THE SUSPENSION last week of the Radcliffe dining halls' shop steward Sherman Holcombe following a verbal altercation with his supervisor reveals once again the myriad problems accompanying a breakdown in communications between the University and its workers.

It has now been a week since Holcombe's suspension, and even the most basic facts of his case have yet to emerge, except as related by Holcombe himself. Edward W. Powers, director of employee relations, announced the day after Holcombe was suspended that the University would conduct an investigation into the suspension; he later said the investigation would be conducted, at least initially, by the very managers of the food services who suspended Holcombe in the first place. As yet, however, both the nature of the investigation and the specific individuals who will conduct it are unknown.

Sherman Holcombe thus stands in a most difficult position. Like Harvard, his union will not speak publicly on his case. He is out of work, and nearly all his co-workers feel he is sorely missed. Undeniably, Holcombe is a controversial and volatile figure, but at Harvard, it seems such attributes are often essential in bringing about changes and reforms in the face of persistent institutional opposition to union demands. And Holcombe has certainly been instrumental in securing for his fellow workers a number of not inconsiderable benefits--including the posting of available jobs and the clarification of working hours. A strong influence like Holcombe's in the Radcliffe kitchens is clearly needed.

Only Holcombe, Alan Balsam, chief shop steward for local 26 of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union, a few of his bolder co-workers, and a number of students have spoken out in his case to date. Powers has taken Holcombe and Balsam to task for attacking the suspension with a "publicity barrage." It remains doubtful, however, just how effective such actions, as the student boycott of Sunday's North House brunch, which many of the participants said they took part in because of peer pressure, will be in the long run.

Holcombe may have done right to take his case to the people as he puts it. But before long Harvard must itself bring the Holcombe case before the people. Allegations of institutional and personal racism in the University's dealings with Holcombe, for instance, cannot be thoroughly explored under a cloak of secrecy. The University cannot simply say that an investigation is being conducted; a complete, impartial and open investigation must be undertaken and completed soon. For its part, Holcombe's union must also break its silence on his case, and stop forcing Holcombe to carry the full weight of the suspension on his own shoulders. Student and worker solidarity behind Holcombe is encouraging, but unless the facts of the Holcombe case are brought out and submitted to proper scrutiny, solidarity will not be enough to secure his reinstatement.