An Infirm Foundation

IN ONE UNIVERSITY HALL office this fall the phone never stopped ringing. Sometimes the secretary from the neighboring Parent's Association would run over to take a message; occasionally the director himself would be there. But much of the time the phone in the Race Relations Foundation was allowed to ring--there was simply no one around to answer it.

One year ago the Race Relations Foundation emerged from the center of one of the most emotionally charged and polarizing debates on campus. In spring of 1980 minority students had marched on Massachusetts Hall, demanding construction of a Third World Center to provide them with a sense of community and support. Their vision drew strong criticism from faculty members, students and administrators who argued that such a center would be "separatist" and would strengthen rather than soothe racial divisions. In an attempt to resolve the issue, President Bok appointed a committee chaired by Peter J. Gomes, Plummer Professor of Christian Morals, to examine the whole proposal. After a summer of research and an autumn of discussion, the committee returned with its conclusions. Rejecting the center idea, it proposed instead a Foundation dedicated to the enhancement of "the quality of our common life."

On paper, the organization envisioned by the Gomes Committee was indeed enticing. Modeled on Phillips Brooks House, the Foundation was described as a "considerably more than a faculty committee or an extra-curricular organization." It was to be a catalyst for research and discussion of racial issues, a sponsor of Third World cultural activities, and an educational institution working for "the general improvement of racial understanding in Harvard College." At the same time it would avoid the tensions and pitfalls of "separatism." Perhaps best of all, it would be unique to Harvard and could be molded to fit the school's specific needs.

BUT ONE LINE in the Gomes Report foreshadowed the fate of the Race Relations Foundation: "Its 'success,' we wish to suggest, will depend not so much upon the structure that emerges, but rather on the spirit in which all members of this community consider the opportunities that confront us."

One year later few students remember the Gomes Report and most are only vaguely aware that the Foundation exists. A victim of student apathy and faculty and administration caution, the Foundation functions only as a string of loosely organized and--toad's--relatively inactive committees, a half-time director, and a small office in University Hall. The Foundation has sponsored two public events--a speech by a prominent Black physicist and a meeting of the Presidential appointed panel on Japanese-American internment--and published a new brochure for the Persia-Julian Black Students in Science Organization. The Foundation's 12-member Board of Associates boasts names like Alex Haley. Barbara Jordan and Beverly Sills, but two members contacted last month were not even aware of their affiliation.

Ironically, the very controversy out of which the Foundation was born has handicapped it from the start. Many minority students--failing to win the Third World Center they struggled for--have adopted a wait-and-see attitude towards the Foundation. The Faculty, in general, has proved equally reticent, and most non-minority students have ignored the Foundation entirely. As Gomes points out: "It was created under the most adverse circumstances. It has neither a mandate from the students nor the Faculty."

ACTIVE AND WHOLEHEARTED endorsement from high-level administrators might have helped the Foundation overcome these obstacles, but so far the administration has supported the Foundation more with rhetoric than resources. Instead of the spacious facilities called for in the Gomes Report, the Foundation has been relegated to a small office in University Hall. Even more critical is its shortage of personnel: S. Allen Counter, the associate professor of Biology who directs the Foundation, must divide his time between administrative, teaching and research responsibilities. And the part time administrative assistant who helps Counter was hired in January--after the Foundation had been operating for more than six months.

The Foundation also faces a critical shortage of funding, which is perhaps its most serious resource problem. Last year the Foundation was budgeted at less than $10,000 and although Counter could ask for funds on a program-by-program basis, he has said that this "shoestring budget limits tremendously the things I's like to do." The funding crunch has compounded other problems as well: Counter has spent much of his limited time on the road, trying to raise funds from alumni and outside groups. In addition, his attempts to seek aid from the Black Students Association (BSA), the Afro-American Cultural Center and other minority groups have alienated many of the students whose support is vital to the Foundation's success. As Gaye Williams '83, president of BSA, says: "In every other university money flows from the administration to student groups. Harvard seems to want it to go the other way."

THE UNIVERSITY'S RATIONALE for its limited Foundation funding has been clearly expressed by several administration officials. As John B. Fox '59, dean of the College, explained, "One test of the effectiveness of the program is the willingness of people outside the University to fund it."

This attitude may serve well when the University is considering building a new hockey rink or instituting a specialized research program. But in the case of the Foundation, it places a disproportionately large burden on the minority students and alumni who are the most likely donors to the Foundation. Harvard's approach seems particularly ironic, since the University established the Foundation--rather than the Center advocated by many minority students--in order to benefit the entire Harvard-Radcliffe community.

In his open letter on race issued last year. President Bok outlined his stance on the Foundation: "If there is genuine interest in this project, I will advocate support for the enterprise--modestly at the beginning but more substantially over time if the effort attracts sustained commitment and achieves constructive results."

Unfortunately, more than "modest" support is needed if the Foundation is ever to rise above ground level. Without active and vocal supporters and an infusion of resources and personnel--the Foundation will undoubtedly die a quiet death, its hopes and promises unfulfilled.