To the Editors of The Crimson:

Since your article "Law Prof Lauds Student Blockade" (May 1) identifies Assistant Professor of Law Randall Kennedy as a member of the Board of Director of the Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts (CLUM), the state-wide affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), I find it necessary to make it clear that not only wasn't Prof. Kennedy talking on behalf of CLUM or ACLU, but his reported position is diametrically opposed to our long-held policy on the free speech rights of even the most unpopular speakers.

Prof. Kennedy offered his view that there can come a point where a speaker's views are so abhorrent or "beyond the pale" that private citizens have or should have the legal right to interrupt such speech and thereby prevent its dissemination. His position, in short, was that one may and even should decide whether or not to allow a particular speech by examining the content of that speech. Prof. Kennedy was referring, in particular, to student efforts to interfere with a speech given by South African Vice Consul Duke Kent-Brown.

The CLUM Board of Directors consists of 40 members. They are not in unanimous agreement with every single policy of the organization, particularly policies on the cutting edge of civil liberties theory and practice, or policies having consderable political or economic content. Prof. Kennedy has told me that he recognizes that his view on this aspect of First Amendment law differs sharply from that of CLUM/ACLU--a point which he says he made clear during his speech, but which your reporter failed to note. While it is rare for a Director of our organization to disagree so sharply with so fundamental a policy as our unqualified fupport of free speech, Prof. Kennedy does, of course, have a right to his views.

Official ACLU/CLUM policy in this area provides, first, that while "the right of protest is an essential element" of free speech, the ACLU would object to "private pressure group activities" that would "restrict a free diverse marketplace of ideas." ACLU is pledged in such situations to "call public attention to the dangers of such consequences."

ACLU/CLUM has also adopted a clear policy against "the heckler's veto." While heckling or mild interruption of a speaker is a form of expression entitled to First Amendment protection, even if offensive or obnoxious, nevertheless, in an extreme form "conduct that effectively prevents the speaker from speaking or the audience from hearing cannot be classified as protected speech." It is the equivalent of "acts of physical force" excercized against the speaker. "The speaker is as entitled to protection from this form of interference as from any other physical obstruction."

CLUM believes that the anti-libertarian actions and policies of the South African Government will ultimately be defeated not by being hidden, but by being exposed in the marketplace of free ideas. Harvey A. Silvergate   President, Board of Directors CLUM