BUT HARVARD did not budge even on those requests to which they had already given their verbal assent. In particular, the tenants have been plagued with difficulties about urban consulting and lack of a real voice in community affairs.

One problem which the tenants' association faced late in the summer was the lack of an urban consultant. The University had hired two consultants to deal with Harvard and the tenants, but the tenants felt that these consultants did not serve their needs.

"In the first place, we never saw them," said Mrs. Powers. "They never talked to us. We couldn't get any information at all. All they did was come around and ask questions."

"Then, when we asked what their final report was, Harvard said we couldn't see it because it contained "Information of a personal nature." What kind of a consultant is it that you can't see his final report?" she added.

Stephen J. Miller, associate dean for Urban Affairs at the Medical School, later admitted that this second charge was true. "You never hire anyone that's responsible to anyone but you," he said.

In September, the tenants obtained their own consultant-John Sharratt. They demanded that Harvard give money to the tenants' association to pay their consultant on the grounds that the University had implicitly assumed this expense by providing a consultant of their own choice.

Sharratt made clear to the tenants and to Harvard officials that he would continue to work with the tenants' association regardless of whether or not he was paid.

Last month, after continued pressure from tenants, Harvard gave in to the demand, but only indirectly. Miller filed an application for the tenants with Permanent Charities-an organization directed by Fred L. Glimp '50, former Dean of Harvard College-who granted the tenants' association $6500 to pay their consultant.

At the beginning of May, community representatives were invited to join the Medical School's Committee on Community Relations, which Ebert had set up to investigate the issues surrounding expansion of the Affiliated Hospitals Center int other Roxbury community. The committee was empowered to make appropriate recommendations to the University.

EBERT ruled at the outset that the committee could not reconsider the AHC site, and so the tenants' work in the committee centered on the questions of maintenance and relocation housing. The tenants' association worked in a housing subcommittee where they held a voting majority.

The committee never approved the relocation guidelines proposed by the tenant subcommittee, and the University did not act on a committee recommendation for immediate maintenance improvement and repair of safety hazards. The relationship of the committee to the decision-making structure of the University never afforded the tenants a genuine influence concerning the fate of their present and future homes.

"Our experience with the committee gave us an insight into Harvard's way of thinking," said Parks. "It was a real education for us."

At times, tenants experienced condescension and harassment during committee meetings. On one occasion, the committee was discussing the rental of vacant apartments. In previous months, Harvard had rented to students, hippies, and other transients to case the process of eviction. Tenants requested that rental priority be given to families, and casually used the words "responsible persons" to refer to married couples.

"They took an hour and a half to ask us what we meant by 'responsible persons," said Mrs. Parks. "They implied we were racist and bigoted."

"You see, they just can't accept us seriously as people," added Parks. "They're supposed to be the liberal influence in Boston, but really, they're the bigoted ones."