Who's to Blame?

STUDENTS come to the Kennedy School to learn the essence of public administration. Let's hope they never have to resort to the evasion exhibited by their administration last week.

Granted, the K-School review of its fundraising procedures hit home on a number of abuses made in the overzealous effort to attract money to Harvard's youngest graduate school. Brought to light last November by a proposal to bestow University Officer status on an oil-rich Texas couple in return for a $500,000 gift, the Kennedy School's fundraising tactics had made the School a "loose cannon," in the words of a Harvard official.

But President Bok was wrong to expect that an internal review of the K-School could ever come up with any hard-hitting revelations or that the in-house reviewers would ever criticize their head dean. Despite making necessary reforms in the K-School fundraising apparatus, the report's sin of omission was that it went all the way to the front door and stopped.

THE report by K-School Executive Dean Richard E. Cavanagh rightfully criticized the School's development office for its lack of supervision and its decentralization. Cavanagh's decision to eliminate the special projects office office, to bring in a Harvard fundraising professional to oversee all K-School fundraising, and to create a committee that will review all substantial donations are badly-needed reforms which we can only hope will help attack the abuses that led to the prestige-for-payments swap. But the K-School's larger problems--a small alumni population and expanding programs--still make it vulnerable to shady donors and a little rule-bending.

WHILE the report's changes are admirable, they fail to address the chief reason for the K-School's violation of Harvard's ethical guidelines. The report is remarkable for its failure to place the blame where it truly belongs--in the lap of K-School Dean Graham T. Allison '62. Cavanagh sticks to the line that Allison approved the proposed swap late one Friday night without giving it "proper scrutiny." Absent from the report are the crucial facts which rip apart this shallow excuse:

*Allison had dinner with one of the donors during the week that the agreement was written.

*A memo to prepare Allison for the dinner told him he would be expected to answer the question, "What is the most prestigious position [the donor] can buy for 250K?"

*The draft of that agreement was accompanied by a cover letter, signed by the K-School's chief fundraiser, Bayley F. Mason '51, that said, at the time, Allison "approved" of the terms.

*Mason discussed the terms of the deal with Allison prior to its approval and claims he wrote the agreement to the dean's specification.

EVEN after the report, contradictions remain--the facts that were revealed at the time of the agreement have not been explained. By its very nature, the internal review was flawed and failed to examine the central problem.

It's obvious that Allison was not ignorant of the swap until one lonely Friday night. The evidence repeatedly shows that the dean not only knew of the deal well before it was finalized, but also took an active hand in its formulation. This is not just an honest mistake, but another example of Allison's inability to reconcile the educational mission of the K-School and Harvard with his desire to bring money, power, and publicity to his fledgling school.

Only two years ago, Allison brought disgrace to the K-School when he unilaterally decided to award a public service medal to Attorney General Edwin Meese III. The fundraising episode shows that, once again, Allison has not taken responsibility for his actions. By setting up an internal review, Bok evaded the real issue--Allison should resign, or Bok should fire him, before he has another chance to embarrass the school and the University.