All this raises the question, Who Pays? For even with Harvard's enormous assets (endowment more than $1 billion, larger than any other private university in the nation), no one expects that the University will be able to meet its new expenses alone. President Pusey's report was clearly a plea for sustained alumni support, but annual giving itself will not cover the new costs. Many University officials believe that more and more of the annual budget will eventually come, in some form or other, from the federal government. Already, a third of the total comes from the government.

This is not merely an elementary question of coaxing more money from Washington (Though it is that, too. Once the war in Vietnam is finished, explains one Harvard official, "higher education" will be on Capitol Hill fighting for every new cent it can get, and, implicitly, he says, universities will be competing with new social programs such as air and water pollution measures.) Harvard is also faced with the prospect of increasing demands from agencies which hand out the money. In the past, these new demands have often resulted in nasty little squirmishes between government bureaucrats and professors; sometimes the fights have been three-way with the University's own bureaucrats struggling against both sides.

Events of the past year seem to confirm the inevitability of these conflicts. Harvard had a number of runins with federal requirements, and the most dramatic one still continues. This dispute is over so-called "effort reports"--that is, a professor's obligation to account for his time if he is doing research under a federal grant. More and more agencies are demanding that he estimate how much time he devotes to his project; most professors believe this impossible and undesirable. They have, conformed for the present, but the fight continues to eliminate or modify the regulation.

Questions like this seriously worry many members of the Faculty and Administration. How much will the influx of money threaten the autonomy of the university, or on a smaller scale, alter its operation? How much will federal funds affect the balance between different disciplines? But, though reservations are strong, it is clear that universities, Harvard included, want more federal money and that they will fight to get it: when President Johnson proposed that the NDEA program of student loans be substantially changed, universities yelled like hell, and, along with other affected interests, actually won a major modification in the President's plan.

Friction developed this year over another aspect of federal-university relations. This controversy was an old one, but it arose again with the establishment of the Kennedy Institute of Politics as a part of the John F. Kennedy School of Government (changed from the Graduate School of Public Administration). The point of contention: the involvement of scholars in current government policy problems.

The Institute's own goal is to sharpen the University's awareness of such policy questions. It will sponsor Faculty research and, by a variety of other means, will attempt to acquaint other parts of the University with the intracacies of policy problems. But in this purpose, many see a distortion of the "true" role of the University. The Institute is too closely connected with "establishment" politics and policies, they say, and thereby diverts scholars from pursuing an independent line of work.

The Institute's presence has reopened fundamental questions: does preoccupation (or just occupation) with current policy matters undermine the strength of true scholarship? Should professors advise the government on a regular basis? Or, as Richard Neustadt, director of the Institute of Politics maintains, should the University strive to accommodate both those interested in "pure" social science research and those attracted to policy concerns?

All these questions are probably aca- demic. Like it or not, Harvard professors have been serving as official consultants to the federal government for a long time. When the chance comes, some will leave swiftly (if often only temporarily) for a good job in Washington. The exodus of '61, from Bundy to Schlesinger, was not the first time Harvard professors served in important government positions; nor will it be the last. Under Johnson, the Cambridge to Washington shuttle has continued with men like Otto Eckstein going to the Council of Economic Advisers, Robert Bowie to the State Department, and James Vorenberg to the Justice Department.

(4) The students and the Administration: Conflict, Cooperation, or Coddling?

The Institute of Politics helped illuminate more than one set of conflicts during the past year. When the Institute invited Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara for a two-day stay in Cambridge, it did not anticipate the uproar the Secretary's visit would cause. The confrontation on Mill St. resulted from more than mere disagreement over the war. The premise of all actions taken by Students for a Democratic Society was that students should have a larger role in determining what does and does not happen at Harvard.

Evidently, SDS was not alone in thinking about the question. A series of events, beginning last Spring, convinced Dean Monro that the Administration should give more attention to the place of students in the College's decision-making mechanism. Many developments took Monro by surprise. Last May, for example, a group of students - many of them freshmen--decided that the University had decided too arbitrarily on a policy of dealing with the Selective Service System. They decided to ask for a referendum on the matter, specifically urging that Harvard not compute class rankings to be forwarded to local draft boards. In several days, they collected about 1500 signatures supporting the call for a referendum, and went to see Monro. The University Administration consistently resisted the referendum and the idea that the ranking policy become a matter for students to decide graduate Council and the Harvard.

In the fall, however, there was an obvious receptiveness to ideas coming from students. The Harvard Under-Policy Committee, the two organs of student "government" at the College, made important proposals--and had them accepted (a major change in parietals came from the HUC, and the HPC asked that students be allowed to take a free fifth course on a pass-fail basis; this is still in the works). When Phillips Brooks House Association indicated it was in financial trouble, Monro, as head of the Faculty committee for PBHA, helped shape a proposal for aid from the Faculty of Art sand Sciences. Undoubtedly, he also helped convince Dean Ford to accept the idea "in principle" (details still remain to be worked out).

The Role of Students

The presence of SDS has kept pressure on the Administration to consider the role of students in decision-making. By the end of the year, Monro had designated the entire topic for consideration by the Overseers Committee to Visit the College. This Committee has not legislative powers, but the mere tactful discussion marked the new status this subject has gained over the past year.

But the College was not the only center of student agitation during the year. Groups at the School of Education, the Law School, and the Medical School pressed their administrations for changes. About all these activities (the College included), it is still too early to speak conclusively. How representative of the concerns of most students are student groups? How enduring is the student emphasis on reform, and how enduring will be the seriousness of the Administration's response?