Protected Speech

To the Editors of the Crimson:

John Larew's March 14 column praises the Dartmouth administration for punishing four student journalists whose article sharply criticized a professor. He complains that the students' article reflected an opinion about affirmative action which he does not share, and describes the article as provocative, unfair, illegitimate, profoundly and shockingly insensitive, uncivil, irresponsible, vicious, inflammatory, neo conservative, and racist.

An article with these characteristics may merit swift and thorough rebuttal, but a university committed to freedom of expression cannot respond with censorship. The First Amendment exists precisely to protect speech which challenges prevailing beliefs, provokes controversy, and presents ideas which others passionately hate. To be meaningful, freedom of speech must protect dissent, even when those in power perceive it as irresponsible or unreasonable. Mr. Larew rightly calls attention to the racial inequality still imbedded in our society, but his prescription of thought control must be rejected as dangerous and counterproductive. Alan D. Viard, GSAS