Federal Aid and the University

The Cheever Report on Federal aid to the University should serve the faculties and governing boards with a general summary, as President Pusey has said, of "a new aspect of Harvard's activity which calls for our vigilant concern." The hurriedly written report is, however, no more than a summary. It does not explore deeply nor substantiate fully its assertions, and faculty members and officials would be unwise to accept its premises without demanding further inquiry.

Significant about the report is it dismissal of "thought control" as a problem in any Federal aid to higher education. "The Federal Government has clearly not interfered in the direction of Harvard's research projects...The image of a coercive government dictating what shall and shall not be done in university laboratories and libraries simply does not fit Harvard's experience with Washington."

By and large, those in the know would probably agree, but such a bold assertion on what the report admits is a spot of great potential danger deserves documentation. The realm of the report does not include an account of past experiences or guidelines for avoiding this possible pitfall.

One of the six listed objectives of the current Program for Harvard Medicine is "To preserve for the Faculty of Medicine 'freedom of decision' as to the most promising areas for the advancement of medical knowledge." The omnipresent possibility of restriction of academic freedom was cause enough for a $58 million drive; it should merit more careful examination by a report on "Harvard and the Federal Government.

The "freedom of decision" concern of the Medical School indicates a problem related to government control of research. Congress, composed of men interested in either getting re-elected or in safeguarding the country's present welfare, or in both, often makes grants in a spirit contrary to sound educational or technical judgement. Although it may be true that Harvard-Federal government relations have been cordial there remains an unintentional, perhaps unnoticed pressure from Washington "to the Program for Harvard Medicine prospectus).

This source of pressure, despite cordial relations, is emphasized in the Cheever Report. At present, a rich university like Harvard can have its Faculty refuse short-sighted, dramatic Federal projects. In view of the present trend in educational financing, even the wealthy institutions may lose their power to accept only Congressional grants that also coincide with the intentions of the academic community.

In the future, then the universities' ability to lobby in Congress will become more important. The Cheever report simply states that university representatives must be able to convince politicians of the worth of projects that universities want, but again, no specific recommendations follow.

Byond its treatment of these standard Federal aid headaches, the report has introduced a hot issue at the University in the matter of "unreimbursed costs." "In sufficient magnitudes, Federal grants can make a university poorer rather than richer by building up unreimbursed costs (overhead, etc.). More than one Faculty at Harvard has fond it necessary to limit its participation in desirable programs lest their indirect costs drain away its unrestricted income," says Cheever. The report has brought this problem up for debate among those in the community who ought to be concerned.

Throught the summary on Federal aid is expressed a regret that government money is not more of a direct benefit to undergraduates. Still, the report asserts without reservation, "It would be a great mistake to assume that because large amounts of Federal money are available for research, instruction is bound to be neglected. Project directors are normally Faculty members, and the results to their research contribute toward lively instruction for both graduates and undergraduates." The faulty would be foolish to accept That without a closer look.