Ron Issac

In New York City there has been talk lately of imposing restrictions on the right and freedom of assembly. Hearings on this matter were scheduled at the Police Department recently. In my view, the police here have generally exercised excellent professionalism, but they are sworn to enforce laws not of their making.

Freedom of assembly is basic to our American values and way of life. It is central to our Constitution's spirit and support for the open expression of ideas, in words or action, provided they do not conflict with the rule of law. In a democracy like ours, that rule of law requires constant vigilance, not only to make sure that it is not violated, but also to ensure that in its name, the rule of law does not itself take unreasonable liberties to compromise the protections that are enjoyed, expected, and guaranteed to us.

As a teacher who began his career during the Watergate era, I am aware that the functions of educators exceed that of a mere academic interest. First among these duties is training the next generation of Americans in the legacy of their nation. That demands that we instill in them a respect for the core beliefs and institutions that have shaped and unified us as a nation. They include the right, and sometimes the moral duty, to publicly gather whether to protest or otherwise to make known some compelling interest or conviction.

Extreme caution must be used when considering to impose or actually implementing restrictions on this freedom. For this reason, we oppose the needless and unwise restrictions on assembly as they have been set forth.

Freedom of assembly, related to the cherished freedom of speech, is a right that history has placed near the top of the pyramid of democratic privileges. The courts have upheld its purity, except under quite extraordinary circumstances when it can be demonstrated as a risk to public safety. Permits can be regulated and conditionally granted, though the intent of the law is not that these be issued capriciously or that they be denied except to uphold civil order and prevent breakdown in administrative control.

But those considerations are, in my view, not what motivates these proposed restrictions on assembly. I suspect that it may be driven more by concerns over thought-control than crowd-control.

If the right to free and open speech is abridged beyond constitutional sanction, eventually that speech will take other less socially acceptable forms. I hope there will be repudiation and a rollback of any governmental intention, regardless of its pretext, to frustrate the public's right to responsible expression