(Following are excerpts from the ten-page preliminary report to President Pusey by the Harvard Civil Defense Study Committee. Separate views of two members--David Cavers, Fessenden Professor of Law, and Arthur D. Troddenberg, as-assistant dean of the Faculty--will be printed later this week.)

At the request of President Pusey, the Committee has considered the wide range of possible actions which the University might take . . . to cope with physical injury or damage from blast, fire, and radioactive fallout in the event of nuclear war . . . . The Committee has considered four major aspects of the problem:

* the basic policy issue of the place of civil defense in national defense activities;

* the various policies which the University might adopt in respect to civil defense;

* the relationships of Harvard to the people of the surrounding communities and their governments, in respect to civil defense;

* the technical problems presented by any civil defense activity by Harvard, should such activity be authorized.

(Among the general recommendations of the Committee were the following:)

(1) Harvard should undertake the first steps of a modest civil defense program, aimed primarily at protecting persons against the effects of radioactive fallout.

(2) The initial action should be one of careful planning for a fallout shelter program, the coordination of existing resources of utility in an emergency, identification of those items which have a long "lead time," development of University policies for its comportment in possible periods of international tension short of actual war, and related activities.

(3) Harvard should cooperate with the Federal program of identification, marking and stocking of existing shelter space, but should not be committeed in advance to any future steps, or to any assumptions or limitations in the Federal fallout shelter program.

(4) Shelter spaces in Harvard facilities, up to the limit of shelter capacity, should be available to all without regard of Harvard affiliation.

(5) Harvard should proceed with the planning and execution on its own moderate, long-term civil defense program, without being governed by the possible fluctuations of any Federal or local civil defense program.

Reasons for Recommendations

The Committee presents these recommendations on the basis of extended discussion, the reading of position papers prepared by various members of the Committee, as well as by consideration of the attitudes of persons outside the Committee, and the best information which could be obtained as to the emerging outlines of the new Federal civil defense programs. However, the Committee did not seek out the views or opinions of the Harvard Faculty or student body. . . .

The Committee defined five policy positions which Harvard might take concerning its own civil defense activity: