When the Federation of Teaching Fellows and the University Administration meet in a few days to talk about wages, the confrontation will no doubt be devoid of drama. Both the Deans and the teaching fellows have every reason to minimize conflict. The University habitually greets insurgencies with a degree of sympathy, and the Federation is green and remarkably nonmilitant.

Though the teaching fellows have performed an incredible bootstrap job since November, crystallizing an organization out of 498 names on a petition, their foundation is still shaky. They have no constitution and no defined membership; they could not take coervice action against the University even if they wanted to. For its part, the Administration is aware of the teaching fellows' value in performing the educational dirty work of grading and teaching sections and tutorial. Neither side can afford to throw away the good will of the other.

The teaching fellows are approaching the University with two requests: a substantial pay increase and a standardization of the methods used to measure their work load. Both requests reflect legitimate grievances.

The University is unlikely to grant raises very readily. The Federation's pay suggestions would cost Harvard at least $700,000 more a year, and the Administration will probably be reluctant to make any major adjustments until the Committee of Seven completes its study of the junior faculty at Harvard.

But the second issue-the "fifth" system for measuring the work load-is an area where the Federation's chances are more promising. Both administrators and teaching fellows agree that a "fifth" is defined in as many ways as there are departments. The inequity means that some teaching fellows are badly overworked and underpaid. The Federation has pointed out a genuine problem, and the University should be as anxious as the teaching fellows to see it corrected.

Teaching fellows have long needed representation of their own. The Federation is intended to provide just that. The University should not regard the new organization simply as another complicating factor in its budget calculations, but as a valuable spokesman for a group whose welfare tends to be neglected.