The sheet goes on to threaten: "Disruptions will be treated seriously and may result in expulsion from the meeting, disciplinary action or arrest by civil authorities." This statement constitutes nothing less than plain totalitarian scare tactics.

The mock question-and-answer period preceding the arrival of the Chinese delegation (with Fairbank affiliates Professor of Chinese History Peter K. Bol, Kirby, Boston University Professor Merle Goldman, Vogel and non-Fairbank Elizabeth Perry) was in particularly poor taste.

After the speech and two pre-selected questions, when the floor was opened for a single question from the audience to Jiang, Vogel silenced a questioner asking about a political prisoner. Instead he took a question from a Newsweek reporter about Jiang's reaction to the protests, another typical question he had been receiving during his visit,

8) Discrimination based on nationality: While opening the floor for the question, Vogel proclaimed: "President Jiang Zemin has said that he would like to hear, first of all, from an American, and so...This is for an American audience." These words were spoken in an auditorium full of non- Americans, in the face of Rudenstine--with no reaction on his part.

9) Petition: A petition addressed to Rudenstine to be handed over to Jiang was prepared by the Coalition for Freedom and Human Rights in Asia. The text expressed concern about the state of Tibet, the Tiananmen Massacre and the threats to Taiwan. In three days it gained 411 signatures spanning the Harvard community--undergraduates, graduates, faculty and alumni. The petition was accepted by Vice President and General Counsel Anne Taylor on Oct. 31. Taylor however failed to hand it over to President Rudenstine; instead she sent it over to Deirdre Chetham, the executive director of the Fairbank Center!

Jiang could have left Harvard with a happy feeling that academic freedom Harvard-style is not much different from the totalitarian methods of the Chinese communist leadership.

We expect Harvard to promptly investigate all violations of academic standards and rules and to call the violators to responsibility. In particular, we question the conduct of:

* Vogel and the Fairbank Center for organizing a biased lottery, disseminating disinformation, silencing dissent, perpetrating discrimination on basis of nationality and putting personal ambition above academic standards;

* Epps: for deceiving the rally organizers, Iying, harassing protesters, avoiding contact with students, being complicit in the violation of rules published by the University prior to Jiang's visit;

* Taylor: for not forwarding the petition to President Rudenstine;

Riley and the HUPD: for avoiding dialogue with the rally organizers, breaking Harvard's rules about accessibility to Harvard Yard;

* Rudenstine: for silent complicity in the whole affair.

We suggest that the University prepare and publicize a clear protocol for dealing with future highly controversial, high-profile visitors invited in Harvard's name.