Soon after The Crimson (May 17) reported that the affirmative action plan submitted to HEW on May I was facing unfavorable review and might be rejected, Peter Clark '69, an HEW reviewer, indicated that Harvard's failure to break down by department its hiring projections could be one obstacle to Federal acceptance of the plan.

At that time, Clark said he "would think" that HEW would only accept projections by department--not faculty-wide--in the case of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

Leonard has long maintained that goals and timetables should be set by department. On many occasions, he has reiterated his contention that projections are only meaningful, and recruitment feasible, if they are made departmentally.

It is not clear from the wording of the government's affirmative action guidelines whether the projections may be set by faculty or must be set by department.

In his instructions to the deans of the various faculties last winter, regarding the setting of projections, President Bok said that the figures "may reflect faculty-wide totals."

John T. Dunlop, then dean of the Faculty, subsequently instructed Winifred S. Barad, equal employment officer for the Faculty, not to break down the goals and timetables by department.

The controversy regarding departmental vs. faculty-wide projections apparently has now been laid to rest. It remains for Harvard to complete utilization analysis of each of the departments in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in order to locate areas of "underrepresentation," and then to file goals and timetables in line with these findings.

When the proposal--which took a year to complete at a cost to the University of nearly $250,000--was submitted to HEW on May 1, Leonard said that he had "every reason to believe" that the policy it set forth would meet Federal standards and would be accepted.

However, when reports of impending rejection came a few weeks later, Leonard conceded that the University's failure to subdivide the projections of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences by department could result in negative review of Harvard's affirmative action plan by HEW.

The affirmative action plan just rejected by HEW represented Harvard's fourth attempt to meet requirements set by the Federal government.

HEW must approve Harvard's affirmative action program before it becomes a binding policy for the University.

The most recent proposal includes portions of programs that Harvard submitted to HEW in February 1970 and November 1971, both of which were later invalidated by new directives from Washington.

HEW reported to Harvard on the rejection of the plan and the nature of its shortcomings within one day of the 45-day time limit required by law. Originally, department officials had speculated that they might not have sufficient time to act on the Harvard proposal, since they had just received the Yale and MIT plans.

Bynoe emphasized that no two schools should have the same affirmative action program, which in part explains why the guidelines established by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare on the formulation of proposed programs are somewhat nebulous.

Procedurally Harvard's affirmative action program has progressed.