Further, while the University, according to Dunlop, "foresaw" the drop in outside financial support several years ago. It was continuing to plan expansion during that period (the Science Center, the Design School building, the Ed School library.) knowing full well that it would have to support the new annual maintenance and operating costs of those buildings out of its budget. (The new Science Center, for example, will cost the University over $1 million a year.)

All of the figures quoted by the administration should be treated with the same skepticism. In his letter. Dunlop noted that "the unrestricted resources of this Faculty allocated to graduate fellowships and STS have grown each year from $1,094,000 in 1966-67 to $1,565,000 for 1971-72." Along with this, he argued that the University had no plans to reduce graduate-level support. However, this whole argument is misleading, for such increases came only because the University first raised tuition and then was forced to raise tuition scholarships accordingly. Between 1966-67 and 1971-72, reduced-tuition increased from $300 to $1000, while full tuition increased from $1760 to $2800. All of Dunlop's one-half million dollar increase in fellowship funds, and more. is due to the rise in tuition: the administration has merely taken money from one pocket and placed it in another.

To get a total picture of graduate student aid, one must consider scholarships, stipends, and teaching fellow salaries paid by both Harvard and outside sources, not simply Harvard aid. From 1969-70 to 1971-72 the net annual pay and assistance per graduate student fell from $1900 to the present level of $1300. Even is outside sources of funds had remained constant, net pay and assistance would have fallen to $1750 per graduate student--at a time when the cost of living rose substantially. Should third-year graduate students be charged full tuition, and be paid at junior rate for teaching fellowships, net salary and assistance will immediately drop to about $1000 per student. And the fall in Harvard aid comes at a time when enrollment in GSAS has already been cut 8 per cent from 3034 to 27851, so that there are actually fewer students in need of support. This reduction will definitely continue; next year's projected entering class will be approximately 250, half of last year's number of entering students.

Such considerations demonstrate that the University has offered only selected 'facts' that bolster its position but do not really substantiate or explain the 'financial crisis.' The administration's policy, as so often in the past, is to deal only with individuals or isolated groups--divide and rule. Its statements that increased funds for one group can only come at the expense of another creates a situation in which members of the Harvard community are set in competition with one another. Administration decisions may look as if they are independent of one another, affecting only one segment of the University. But each 'independent' action is related to others, and establishes a general policy of administrative action that affects teaching fellows, graduate students, and undergraduates alike. In the name of a 'financial crisis' the administration is creating an 'education crisis'. This crisis affects undergraduate education at least as much as that of graduate students.

The administration has been quick to point out that the number of teaching fifths has greatly increased in past years. (Each 'fifth', an undefinable quantity supposedly representing one-fifth of a full-time teaching load, covers an amount of work extending from one section or tutorial group to several, depending on the department.) There was, in fact, according to Dunlop's figures, an increased in the number of fifths throughout the sixties, but a docline in number in the last two years. The implication that the increase during the sixties was somehow an unwarranted expansion, and a gift to the graduate students, bears analysis. It was during this period that House courses were instituted--often the only opportunity undergraduates have to participate in a seminar course outside of tutorial.

In addition, it was during this period that the position of instructor was abolished. Instructors were junior faculty members who often carried much of the tutorial load: in effect the addition of teaching fellows was simply the replacement of badly paid instructors with worse-paid teaching fellows. Bearing these facts in mind, it is significant that the number of fifths has already begun to drop, and this at a time when Harvard's undergraduate enrollment is increasing. Does the Harvard administration regard House courses, tutorials, and other seminar-type courses as frill, to be cut at the first signs of 'financial crisis'?

There is also a noticeable squeeze being placed on the House system. Adams House has already reached the point where it can, for the rest of the term, no longer provide meals for its resident and non-resident staff. Proposals are being considered in many Houses to charge rent for resident staff and to further cut meal allotments next year. Both of these proposals would seriously weaken the House system. Meals are the best opportunity available for students and staff alike to meet one another and to interact in an informal and unstructured atmosphere. Rents at the rates being discussed, coupled with the increased financial burdens of teaching fellows, would lead to an exodus of resident staff. Graduate students who remained in the Houses would feel no compunction about considering themselves mere dormitory residents with no obligations to the House or its students--this is already happening in trial set-ups where graduate students pay regular dormitory rates.

What are the consequences of such a policy over the next few years? Houses could become mere dormitories, with House courses a thing of the past. Students would be faced with large lecture courses; if sections are offered at all, their size might well increase to 30 or 50 students each--pressure is already being placed upon department heads to abolish sections in upper level courses. Tutorial might become optional; sophomore tutorial might disappear. It is also conceivable that many graduate students would choose to withdraw from the university after fulfilling their residence requirement (thus by-passing tuition payment), and seek outside jobs. The number of teaching fellows then available would drop below even that minimum level which the administration recognizes as necessary for undergraduate education.

'Quality of education' might should like a vague term, but in any light, $3000 seems an enormous fee to pay for an undergraduate education consisting of a distant senior faculty concerned with its own research, combined with large lecture courses and a few over-worked teaching fellows whose salary returns to the University as tuition. It is in the interests of all students at this University to demand that such a situation not arise. It is in our interest to question the priorities that the administration has set, to demand an accounting of the budget and a large degree of participation in University decisions that affect our education. Are Harvard's goals our goals, those of a business corporation, or those of an educational institution?

The general meeting held at Sanders last night was called to deal with questions such as these. The need to bring pressure upon an unresponsive administration has brought about today's work stoppage. So far the administration, although willing to 'discuss' issues with individuals in the Harvard community', has refused to recognize the existence of the Union. Without recognition, there is no way to discuss issues that are vital to our education; without a full financial disclosure there is no basis for judging Harvard's 'crisis'. Our only conclusion can be that quality education, both graduate and undergraduate, is low on the list of Corporation priorities.

We urge all students, graduate and undergraduate, to support today's work-stoppage. We urge you to join the picket lines. The Union's interests are the interests of the students at this University. Only through a massive show of support can we demonstrate to the administration that students at all levels are concerned about the content of education at Harvard. Only through such support can we show our concern with the kind of institution that Harvard is and our doubts about its present policies, both educational and social