ELLIOT RICHARDSON '41, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, did not fit my image of the Federal bureaucrat. He was neither paunchy nor pallid from sitting too long under fluorescent light, in fact when a trio of Crimson women interviewed him April 6 he sported a snappy pinstripe suit and a fresh tan from an Asp ex ski weekend.

We were there to talk with Richardson about Affirmative Action Plans for University hiring of minorities and women. Although Richardson himself is not directly in charge of the program--administration instead being handled by Stanley Pottinger '62 and the Office of Civil Rights--Richardson is deeply involved with the program in his capacity as policy maker and official spokesman for he department.

We were not the only Harvard representatives to take up an hour of the Secretary's time discussing the University Affirmative Action Program. A month ago President Bok journeyed to Washington to talk with Richardson about Affirmative Action plans for universities. Bok and Richardson had a general discussion of the situation at Harvard and Bok requested that the department give further guidelines what Affirmative Action means.

Richardson stated that Bok met with him as the official representative of a committee of five college presidents appointed by the American Council on Education several months ago. The committee, formed "to iron out confusion between college presidents and the Department of HEW" according to Bok, represented three schools currently under investigation by HEW, Harvard, the University of Michigan, and Columbia, as well as two others.

According to Richardson, he met with Bok representing the committee. Bok said last week that the committee has been disbanded.

Women's groups, notably Women's Equity Action League (WEAL) protested the committee on the grounds of possible collusion between HEW and the presidents.

One concern that the committee of presidents, Bok, and women's groups have all voiced is the need for clarification of guidelines for setting up Affirmative Action plans.

Under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and an executive order issued by President Johnson amending it, Federal contractors, including universities, must take, "An affirmative action to ensure that minority (including women) applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin."

Harvard first submitted an action program under the laws two years ago. this first plan was rejected HEW. Harvard's second, more specific play, was accepted by HEW last Spring but invalidated last August when the Executive order was amended to require "specific goals and timetables" for minority hiring, Harvard's most recent action plan is currently under review by the New England Regional Office of HEW in Boston.

WE ASKED RICHARDSON what HEW is doing about clarifying guidelines for acceptable affirmative action.

"We hope to put out a memo sometime this spring." Richardson said, "It should help universities to understand what the essential components for a good affirmative action plan are."

"This memo will not impose specific plans on universities, "Richardson continued, "We believe HEW's primary function is to indicate that there has been discrimination. We are willing to give the universities as much help as we can in outlining what constitutes acceptable affirmative action, but the primary responsibility for finding methods to increase the numbers of women and minorities must come from the universities themselves."

"Under this set-up one proper role for the American Council of Education (ACE) that I see is for the ACE to serve as a clearing house rather not tell them specifically what to do, the Council could serve as a focal point for the colleges to exchange ideas."

Richardson pointed out that it is hard for HEW to describe acceptable ways for implementing affirmative action because the concept itself is so new.

"For a long time it was taken for granted that this was the way things were, that there were empirical reasons for treating women differently. In effect it was discrimination. As a result of specific complaints and the affirmative thrust of Civil Rights laws there has been an awakening to facts that had simply been ignored," Richardson said," and all this has only happened within the past few years."