Participants in several Federal aid to education programs have been required to sign disclaimer affidavits, denying that they belong to, support, or "believe in" subversive organizations. Harvard has consistently opposed such requirements, and twice--after passage of the National Science Foundation Act (1950) and the National Defense Education Act (1958)--it joined other universities in forcing Congress to repeal disclaimer clauses.

Now, however, the University has announced that it intends to apply for funds under the work-study section of the Economic Opportunities Act, even though the Act requires disclaimers from all recipients of aid. In explaining the Administration's decision, Dean Monro said that the U.S. Office of Education had promised to exempt university-run projects from the requirements. Basing University policy on such an assurance--which flatly contradicts the wording of the Act's disclaimer clause--seems unwise enough. But the policy itself is even less wise.

The University has always argued that disclaimer clauses are unconstitutional and dangerous; they try to regulate an individual's beliefs, and such regulation invites bureaucratic subjectivity. The arguments seemed cogent during the NDEA controversy, and they haven't lost their cogency. Disclaimers remain unconstitutional even when Harvard men are exempted from them.

One could understand--though not share--the Administration's anxiousness to receive antipoverty funds if Harvard stood to gain more than a few thousand dollars. But the Act specifies that only students whose parents earn under $3000 a year qualify for U.S. aid. Although the Student Employment Office dislikes to release figures on family income, it seems unlikely that more than a handful of Harvard students come from families this poor.

The Johnson Administration is reportedly prepared to ask Congress next month to eliminate the disclaimer requirement in the Act, and there seems little doubt that Congress will agree. The proper time to apply for antipoverty grants will be after Congress has acted. Harvard's role in the NDEA controversy was that of a moral reader the Administration reply to Archie Epps's thoughts on the antipoverty application suggests that Harvard no longer finds this a natural role.

Dean Monro, when he revealed that Harvard is applying for aid now, observed that "when you work with the Federal government, you usually have to compromise somehow." Harvard has proved again and again that the statement is false.