COCA Notices Were Invasion of Privacy

To the Editors of The Crimson:

Two weeks ago I had all my worst nightmares realized when I came home late one night to find that I had been "ordered for induction to the Armed Forces of the United States for service in El Salvador." Having been following developments in the region closely, I had to take a deep breath at the prospect of spending my weekend on the way to boot camp. Although everyone assured me that the notice wasn't real, I still felt compelled to call Senator Kerry's office to make sure--after all, no one wants to take any chances when it comes to the draft. What I found out when I called the senator's office was that almost 100 other people who received the notices had also been sufficiently alarmed to call. It was then that I decided that this action posed by the Committee on Central America (COCA) was not an issue about El Salvador but an issue about freedoms here at Harvard.

Almost everyone at Harvard has an issue that, for one reason or another, is of deep concern: abortion, capital punishment, homelessness, Palestinian deportation, El Salvador. Many groups have been formed to raise awareness about these issues, and some have been more successful than others. Apparently, however, the plethora of groups involved in tabling, postering, organizing meetings and holding rallies has made it increasingly difficult to grab the average student's attention. Because of this fact, COCA took the attention-grabbing step of placing falsified draft notices with a forged signature of Senator Kerry in the mailboxes of 900 undergraduate men.

In the November 28 Crimson, Daniel Baer explained that "Harvard students are bored with tabling and rallies. That's why COCA's recent actions were so appropriate." It is difficult to understand how undergraduate apathy with regard to the El Salvador issue makes the draft notices so appropriate. It might be true that many students have not involved themselves with COCA's cause, and this is probably true for a variety of reasons: perhaps some students who work in addition to studying just plain don't care (though that is hard to believe). The point is that these people (myself included) have a right to choose their issues and to be secure from undue harassment from those who have to make different choices.

Baer seems proud of the effectiveness of COCA's draft notices. He says that "It is understandable that some students have been frightened or upset by COCA's recent tactics. But their fear and anger should not be ultimately directed at COCA." He says instead that we should direct our anger at the right-wing terror of our government. I happen to agree with him that the current administration is on the wrong side of the Central America issue--but it is not up to me or Baer to scare the daylights out of those who disagree with us by dropping unidentified phony draft notices in their mailboxes. I wonder if Baer would cheer if the campus pro-life movement got a list of all undergraduate women who have had abortions, and then sent them phony letters from the president asking them to report downtown for a psychological interview. That would shock these women out of their complacency, right?

Many of my liberal friends (being a liberal myself) tell me that this is a free speech issue, and that COCA has a right to express their views to me. I disagree that free speech is involved at all. My conception of the constitutional freedom of speech is that, as far as consent is concerned, anything goes. I think that the public political discourse must be completely free of censorship and limitation. But my draft notice was not in the public discourse; it was a private communication, addressed to me and placed in my locked mailbox. For me, this makes the draft notice an issue about privacy. Had there been a poster on a wall, or a note slipped under my door, or a rally in my dining hall, I would have no argument. But when my privacy is involved, my position on the El Salvador issue becomes irrelevant. What if they had sent me a letter telling me that my mother had been killed by Salvadoran terrorists? Should I have boarded the next plane home?

The most disturbing twist to this whole story is that Harvard College specifically protects our right to be secure in the choices we make. The Handbook for Students makes clear that "Every piece of printed matter distributed must carry the name of the sponsoring organization and, in the lower left-hand corner, the word 'approved.'" When the Administrative Board decided not to take action against COCA, it implicitly made an exception to this rule--an exception which seems justified only in that the Ad Board, like Baer and me, happened to agree with COCA's position on this issue.

Previous Crimson articles have said that faith in rules amounts, in a case like this, to "petty proceduralism." I guess I just remember one day in Justice, in my first year, when Michael Sandel quoted Kant as saying, "Let justice be done though the heavens may fall." I agree that we all need to be more aware of the El Salvador crisis. But my agreement is irrelevant. What is most important is that all members of the Harvard community can feel secure in their right to make their own choices and in their right of privacy. Brian Brooks '91