Among union members there is a widespread feeling that, through the abolition of the STS program, the increased third-year tuition, and other measures, the University is attempting to solve its financial problems by "tightening its belt around graduate students' necks."

The formation of a union is seen by these students as necessary as a way of preventing the University and Faculty administrations from taking advantage of the otherwise weak and disorganized graduate student body.

In light of the fact that Harvard has not reduced its contribution to graduate aid while outside funding has declined drastically, it might be fairer to say that it is the federal government and the foundations--not Harvard--which are tightening the noose on the Graduate School.

Members of the union, however, have argued that Harvard's expenditures on new buildings and athletics--to name two examples which have been cited--and its policy of reinvesting current income in the University endowment reveal a general lack of commitment to education--graduate education included.

And many argue that it is unjust to reduce teaching fellows' income while the income of Faculty members remains the same.

Union leaflets have questioned why the University was going ahead with plans to build the Science Center in 1968-9 when the report of the Wolff Committee on the Future of the Graduate School, issued in the same year, called for a reduction in the size of the graduate enrollment.

THE WOLFF Committee's recommendation was not based on financial considerations, however, but on a judgment that the graduate enrollment had grown too large in proportion to the size of the Faculty--the excess of graduate students was hurting graduate student morale, according to the committee. The decline in outside support did not begin until the academic year after the committee issued its report.

Clearly acting in response to pressure from the union, the Faculty Committee on Fellowships and Other Aids for Graduate Students--the committee which had decided to abolish the STS program--decided in late March to institute a new tuition abatement program for teaching fellows, with abatements based on a "careful assessment of an individual student's financial need." Dean Dunlop pledged to make available any necessary funds in excess of $800,000 which were required for the program.

Both the Committee and Dunlop also said that the Graduate School's tuition policies should be reviewed.

Representatives of the union, who had begun discussions with the Faculty Council, were invited to discuss the need criteria of the new tuition abatement program with the Committee on Fellowships.

But after seeing the tentative alternatives being considered by the committee, the union representatives walked out of the discussions, stating that the proposals were "unacceptable, insulting, and no ground for further discussion."

THE ALTERNATIVE most favored by the committee was based on a standard "budget" of $2500 a year for single students and $4000 a year for married students. As first presented, it would have effectively taxed away the last $500 in earnings of a teaching fellow earning $3000, since it would reduce his or her abatement by whatever extra income he had in excess of $2500.

The program would also force students to exhaust their bank accounts by the time they received their degree--an objectionable requirement to Ph.D. candidates facing a glutted job market.

The Committee on Fellowships has since modified the program so that the first $1000 of a student's bank account is exempt, as is all teaching income up to $3000.

As teaching fellow appointments are made for next year, the Graduate School has begun sending out letters to students informing them what their abatements will be for next year. Many students will receive full abatements under the program. Many will probably receive somewhat less than under the STS program, and some--who just barely missed eligibility and received nothing under that program--will receive something under this one.