THE campus press "somehow works, knowingly or unknowingly, with those who seek to disrupt free speech," claims Quincy House Master Michael Shinagel. In the midst of discussion about the status of free speech at Harvard, he called last week for a free speech committee to help set "guidelines" for the coverage of inflammatory speakers or events.

One hopes the Faculty will ignore Shinagel's proposal. Harvard should be an advocate, not an opponent, of the free press. Presumably, the free speech committee was formed to protect, not impede, our First Amendment rights. Drafting guidelines for campus publications would place the committee in the role of censor--when American society has already affirmed in numerous laws and court cases the freedom of the press.

It is strange that Shinagel would blame the press, arguably the greatest defender of free speech, for interfering with free expression. Speaking to the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Shinagel noted that at baseball games, when a fan jumps out of the bleachers and onto the field, the television cameras don't usually focus on the errant fan. Shinagel reasons that by ignoring objectionable behavior, the press would help curtail such incidents. People who wouldn't be deterred by a night in jail and a trip to court would think twice if they knew they wouldn't get any free publicity.

Shinagel's analogy is flawed. When an intoxicated Red Sox fan leaps onto the field, strides across right center field, bows to the crowd, then gets arrested, it isn't newsworthy. The game is momentarily delayed, then play resumes. But if a Red Sox game had to be cancelled because of rabid fans running across the field, however, you can be sure the press would report it.

When a speech is cancelled, when a speaker is heckled, the press should not ignore the incident. And the ballpark incident is not a political action--the ballgame intruder isn't protesting the game, nor is he trying to convey a political message to the audience.

It is part of the media's mission to inform the public about disruptions--particularly those performed consciously for political purposes. Acts of civil disobedience should attract attention--not because they break the law, but because they have a political motivation.

SHINAGEL has little respect for campus publications or the students who run them. The Crimson and other publications aren't subsidized by the University. The Crimson's editorial policy isn't established by Harvard College--that's what editors are for. The free speech committee's help isn't wanted or needed.

Imagine the hoots of derision that would greet Shinagel if he called on The New York Times or NBC to meet with the free speech committee to discuss their conduct when covering campus events. Shinagel's attempt to muzzle or manipulate student publications is insulting.

Shinagel charges that the press and the protestors often work hand in hand. Shinagel claims that campus papers may be co-opted by protesters in cases where publications receive tips in advance of planned protests.

But the Crimson's primary task is to gather news--not police student activists. If campus newspapers find out about a protest beforehand, they send reporters and then assess how significant it was. The editors then pass judgement on where to play the article or if they should publish it at all. Covering the news is a paper's responsibility. By ignoring any tip-offs, a paper would be abdicating its duty.

Whether the press has the responsibility to report dangerous or lifethreatening tips to authorities is another related question. Shinagel would probably argue that if the Crimson received the report, the University ought to force the editors to divulge the tip. But this is for the paper to decide, not the University. Freedom of the press ultimately means that no outside authority has the right to threaten a newspapers's coverage of events, its editorial decisions, or its right to protect its sources.

IT is also worth asking why campus publications should help thwart protests or "control" disruptions, as Shinagel would have it. If students want to question Bok at a Quincy House dinner, why should they be denied? Shinagel fails to recognize that both speakers and protestors have the right to free speech. When students accept admission to Harvard College, they did not forfeit their right to free expression.

Shinagel argues that student publications, as part of the Harvard community, have a responsibility to work with the administration in defining free speech. But it is the task of the editors of the papers, not officers of the University, to make policy decisions on what is published. The Crimson and other Harvard publications are run by students, and this gives the University no license to interfere.

Free speech has arisen as an important issue on campus--for good reason. More than once, speeches at this University have been cancelled because Harvard officials feared for the safety of the speakers, and the University has not done enough to guarantee that the free speech of unpopular speakers is protected. But the free speech committee has plenty to worry about without interfering in the affairs of the campus press.