Nearly every student organization has, at some point or another, engaged in the Harvard tradition of postering—an early morning marathon of sorts that consists of running from one flat surface to another, sheaves of paper in hand. As members of a scholarly community, we all benefit from these posters—regardless of whether we agree with a particular student group’s aims. Thus, the news that the posters of Harvard Right to Life (HRL) were being subjected to “serious and persistent instances of vandalism” was cause for concern. We commend the College administration for its timely reaction—an e-mail sent to all students via House lists by Associate Dean of the College Judith H. Kidd— but wish that the reminder had been a bit more nuanced.

As veterans of the postering process, we are aware of just how difficult it is to determine whether a poster has been intentionally vandalized or simply buried under the detritus of the daily poster wars. The former is a serious violation of College regulations; the latter is simply a consequence of sleep-deprived students rushing about in an attempt to finish quickly so that they can take a nap before their first classes of the day. HRL President Mary Anne Marks ’10 has admitted that she is unsure whether the damage to HRL’s poster is intentional or not; nevertheless, we stand with the administration in its determined stance against vandalism.

The administration’s response underscores the importance of free speech to the Harvard community as a whole. The open marketplace of ideas is essential to a healthy learning environment; without this guarantee, students cannot be assured of their intellectual security when confronting potentially controversial issues and ideas. Thanks to Harvard’s strong stance on this issue, student groups from every point on the political spectrum have been able to express their views on the upcoming general election; similarly, student groups with sensitive agendas, including those relating to sexual health, have been able to advertise without fear of administrative repercussions.

We are also especially appreciative of Dean Kidd’s efforts to ensure that HRL, like every other student organization at the College, is guaranteed the opportunity to make its views known in the public forum. This is in stark contrast to her stance on this issue just two years ago, when she made it clear that she was concerned about the Harvard Salient’s publication of Danish cartoons considered offensive by many in the Muslim community. According to an e-mail from Dean Kidd provided by an editor of the Salient, Dean Kidd expressed her concern that “some segments of the campus and surrounding communities” might become “dangerous” in response to the publication of the cartoons. This point that was perceived by many as being inherently distrustful of Harvard’s Muslim community and a snub against the Salient’s legitimate right to free speech.

Finally, while we support the administration’s efforts to ensure that every student group on campus has their rights protected against vandals, we are concerned about its methods of making their views known to the community as a whole. The didactic and condescending tone of Kidd’s electronic reminder did more to undermine the gravity of the content at stake—a very serious violation of College regulations—than to spur a real discussion about free speech and the openness of dialogue on campus. We hope that in the future, a more serious discussion of the problems of vandalism can be effected by involving House administrators and student groups in the process, rather than by filling up yet another slot in the average student’s inbox.