Word: kents
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...representative of South African apartheid, we saw in it a moral imperative to respond by demonstrating the feeling of the Harvard community that support for apartheid is indefensible. As we discussed what action to take as a group, we deliberately committed ourselves to the principles of respecting Duke Kent-Brown's right of free speech. This principle was the guiding consideration and standared by which we formulated our plan. As we wrote in the letter of intent distributed at the time of the action, "we respect his right to speak here unimpeded. We collectively endorse the right of free speech...
...accordance with this principle SASC decided to invite Mr. Kent-Brown, through his host, the Conservative Club, to participate in a debate during his visit with a speaker from the African National Congress. Also in accordance with this principle, we formally rejected any organizational endorsement or sponsorship of any form of heckling which might have forced the speech to end. Instead we decided to engage in a symbolic blockade as a peaceful and non-violent act of civil disobedience, designed as a militant and powerful affirmation of our outrage which would, however, not interfere with Mr. Kent-Brown's right...
...intent of this action was to ensure that Kent-Brown interact with the numerous protesters against apartheid who were outside the Science Center. As it seemed clear that the University's plan was to spirit him out the back doors of Science Center D in the same way that he was brought in, we acted to block the back doors peacefully and nonviolently "only so that he will leave by the front doors." We remained silent throughout this action and made no attempt to rush the podium or obstruct passage through the lobby doors; our intent was to ensure...
...planning the protest we envisioned two possible University responses. They could have heard our intent, negotiated, agreed to have Kent-Brown exit through the lobby doors, and then let the speech continue...
Alternatively, they could have removed or arrested the protesters in an orderly fashion and allowed the speech to continue. With either of these responses the University would have met its obligation to protect Kent-Brown's right to speak. Instead of acting calmly along either of these lines, the University forcibly broke through the protesters without any warning and whisked Kent-Brown from the room, forcing an end to the speech...