene. When provocative, controversial individuals wish to spout their views on campus, the University must execute a strategy that accepts the inevitability of protest action while assuring rights of free speech. Reacting with surprise, dismay and confusion after the fact accomplishes little. Acting on the spot with purpose and respect for everyone's rights may prove difficult, but it offers a more practical alternative and truly promotes the University's basic desire to have an open exchange of views.

We do not mean to suggest that the protesters, though legitimate in their use of tactics that violate University regulations, should remain immune from future disciplinary action. If they violate University regulations, they subject themselves to disciplinary proceedings, or in some cases outright arrest. In general, the protesters accept such consequences of their actions as well, as long as they receive a fair hearing and a chance to defend themselves. The reason civil disobedience is a popular and successful method of protest is that it violates certain rules, in this case by blocking exits, for the purpose of making a public statement. The corollary is that those who participate in such actions must face up to possible punishment.

Duke Kent-Brown is neither the first nor the last person subject to action by protesters while visiting Harvard. He and others like him should have their right to speak protected. But in guaranteeing that right, the administration must not ignore the option of students to demonstrate their opposition by civil disobedience. Instead, police and other officials should take it upon themselves to assure that a speech reaches its proper conclusion, even if such assurances require negotiation with or removal of demonstrators on the scene. Instead of adopting a defensive, defeatist attitude, officials should enforce freedoms of speech and movement with purpose while properly dealing with protesters who use legitimate tactics to make their oppostion known.