From the time of its birth in 1957 the Harvard Student Agencies has been subjected to harsh, and not always fair, criticism. During the last four years, a period of rapid HSA expansion, the attacks have been frequent and heated, with individual students, House Committees and other undergraduate organizations asking for information about and reform of the growing giant on Holyoke Street.

After an unprecedented vote of censure of the HSA two years ago by the Dunster House Committee, a committee authorized by the old Student Council conducted a short investigation and submitted a brief report claiming most of the criticisms were unfounded. This superficial document failed to satisfy HSA critics, and a new wave of complaints last Spring prompted the Harvard Council on Undergraduate Affairs to commence what it promised to be a detailed and comprehensive inquiry.

In addition to questions about internal management practices, any comprehensive study of HSA affairs would have to raise three basic questions: Is the HSA fulfilling its function as an employer of needy students? Does the HSA provide the University with quality services and products at fair prices? What is the effect of the HSA on other organizations within the University? The 17-page report released last week by the HCUA Executive Committee contains only unsupported generalizations on the first two questions and completely ignores the third. Despite its bulk, it is regrettably lacking both in information and proposals.

The major reason for the failure is probably the Committee's method of investigation. Although it conducted "numerous" interviews, the Committee's primary information came from HSA answers to a questionnaire. These answers should only have been part of the Committee's data, not the bulk of it. If more statistical and general information was collected, it is not evident in the report.

Question of Need

The HSA answers to questions about the employment of needy students were incomplete, and the Committee should have said so. The only data supplied were total wage figures; apparently no records are kept on the financial need of employees. Although at one point the Committee says "there is a slight tendency to pick the best man for the [manager] job, regardless of financial need," it gives no proof of the assertion. As it stands, the statement neither enlightens the community nor is fair to the HSA. If the HSA keeps no records on the need of its agency managers the Committee should have obtained its own figures by asking the University to determine how many managers receive some kind of financial aid. The point is too important to be lightly dismissed. If the HSA provides employment for a significant number of students without need it may be too large; if needy students are not given every advantage perhaps new policies are necessary.

Even less attention is given to the quality and price of HSA services, which were the cause of the Dunster House censure. Little attempt was made to investigate the products and the administrative expenses of the individual agencies and to compare them with similar businesses elsewhere.

In defense of its favored position in the Harvard community the HSA told the HCUA that competition sometimes "saturates the market and causes insufficient earnings to any of the suppliers." It observed that "a customer is never forced to buy" and that "there are numerous problems of an open door policy which would lead to general abuse and to the detriment of the student body." This is nearly classic rationalization of monopoly. The argument is not necessarily invalid, but the HCUA should have gone to some lengths to see if present restraints on the HSA are sufficient and to determine what the real effects of limited or open competition might be. The HCUA statement that "the HSA is more closely controlled by the Administration than any other undergraduate organization" says nothing unless it can be shown that such control is adequate--or perhaps even oppressive.

Unstudied Impact

The failure of the Committee to consider the impact of the HSA on other undergraduate organizations is the most grievous ommission of the report, however. The consolidation of business talent in the student body at the HSA, together with advertising solicited by HSA agencies, has had a severe and damaging effect on practically every volunteer organization in the College that conducts any business operation. Faced with extremely tight budgets, only a few have been able to offer their business staffs compensations in any way comparable to HSA commissions and salaries.

It may be that the ever-rising costs of a Harvard education are forcing many students who would otherwise work in volunteer capacities to sell for pay at the HSA. But it is also possible that the HSA is luring talent from other organizations unnecessarily. The purpose of the HSA should be to help needy students, not to provide opportunities to get rich at college. The business of Harvard is not business; it is education. Critics of the HSA have felt that the Administration, in its eagerness to build HSA, has forgotten to measure the influence and effect of a protected, wage-paying, million-dollar corporation on a community of volunteer, educational activity. Such an assessment should have been central in the HCUA study.

Image Improvement

In the area the Committee did spend time--the internal administration of the HSA--the findings are encouraging but the suggestions unconvincing. After stating that it has few complaints about the management of Dustin M. Burke '52, General Manager of the HSA and Director of Student Employment, the Committee recommends his two jobs be given to separate persons. This is not a new proposal, but the reason for the change is novel--to assuage adverse criticism and help "the HSA...regain respect in the community." If Mr. Burke is properly performing his duties without conflict of interest as the Committee reports, a structural change to counter what the Committee calls "unjustified rumors and accusations" seems neither sensible nor fair to Mr. Burke. There are several compelling reasons for splitting these demanding jobs; public relations is not one of them.

The Committee's proposed division of the jobs is also unworkable. It properly asks that the HSA General Managership be a "full-time" position, but then requests the General Manager "serve as a part-time employee in the office of the Director of Student Employment" to give him "contact with the probems of financial aid." It is hard to see how the man can be two places at once unless he has the dual responsibilities currently exercised by Mr. Burke.

There is no objection to the Committee's other major recommendation, that the HSA be more conscious of public relations. If the HSA "has nothing to hide" as the Committee suggests, it should be unafraid to lift the mysterious and unjustified curtain of secrecy the Committee says it encountered.

But a better corporate image will not solve alleged structural and conceptional problems within the HSA. The community still needs an intelligent, thorough study of this million-dollar business.