A day after Commencement, the University received word from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare that it had failed for the fourth time to meet Federal requirements for a non-discriminatory hiring plan.

Both HEW reviewers and University officials have declined to discuss the precise nature of the government's objections to Harvard's latest affirmative action proposal. But sources on both sides have conceded that extensive revision of several portions of the plan must be made to fulfill the HEW standards.

As it stands now, Harvard has until August 1 to revise its proposal--as outlined in HEW's June 15 letter of rejection--to meet Federal standards, the usual one month deadline apparently having been extended upon Harvard's request.

HEW reviewers and Walter J. Leonard, special assistant to President Bok and coordinator of the University's affirmative action program, have said that the absence of a departmental breakdown of Faculty projections for hiring women and minority group members was the greatest single shortcoming of Harvard's proposal.

The government requires all major Federal contractors to draft extensive plans for ending discriminatory hiring practices.

Federally-funded schools, businesses and other institutions failing to supply the government with sufficient data, or whose "affirmative action" plans do not comply with the government's standards, risk loss of Federal funding.

Federal contracts account for an estimated one-third--about $60 million--of Harvard's annual income.

No Real Jeopardy

John Bynoe, director of the regional office of HEW, said that no institution will actually lose its Federal funds. Rather, he explained, an institution failing to comply with government standards may be deemed a "non-cooperative contractor" and may be heavily pressured to produce an acceptable affirmative action plan when its Federal contracts near expiration and come up for renewal.

Bynoe said that since HEW rejected Harvard's latest affirmative action program. University administrators had furnished his office with the "required materials" and "we advised them as to what to do."

"We have to make them [Harvard] tighten up their programs as much as possible," he explained. Bynoe concluded that "there will be no problem," and that he is confident Harvard will meet Federal standards within the allotted revision period.

Reliable sources have indicated that several of HEW's objections were ironed out during negotiation sessions between Leonard and the HEW Office of Civil Rights (which reviews the proposals). The same sources said, however, that there are still aspects of the program that must be modified for compliance with Federal standards as spelled out in the rejection letter and clarified during the negotiation sessions.

Bynoe emphasized that it is possible for an institution to lay down acceptable utilization analysis and target figures, act in good faith, and "still end up with no more women or minority group members."

"There is absolutely no assurance that because an institution submits goals and timetables, that these will be met," he said.

After the employer-institution has uncovered and examined its own possible hiring biases through utilization analysis, enlarged its search procedure accordingly, and established a series of appropriate goals and timetables for the increased hiring of women and minority group members, it need only show that it has acted in good faith to meet the goals it drew up for itself in order to comply with government regulation.