On the other hand, the Dean of the College says he supports The Crimson's publication of Fong's "Invasian" piece.

"They [the editors of The Crimson] should not have refused to print it on the basis that it might be seen as offensive. Certainly it was no more offensive than a lot of stuff that gets printed in FM, and had more substance than a lot of what gets printed there," Lewis writes.

And Lewis says he does not feel that The Crimson's apology was warranted.

The appearance of Illingworth-Lewis' subordinate in the dean's office-at the AAA rally on The Crimson's steps was not an endorsement of the protestors' cause, Lewis emphasizes. Illingworth attended the AAA rally and the BSA sit-in just as he shows up at every rally-as an observer.

Ultimately, Illingworth says, the question of where to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable speech in the Harvard community will prove to be a blurry one for some time to come.

"There are writers out there [like Fong] that are trying to be deliberately provocative," Illingworth says. "Next year we'll have new discussions."

Certain things seem axiomatic among Harvard's administration-if not necessarily among the student body. Above all, it is best to "err on the side of free speech," as Illingworth says.

"There's an ethics of means, not just ends," Rudenstine agrees. "I have always felt that the University is the last place where any source of force should be used."

"Any humane institution should not respond with force," he says.

However, self-regulation-like The Crimson's decision not to print the Horowitz ad or the decision of the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters' Alliance (BGLTSA) to regulate its gay pride posters after the 1999 uproar over controversial Coming Out Day posters-may be acceptable.

"If the checks are sort of self-imposed, then I'm not so worried about them," says Illingworth, who believes the BGLTSA shot itself in the foot in 1999 by being too inflammatory.

"At any given moment in any given society there we always be some individuals who feel inhibited about what they can say," adds Rudenstine.

One thing is certain: though they raged for three months this past year, debates over the distinctions between persuasion and coercion, censure and censorship, and civility and "left-wing McCarthyism" yielded no clear resolutions about how an academic community like Harvard should preserve the principle of free speech while remaining sensitive to its spectrum of opinions.