THE RECRUITING decision also expressed a new sense that the School as a whole has a responsibility for finding solutions to urban problems--it has to be committed and now. "We felt," says Sizer, "that we had to do something this spring."

But no one said anything about Roxbury. A lot of things at the Ed School haven't changed at all.

With its new reforms, the Ed School has committed itself anew to problems, not places or activities. There has been a change in the size of commitment, and in definition of competence, but the style of intervention remains intact. The School, in other words, will remain officially detached. It continues to maintain that research is its primary function, though now it also emphasizes the training of minority-group students to lead the ghettos to independence. And there will be no taking sides. The Ed School will work with anyone who needs help. It is staying out of politics.

To some extent, the new guidelines accurately reflect an Ed School consensus on the role of the University during an urban crisis. Most reformers agree with the stands on research and neutrality. If the university does not gather knowledge, who will? And an inflexible coalition with one side or the other in the urban morass would limit the School's options for no productive purpose. The School Department is not impressed by Harvard opposition.

But to many reformers, it is also clear that the School is inviting disaster by not committing itself to active community work. Many action programs--like advocacy planning--are indistinguishable from research and teaching.

Equally important, the Coleman Report--the triumph of the survey technique--made one thing very clear: the survey's telescopic view will never be enough. Researchers must study education at the microscopic level--in the ghetto classroom--to learn what is really wrong with ghetto schools. The small informal community classroom offers just as much opportunity for close and productive study as the stale, standardized school room. And in any case, working in the ghetto more and more means working with it or not working at all.

Gatekeepers

So far, MAT students are the only group working openly for formal community links. In a document circulated among faculty last week, MAT's asked for compulsory student work with educational self-help groups in Roxbury, and also suggested that community leaders attend courses at Harvard and discussion groups with MAT's. Eventually, Roxbury leaders would become full faculty members and, hopefully, exert some influence on the course of Ed School urban activities.

Even the MAT program, of course, would not guarantee the Ed School a prospering community program. Not even reformers know whether the Ed School's revised posture is acceptable to the community. And the rhetoric pouring out of Roxbury in the wake of King's assassination has provided little indication of where the community consensus lies. "There are going to be gatekeepers," says Thomas. "No one knows quite how these gatekeepers are going to operate, including, in many cases, the gatekeepers."

The most difficult problem will undoubtedly involve control of resources and that "gut" acceptance of community competence. Some community leaders have suggested that universities formulate codes of conduct for professors taking the urban plunge, but standards of this sort smack so much of infringement on academic freedoms that no faculty is likely to tolerate them. Many researchers are moving on their own toward paying subjects consultant wages, and employing black surveyors, but on questions of sub-contracting federal or foundation moneys, few are likely to give way. And genuine community consultation and cooperation are such personal matters that no one except the participants can make them go.

Black Businesses

There are some hopeful signs. Last Thursday, the Urban League and Boston College announced a joint project to ease the transfer of white businesses to blacks. The agreement gave the community group control of resources, which seemed the key community demand. But the problem of hard-won foundation grants wasn't involved, and there was only one project and a relatively small group of people involved. Broad, institutionalized cooperation will vastly increase the chance of misunderstanding--slighting of community advisors, and a whole range of personal problems which easily take on racial connotations.

In the end, any Ed School effort will probably depend on slow laborious work at building personal alliances with community groups. On their part, Roxbury leaders will have to be prepared to accept the School's decision to keep its channels open with the School Department. They will also have to be ready for some mistakes and ready to perceive them as personal errors, not malicious racial slurs on the Ed School's part. While they should not be led to expect too much, they cannot be disappointed if results don't appear overnight.

The guidelines are necessarily vague, for the situation is unprecedented. The key words seems to be flexibility and old-fashioned, personal politics. Mutual interest may provide a powerful incentive--for the Ed School researcher, an access to materials of his trade, and for the self-help group, assistance in teaching, in drawing up applications for grants, in conversing with the white establishment.

There is no certainty, only necessity