COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	%business letter outline to use with buslet.tex macros
C00011 ENDMK
C⊗;
%business letter outline to use with buslet.tex macros
\magnification =\magstephalf
\input buslet[1,ra]
\def\disleft#1:#2:#3\par{\par\hangindent#1\noindent
			 \hbox to #1{#2 \hfill \hskip .1em}\ignorespaces#3\par}
\def\display#1:#2:#3\par{\par\hangindent #1 \noindent
			\hbox to #1{\hfill #2 \hskip .1em}\ignorespaces#3 \par}
\def\adx#1:#2\par{\par\halign{\hskip #1##\hfill\cr #2}\par}


\jmclet

\vskip 30pt
\address 
Editor, Policy Review
214 Massachusetts Ave, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002

\body
Dear Sir:

	David Brock's "The Big Chill, A Report Card on Campus Censorship"
tells us that leftist denial of free speech is as big a problem as in
the 1960s.  Indeed it may be worse in that perhaps Administration officials
have been successfully intimidated from appearing on campus.

	It is likely to be a long time before major university faculties
and administrations will, on their own initiatives, resolutely defend
freedom of speech to the extent of making sure that attempts at disruptive
intimidation are unsuccessful.  The best that can be expected from them is
deploring the actions and minor punishment of those offenders who cannot
be ignored.

	However, there is a possibility for defense of freedom of speech
by the minority of students and faculty to whom this is important.  (A
majority are sort of for it but are inactivated by ideological
intimidation as well as inattention).  Neither common law nor statute law
says that a university administration has the right to waive the rights of
speakers to speak and audiences to hear them.  The civil rights laws even
make this a federal matter.

	Success in enforcing the right of free speech will involve the
following.

	1. Some legal research on exactly how to enforce the right of
free speech.  The rest of these recommendations make some presumptions
about this, but research will surely find improvements.

	2. Some student and faculty group, either on a single campus
or nationally organized, must begin a persistent campaign.  Suppose
we call it the Free Speech Movement.  This
campaign should involve repeated appearances of the same or similar
speakers until the right is established.  This means persuading certain
present or former officials or other targets to appear repeatedly.

	3. The university and police should be informed in advance that
police protection will be directly requested by the Free Speech Movement
if there is continued chanting or other actions that prevent the speaker
from being heard.  It should be made clear that occasional heckling shouts
will not trigger requests for the police.  Adequate means of recording
in both audio and video of any disruption should be prepared in advance.

	4. It is likely that in some places, the university will temporize,
the police won't appear, and the disruption will be successful.  Then
legal action to compel police protection, either based on common law or
on Federal civil rights law should be undertaken.  The speaker must come
back repeatedly until his audience can hear him successfully.

	5. The Free Speech Movement must mobilize political support
both on campus and off.  This means petition drives, speeches by
supporting politicians in city councils, legislatures and Congress,
letters to the editor, op-eds and editorials in newspapers.
Meetings on campus specifically about the right of free speech may be
required.

	My one discussion with a prominent law professor who was
heavily involved in fighting campus disruption in the 1960s leads
me to the conclusion that only a minority of those who deplore
the current attacks on free speech will support such vigorous
action.  They  will claim that police presence on campus will
allow the disrupters of free speech to get student support, and
free speech will be worse off than before.  After all campus
disruption has mostly died down; why provoke it.

	There are several counter-arguments.  First, free speech
and free listening is now effectively denied in the case of many
speakers.  Second, we may win now that the left is weaker politically,
and many people realize the long term effects of denial of free
speech in so many countries.  Third, if a Free Speech Movement
concentrates on this issue, tactics and strategy can't help being
better than they were in the 1960s.

	Such a free speech campaign is likely to have interesting
political effects on campus and may serve to separate the ``soft''
from the ``hard'' left.  To the hard left, the right to drive away
speakers they don't like seems to be somehow a matter of principle.
They are likely to fight it out even if it separates them from
people who are often their allies.  This would be good.

	However, the key to success is to accompany legal action
by political action on campus and off.

	Once there is a Free Speech Movement, its off-campus supporters
can help with money for publicity.

\closing
Sincerely,    

John McCarthy    
\annotations
%\smallskip
%Enclosure
%\smallskip
%cc: Matthew Kahn
%\smallskip
%\ps
%P.S.: whatever you wish to say here

\endletter

\makelabel
\end