Now, as administrators face new national security concerns associated with terrorism, it is still too early to judge their response. But Reuben says she expects most institutions will cooperate with the government’s regulations.

“That’s pretty consistent with what they did in the ’50s and what they’ve always done,” she says. “Most universities are both too dependent on government money and also don’t want to be labeled unpatriotic.”

Schreker says that although the post-Sept. 11 legislation raises questions about free speech, individual rights and academic freedom, the current situation is distinct from the Red Scare.

“I’m always asked, is McCarthyism going to return,” Schrecker says. “It’s clearly not the same thing.”

Mendelsohn points out that people today are “a lot more aware of the implications of attempts to limit freedom of speech.”

Fifty years after his face to face encounter with McCarthyism, Mendelsohn is one of the more outspoken faculty members on issues of academic freedom that have arisen in the post-Sept. 11 era.

He says he believes administrators today are aware of the issues and calls the actions they have taken “responsible.”

Foreign students and faculty members alike have agreed that the University covered all of its bases in responding to post-Sept. 11 concerns.

But at an institution that prides itself on its flagship role in the world of higher education, citing a legacy of defending academic freedom, some faculty wonder why Harvard’s leadership has not taken a more prominent stance on the Patriot Act and other post-Sept. 11 legislation.

“I would love to see the president more outspoken on the necessity of protecting freedom,” Mendelsohn says. “That to my mind would be helpful, not only for Harvard, but I think the president of Harvard has the role of providing leadership on critical issues having to do with the academy.”

—Staff writer Nathan J. Heller can be reached at heller@fas.harvard.edu.

—Staff writer Jessica R. Rubin-Wills can be reached at rubinwil@fas.harvard.edu.