TOWN AND GOWN

To the Editors of the Crimson:

Jim Cramer's Brass Tacks in the Crimson (April 26, 1975) smacks of the pretention that has become common place in all relationships between "Town and Gown" as well as other institutions vs. community conflicts. The dilemma described in Cramer's article will never really be resolved in a political system like ours, for the contradictions are inherent in the nature of our social/political life. Yet it is interesting that Cramer uses the same tools often used in institution vs. community arguments and it is about these strategies that my comments are related.

Terms like "community leader" and "neighborhood" have become emotional euphemisms that affect readers in a manner producing a good guy vs. bad guy image and plays down the fact that Harvard does have a legitimate interest that may be different from those of neighbors. When this clash of separate and distinct interest occurs our system of decision-making demands that through creative conflict and compromise difference be resolved. In the Kennedy Library fight the "community" used every avenue available (but not compromise) and won that battle. In this present argument concerning the attempt to divert the Red Line down Mt. Auburn St. to Brattle St. Harvard has taken a position (which is its right) but will not use the tactics that the "community" used in the Kennedy Library battle.

Mr. Cramer seems to equate Harvard taking a position contrary to his and that of "community leaders" as an affront and an indication that the officers and overseers of the University are not listening or "...even grasped what the community leaders had to say...". When actually, what has taken place is that Harvard's position, because of different interest, is not that of other members of the Cambridge Community.

The suggestion by Mr. Cramer that President Bok is being sheltered by his staff and overseers is absurd. Mr. Cramer and company just haven't listened carefully to what apparently is the University's position.

The Catch 22 sentence in Mr. Cramer's article is his suggestion that Harvard"...threw in its chips with Mayor Walter J. Sullivan and the Kennedy's--about the only two interests, besides Harvard, vested enough not to see community antagonism rising."

What is ridiculous about this statement is that Mr. Cramer has obviously defined "community" as some geographical and spiritual sense that has led him to believe that the proximity of this "community" gives it more rights than the community Mayor Sullivan represents (all of Cambridge) or that community represented by Harvard's interests.

While I have not attempted to represent my own position on any of the issues in question. I strongly urge Mr. Cramer and friends to face up to the fact that in their dealings with "Bok's Mass Hall guards", they are dealing with BOK and if Overseers were in the bargaining seat, they, in fact, would also be representing the University's position on similar matters. What has to be faced in this situation is that Harvard and the surrounding communities are neighbors, but nowhere is it written in stone that Harvard has to agree with its neighbors on all or any issue. I am sure that Mr. Cramer has neighbors with whom he disagrees on many social/political issues and because they have to, they co-exist. I am just as certain that few of Mr. Cramer's neighbors who might disagree with him on some social issue would stoop so low as to attempt to have him removed from his decision-making position as a strategy to win that particular battle. Alex Rodriguez   Member, Harvard University Advisory Committee   on Community Affairs,   Loeb Fellow, School of Design--1970-1971