Two important University values, diversity and open expression, seem to be in conflict. That was University of Pennsylvania President Sheldon Hackney's lament this April when a group of Penn students, citing an offensive editorial in The Daily Pennsylvanian, stole and trashed 14,000 copies of the college newspaper.

Hackney's statement, it seemed, crystallized the difficulties many national universities--including Harvard--are having as they struggle with newfound heterogeneity and its backlash. But there is a fundamental flaw in Hackney's reasoning, whose implications have colored difficulties on our own campus this year. It is a twofold error: a dangerous and incomplete definition of "diversity," and a failure to recognize that at a university, open expression is, and must be, paramount.

The benefits to diversity are manifold and important. By interacting with classmates of different backgrounds, students gain important perspectives and greater tolerance. Women and minority role models strengthen students' self-esteem and diminish the perception and reality of an "old boys' network." Underrepresented groups gain greater opportunities.

But diversity is not one-sided. By introducing a wider range of viewpoints into the community, Harvard has increased the number of potential disagreements, and of potential views that some might find offensive. Even in the most sensitive, most self-conscious environment, conflicts that stem from differing views are unavoidable.

Many Harvard students graduating today have found clashes involving free speech and diversity to be among the most intense and hurtful experiences they have had at college. From Bridget L. Kerrigan's Confederate flag to Leonard Jeffries, from Ice T to Harvey C. Mansfield Jr. '53 and Colin L. Powell, the Class of 1993 has had to grapple with diversity and freedom of expression. Some wish such disagreements never occurred: that Mansfield never opened his mouth, that Ice T never brought his "cop-killer" campaign to Harvard Law School and that the campus was a sea of peace and tranquility.

We, on the other hand, are glad that the Ice T's and Mansfields of this world speak out at Harvard. And while we worry about giving honorary degrees or some Harvard jobs to those whose words have proved injurious and discriminatory in the past, we believe strongly that freedom of speech at Harvard must be subject only to those restrictions present in the outside world because of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment.

That is: All speech is allowed with the sole exception of that which presents a clear and immediate danger to people's safety.

Mansfield, a member of the University committee on free speech appointed by President Neil L. Rudenstine this fall, has perhaps been the most enthusiastic in taking advantage of his rights to free speech. He has attributed grade inflation to white professors afraid to give Black students a C. After surviving a backlash from those comments, Mansfield resurfaced to say that women are inherently less aggressive and competitive than men, that women are inherently less aggressive and competitive than men, that feminism has hurt the family and that women have children because they "like to."

Many people outside of Harvard's gates agree with him. But we're glad the Harvard administration hasn't acted to silence Mansfield. He realizes that a teacher's role is to challenge us, and while it may be painful at times, we welcome the challenge.

Welcoming that challenge also means dealing equitably with groups with which was disagree. So we were troubled by the manner in which the Harvard Foundation bestowed grants to student organizations this year. The race relations office proffered funding to the rag, a feminist magazine and to HQ, a gay-issues magazine. But the office, whose mandate is to award grants that promote interracial understanding last year denied funding to Peninsula, an often-inflammatory right-wing publication whose editors were planning an issue devoted to race relations. Again, the conflict between diversity and open expression became a matter of campus debate.

We understand that peninsula often endorses views that campus groups justifiably find offensive. We recognize that Peninsula's race relation issue was likely to embody an agenda very different from the Foundation's. But while we did not expect--or want--the Foundation to endorse Peninsula's views, we were concerned that the race relations office lacked a clear sense of its won mandate and wound up giving money only to one side of the political fence. We cannot ignore the Peninsulas in our midst. We have to listen to them. If we disagree and usually, we do--we should respond, and explain why we think they're wrong.

And if people think the administration is doing something wrong they, too, should be able to vocalize their objections. Yet sometimes at Harvard, they cannot. Even at a smaller level within the college, open expression has found its foes this year. In Dunster House, students and tutors said fears of "retribution" kept them from complaining freely about a situation that seemed suspiciously like nepotism: One tutor allegedly influenced the hiring of his brother, his girlfriend and two longtime friends.

Dunster's troubles had little to do with diversity, and everything to do with an apparent disregard for nepotism rules. But as disturbing as disturbing as the seeming absence of ethics was the atmosphere Co-masters Karel and Hetty Liem created in the house's halls and tunnels. Dunster tutors said they were afraid to talk to the Liems about the situation, and afraid to raise a formal complaint with Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57, because they feared they would lose their jobs and their financial well-being.

Some of the most troubling examples of free speech being suppressed come in the margins of the University. As a result, too often Harvard midlevel administrators are allowed free reign over employees. This year brought several examples of such suppression to light. Two are instructive. Security guards in the Harvard Police Department said their bosses retaliated against them after they spoke out about discriminatory treatment-including retaliated against them after they spoke out about discriminatory treatment--including racial harassment on the job. One such guard lost his job, even as the University was patting itself on the back for opening an investigation of similar charges.

At the Harvard Union, a cook was fired shortly after he filed a discrimination complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. The University says the timing is coincidental. But on wonders about the motives of an administration which has a history of ignoring complaints from dining hall workers.

In a way, the choice of General Colin L. Powell was a fitting was to cap off the recent series of conflicts over free speech and diversity. Powell's vocal support for discrimination in the form of the government-sponsored ban on gays in the military puts him squarely opposed to Harvard's own policy against discrimination. For Harvard to give Powell an honorary degree is hypocritical. But the invitation has already been made, and at this point we support Powell's right to speak here today. We also support the protesters' right to counter Powell's opinion. They can, and should, make themselves heard.

Though these incidents sound disturbing, they are natural at a University that strives for diversity in its admissions program and--at least professedly--in its hiring policies. We have the tools to use our diversity as an intellectual community should. Our articulate, outspoken student body churns out letters and articles prolifically and engages in myriafd dining hall table conversations. Our administration, unlike Penn's, is reluctant to quash free expression, no matter who construes it as offensive.

But as we aspire to make all members of our community fell comfortable, all the time grappling with the latest campus debate that seemed to arise as soon as the last disappeared, it would do Harvard administrators, faculty, students and staff well to remember the fallacies of the Penn president. Diversity and open expression aren't mutually exclusive. In order to recognize the true meaning of diversity--and its true benefits--we must be prepared to hear all views, voiced without fear or shame.

As a private organization, the University has the legal right to limit the freedom of speech on campus. Bus administrators, organizations and students must realize that to maintain Harvard as a center of learning and intellectual discourse we must not do so--so long as their speech doesn't present a clear and present danger to people's safety. Some speakers will offend and hurt us, but we must speak out against them, not silence them.