The Strike as a Legitimate Tactic

IN THE COURSE of last week's strike by the Graduate Student and Teaching Fellow Union, there were plenty of smug comments about why it would be unsuccessful and why it was an improperly drastic action to take against Harvard. The legitimacy of striking against the University--especially on mere financial grievances--was questioned. Actually, in view of the circumstances, the action was entirely appropriate.

It has been suggested that the only undergraduates who boycotted classes last week were those who always strike just for the sake of striking and those who felt the need of a holiday. This is insulting to the intelligent students at Harvard who see the need for change, and who were in sincere agreement with the Union's demands. To belittle them is not to be simply in error, but to oppose the changes they stand for.

The disappointing support for the strike among the undergraduates can actually be attributed to two factors:

*The timing of the strike. Last week marked the middle of the term. Many courses had already scheduled hour exams for this period. Students who might otherwise have struck were justifiably unwilling to miss their exams. Moreover, they were reluctant to cut lectures immediately preceding exams. Time that might have been devoted to leafleting and picketing was spent studying and writing papers.

*More importantly, there was a serious lack of publicity. Some undergraduates were completely unaware of the strike until Monday morning. Many were ignorant of the issues involved. The blame for this has to lie with the Union. Last Spring, the graduate students made their position clear to the undergraduates and demonstrated effectively how all students would suffer if their demands were not met. This year the undergraduates were largely ignored until a day or two before the strike.

THE UNION PUT FORTH certain demands which were not monetary in character. These included recognition of the Union's bargaining position, maintenance of the current number of teaching fellows with no reduction in teaching fifths, and organization of educational councils--with 50 per cent elected student representation--to make final decisions on education policies and hiring in the departments.

Some have accused the Union of luring undergraduate support to what was really a "financial" strike with these "educational" considerations. But even if the Union is more concerned with money, and was merely tempting us with the other demands, an important point was missed--if the "financial" demands of the Union are not met, undergraduate education will suffer. The Administration's Kraus plan, in demanding parental support for graduate education, clearly favors students from well-to-do backgrounds.

Therefore even more of our teaching fellows will come from middle and upper-class families, which is not only grossly unfair but unfortunate in that it is conducive to greater uniformity within the University. Scholarships are to be awarded by the various departments on a "merit" basis, which can only lead to a suppression of academic (not to mention political) dissent, as students race with each other to please the appropriate members of the Faculty. There will be no aid beyond the fifth year, which means that teaching fellows will be less interested in undergraduates and more concerned with getting their own work completed in time.

THE ISSUE FINALLY boils down to the question of where the money is going to come from in order to meet the Union demands. The Union will not accept money cut from other programs in the University, but claims that Harvard has enough leftover income to satisfy its needs. According to the Administration, that money does not exist.

It would seem a simple matter to decide who is right. Unfortunately, that is currently impossible. One of the central demands last Spring, repeated again this year, is that Harvard disclose its budget. But this is something the University has consistently refused to do. On this question alone, a strike would be worthwhile.

Harvard University is a feudal institution that makes the Federal government look like a model of open and straightforward efficiency. Reforms are badly needed. To many, however, the idea of striking against the University is horrifying. The free intercourse in the marketplace of ideas is ruined by a strike. And what happens to academic freedom when students and faculty are prevented by picketers from entering classrooms? The objections go on and on.

Even students have been known to agree with this ridiculous argument. Never mind that academic freedom is subverted every day in the rush for tenure. Never mind that advancement is based not on merit but on the friends one makes among the Senior Faculty. Never mind that the Administration arbitrarily doles money out of a budget which is kept secret for no apparent reason. Never mind that academic freedom does not have to mean professor who willingly talks with undergraduates. Never mind that only wealthy students need apply.

NO, DISRUPTING the University is not nice. There was the familiar cry during the Vietnam War: "We're not striking against Harvard, but against the Federal government. We're all true to Fair Harvard." The idea was that students wanted to take time off from their studies to organize opposition to the war, often forgetting that much of the policy--and many of the bombs--were made by the men of Harvard.

Now that the war is no longer the focus of student attention, it is perhaps time to turn inward and examine more closely the constitution of this University. There is much that is wrong. The Graduate Student and Teaching Fellow Union strike addressed some of the problems. The "educational" demands alone--whether or not they were designed to fool us poor unsuspecting undergraduates--are themselves worthy of concerted action.

THERE ARE MANY other areas that warrant out attention. A strike on one issue should produce an atmosphere that encourages the pursuit of other questions. It is the only way that truly productive change can be accomplished at Harvard. The Administration will not foster reform if it can help it. The Faculty certainly will not. It is left, then, to the students to take the initiative.