of AALARM have about should have the right to conservations as well. unfairly labelled as group. There is a big being against against homosexual. There is a big difference "anti-smoking" and encouraging self-destructive AALARM is the true friend of . to think the postering campaign its editorial exploiting the AIDS speed a divisive AALARM is simply pointing intercourse, like of sexual activity, can consequences. I see in such a activity and AIDS, AALARM is not saying that the disease does not affect other communities as well. It is simply pointing out a basic fact: that the incidence rate of AIDS is much higher in the gay community than in the heterosexual community. The staff editorial on AALARM makes only one correct statement: that the members of AALARM should not be punished for their actions. If we were to take a seldom-enforced rule out of storage, dust it off and apply to a group just because we don't like their message, we would be going against the notion of content blindness that is central to freedom of expression. In a university setting that thrives of the free flow of ideas, free speech assumes even greater importance. If AALARM members were to face disciplinary action. Harvard would be making a mockery of a principle that it ought to prize.
Read more in Opinion
Who Pays The Price?
