Within the College, as elsewhere, Federal aid is rapidly gaining the status of a magic word. Surrounded by a climate of "liberalism," most Harvard undergraduates seem ready to accept increased Federal activity in almost any area of national life--from schoolrooms to hospitals, from housing developments to theatres, and from farms to factories.

For the most part, the College's students did not arrive in Cambridge with these beliefs; they picked them up at Harvard. Over half admit that their political views have been strongly influenced since Freshman Registration, and of these, seven-tenths have changed either "from conservative to more liberal," or "from liberal to more liberal."

According to the students themselves, the most decisive factor in the change has been their "lectures and assigned reading in courses"--reinforced by the "influence of friends" (who are, of course, reading many of the same books) and "increased thinking about political questions" (stimulated largely by course work and, to some extent, by increased "independent" reading).

Economics 1, with the greatest enrollment of any College course is a case in point. Using a popular text-book by M.I.T.'s Paul A. Samuelson, the course lays great stress on Federal fiscal policy (e.g. "countercyclical spending" by the national government to help offset periodic business slumps). Lecturers include Seymour Harris, Chairman of the Department and John Kenneth Galbraith, author of The Affluent Society.

Under these circumstances, Harvard's introductory course in economics can hardly be considered impartial--it certainly presents the "liberal" position in a favorable light, and tends to downgrade what Galbraith calls the "conventional wisdom." It is not suprising that a third of Harvard's students declare themselves in favor of "reduction of current unemployment by government action, even at the price of aggravating inflation," or that two-thirds support "government wage and price controls to check inflation"--the second policy presumably helping to balance the first.

Of course, this is not to imply that all Harvard students are brainwashed by Economics 1. But the selectiveness of reading lists and lectures often allows an unhealthy "argument-by-ommisson to replace a complete presentation of all "sides" of a question. Certainly this academic influence has helped produce a curious political spectrum within the College.

Although a fifth still describe themselves as "conservative" in temperament, over half prefer the safe and evasive category of "moderate liberal." In addition, a sixth of the students appear willing to admit that they remain "politically indifferent." Neither Hoffa nor the "missile-gap" can arouse them from their lethargy. Apparently ignoring the dictum that "knowledge is power," these Political Indifferents fervently hope that "ignorance is bliss."

Except for its crusty conservatives and temperamental radicals, the College remains largely a hotbed of unconcern. Safely perched in the "middle-of-the-road," many of its "moderate liberals" hold fast to their comfortably philosophy of "don't-give-a-damnism." When sufficiently aroused by a crisis--or even a simple emergency they lean to the Left and lend their silent aid and comfort to the Respectable Radicals.

In addition to his lectures and assigned reading, a student's newspaper and magazines act as the second major influence on his political beliefs. Seven-tenths read the New York Times--the country's most impartial, unbiased news source.

But the Times consists of more than news columns, and its Sunday magazine appears heavily loaded with articles by "liberal" correspondents (including a number of the more literary Senators). It has been charged that its Book Review section often ignores or blasts "conservative" books of high quality, and that its "News of the Week in Review" (after the first two pages) often shows a decidedly "liberal" slant.

Though often called a consevative paper because of its layout and scrupulous editing of news, it is safe to say that the Times exhibits a "liberal" attitude in its editorial and feature columns--a reputable procedure certainly, but not to be confused with "impartiality."

In second place among the publications, almost three-fifths of the College students read Henry R. Luce's Time, and more than a third also look at his Life. Though some students violently criticize these two magazines--for their tendency to transform current events into a modern morality play, and for their use of irrelevant detail to lend an air of precision and accuracy to accomplish generalizations--the slick, fast-moving style of Time and Life apparently appeals even to Harvard's high intellectual level. Luce's columns are definitely the meat in the College's political sandwich.

Much less successful at Harvard are Newsweek (a sixth read it), David Lawrence's conservative U.S. News and World Report (an eighth), Max Ascol's Reporter (a tenth). Only a twentieth read either the liberal Nation or New Republic, and a mere handful look at Bill Buckley's infant National Review.

Just as three-fifths read Time and call themselves "moderate liberals," about two-thirds believe that America's two-party system is "satisfactory on the whole and should be essentially retained." In contrast, only one-fifth (extremists of both Right and Left) favor an alteration of the present party structure "so that sharper lines could be drawn" between the two parties--the G.O.P. presumably returning to its conservatism of a by-gone era, and the Democrats moving even further to the Left and becoming, in name as well as in fact, the party of the Respectable Radicals.

In addition, a tenth would like to see a Third Party successfully founded to crusade forcibly for their political beliefs. Though a few students ask for an American Conservative Party, most of the tenth are radicals who feel that their proposals will not be accepted, or accepted fast enough, in the present party structure. Almost all those who termed their political temperament "radical" also asked for a Third Party of the Left.