News
Harvard Alumni Email Forwarding Services to Remain Unchanged Despite Student Protest
News
Democracy Center to Close, Leaving Progressive Cambridge Groups Scrambling
News
Harvard Student Government Approves PSC Petition for Referendum on Israel Divestment
News
Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang ’05 Elected Co-Chair of Metropolitan Mayors Coalition
News
Cambridge Residents Slam Council Proposal to Delay Bike Lane Construction
To the Editors of The Crimson:
I think Dean Michael Spence is correct in stating that the University has a clear interest in the number and incidence of controversial speakers appearing here. The reason for this is clear enough: such speakers are a flashpoint for turmoil. This turmoil emanates from the unwillingness of foes of controversial speakers to regulate or dampen the emotionalism associated with their opposition. Thus turmoil-inducing events must be managed through University machinery--University police, administrative proctors, etc--and there are not infinite resources to be allocated to this task.
There is a rub however. Defining beforehand precisely who is or is not a controversial speaker is not always easy. Anti-Israel and pro-Ku Klux Klan speakers are clearly controversial. But do pro-Socialist and pro-Capitalist speakers--say, Paul Sweezey, editor of Monthly Review, and George Gilder, head of Manhattan Institute, respectively--fit the controversial label? Martin Kilson
Professor of Government
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.