Written laws are like spiders' webs, and will like them only entangle and hold the poor and weak, while the rich and powerful will easily break through them. --Anacharsis to Solon

The fall term of academic year 1975-1976 marked the beginning of a very large and concentrated offensive by various campus groups for democratic rights. While Harvard has been the site of previous struggles for democratic rights, the mass character of this latest struggle was evident even to the most distant observer.

The arena for this struggle was centered around Affirmative Action. "Affirmative Action," an often referred-to term, and rarely understood, became a common part of the vocabulary of many Harvard students and workers (and administrators, much to their own regret).

What Is Affirmative Action?

The struggles by women and oppressed nationalities (Afro-American, Chicano, Asian-American, Native American, Puerto Rican) for democratic rights in the 1960s reconfirmed for the millionth time the truism that it is the masses in motion who make history. Unable to be constrained, these dynamic mass movements pressed forward, insisting that the U.S. government accede to their demands for justice and equality.

One of the government's responses came in the form of several reforms, accumulatively referred to as Affirmative Action. These laws (including sections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Executive Order 11246) called for all institutions hiring more than 50 persons and receiving more than $50,000 in federal funds to submit a plan to the government showing how the institution intended to take affirmative steps to cease discrimination and correct for past discrimination. But, as we can see from Anacharsis' statement, a law is next to meaningless for the poor and oppressed, particularly if it is not enforced. Non-enforcement of guidelines is an integral part of the history of Affirmative Action. When no active organized compulsion is exerted by the mass democratic movement on the government, history shows that "progressive" legislation, Affirmative Action included, will rot and wilt before it is enforced.

The Spider Weaves Its Web

Harvard's experience with Affirmative Action dates from its first attempts at getting its plans approved in the early 1970s. Of the plans which Harvard submitted to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (in charge of enforcing Affirmative Action), the first three were so poor that even HEW had to reject them as inadequate.

Harvard's present Affirmative Action plan was accepted in 1973 much to the objection of women's and minorities' groups. Inadequacies were rampant in the university's plan, including ridiculously low goals and timetables, as well as non-consultation with representative organizations of affected parties (women and oppressed nationalities). Rather than deal openly and justly with the demands and criticisms presented by these groups, the University did everything to ignore the plan's opponents.

The Victims Resist

Even before Affirmative Action came to Harvard, students and workers were actively struggling for democratic rights. The 1969 struggle by Afro-American and white students won the Afro-American Studies Department. 1970 witnessed the struggle led by Afro-American students for more minorities hired on sites of University construction. Affirmative Action only represented a nzw focus for democratic rights work.

Up till 1975, efforts towards winning a new Affirmative Action plan and protesting the University's historic anti-women, anti-national minority discrimination, were rather isolated from one another and relatively weak. The different movements (women's, national minorities', workers') operated separately and often eyed each other with mutual suspicion. Individual struggles were waged, but partly because of the way in which they were conducted (unco-ordinated, no far-sighted leadership, lacking a mass character) they were only successful in calling attention to the issue of Affirmative Action.

One group which had been active in this movement (struggling for democratic rights) was the United Committee of Third World Organizations (UCTWO). The UCTWO, which had originally been formed to defend the Afro-American Cultural Center when it came under intense University harassment in 1974, began probing to determine various routes which a struggle for democratic rights at Harvard could take. One subcommittee hit upon Affirmative Action. It was from this subcommittee along with other veterans of the Affirmative Action struggle in other areas that the embryo of the Task Force on Affirmative Action was formed.

The Web Begins to Tear

The fall of 1975 was a period of great confusion for the democratic forces, particularly those within the student movement. The DuBois Institute struggle, which had captured the attention of students during academic year 1974-1975, had met with certain tactical set-backs--particularly with its full establishment in accordance with the University's own backward plan.

Early moves were made to orient the student movement along the lines of fighting for democratic rights, particularly with a focus on Affirmative Action. A meeting of various groups was held to discuss the possibility of developing such a struggle. While there was some hesitancy at first, the overwhelming mood was that of interest. It became clear that if such a struggle could be successfully mounted, it could become a catalyst for democratic rights work, not only in other areas of Harvard, but possibly at other schools.

In order to build the struggle, organization was necessary. Thus, the Task Force on Affirmative Action (TFAA) was constituted as a coalition to lead this struggle. The TFAA has to go down in Harvard's history as one of the broadest coalitions ever created. The TFAA was able to successfully mobilize the support of at least thirteen organizations, including students, workers, women's and minorities' groups. But the influence of the TFAA did not stop with the member organizations. It was also able to gather direct and indirect support from faculty, as well as other struggles (i.e., the Afro-American Studies concentrators and the TFAA had a relationship of mutual support, with the concentrators struggling to stop the new Department Chairperson's attempts at narrowing curriculum and her not rehiring talented and extremely qualified instructors).

The key to a successful Affirmative Action struggle was mass support. To be sure, this is not to discount legal work, but as can be seen from the experience of others using Affirmative Action, the law is truly the web of the rich and powerful. If democratic forces rely solely on the law, they will be held in court for months, if not years. Thus, base-building, mass action and educational work were seen as decisive.

The surfacing of the TFAA as a public organization (up to this time it had not announced its existence publicly, using said time to accumulate information for the publication of our complaint against Harvard's plan) at our first press conference coincided with the publication of our complaint and the commencement of our work towards a March 1st demonstration to "welcome" the arrival of federal reviewers of Harvard's Affirmative Action plan and practice. While some saw it a little differently, the overwhelming majority of the TFAA was well aware that the federal government was no friend of the students and workers struggling for democratic rights. At best, we expected the government to rubber-stamp Harvard's performance. But we were also aware that the arrival of the federal reviewers offered us a unique opportunity to bring our case to the national public and put the spotlight on the U.S. government for, not only its non-enforcement of Affirmative Action, but also its tacit and active support for national, racial and sexual discrimination, particularly as evidenced at Harvard.

The March 1st TFAA rally represented a momentous success for the democratic forces at Harvard. On a cold, misty afternoon between 200 and 400 students demonstrated in opposition to Harvard's discriminatory policies and the government's compliance. The speakers at the rally well represented the broad spectrum of the TFAA's supporters, including the Harvard Employee Organizing Committee, Radcliffe Union of Students, February First Movement, supporters of progressive kitchen worker Sherman Holcombe, and a TFAA spokesperson. This rally called attention to a variety of grievances felt by many sectors of the University population. For example, active discrimination had been exposed in the Harvard kitchens by Sherman Holcombe (and was discussed at the rally by one of his supporters), where the University was following a policy of non-posting of job opportunities and showing favoritism for young, white males. Sherman Holcombe, and later the TFAA, showed how this was part of the University's efforts to divide workers by pitting one sector against another.

THe spring was a period of further educational work. We, of the TFAA, are self-critical about this period, for this was a time when there should have been more active exposures of discrimination and more active showing of support for democratic rights. In attempting to correct this situation, the TFAA went into high gear in preparation for a May 2nd demonstration. This demonstration was aimed at again calling attention to unanswered grievances, as well as uniting broad support around several very specific programmatic demands, including: a new Affirmative Action plan, ending harassment of Sherman Holcombe, ending of the policy of non-posting of jobs, and a cessation of anti-union policies (directed against the kitchen workers and HEOC). The May 2nd rally successfully turned out the support of 100-200 people. The emphasis of many of the speakers was that while the academic year was ending (and thus, little work could go on around the specific demands), the struggle was far from over, and that students and workers should prepare for another year of intense struggle.

The Present Situation and Our Tasks

Conditions are rapidly changing since the fall of 1975. Not only is the University showing that it is far from interested in democracy, but the Federal government is openly showing its willingness to cut Affirmative Action for universities. This situation creates even broader tasks for the democratic forces, particularly the TFAA.

Efforts this coming year will be centered on actively mobilizing even greater support from campus groups, particularly students and workers, but also in broadening the scope of our work. This past year witnessed struggles at different schools in which Affirmative Action was used. In the face of what appears to be a national-level counter-offensive against democratic rights, all forces that can possibly be mobilized, particularly in the Boston area at this time, not only must be mobilized, but must be organized to resist these reactionary moves. Concretely, this means not only the sympathetic unity of various forces, but also the developing of some sort of apparatus to give form to our aspirations for unity in defense of democratic rights.

To further orient the struggle, the TFAA has realized that the lack of a concrete minimum program only helped to create gaps in our work. This coming year, based on the concrete situation, it will be important to develop such a program which can unite a broad section of the University population in active work.

In the face of a slowly gathering movement to crush the hard-won gains of women and oppressed nationalities, passivity is intolerable. The conservative forces have been mounting an ideological campaign against Affirmative Action for years. Apparently, they are now prepared to transform this ideological campaign into a political attack. Given this situation, the active motion of the University population in favor of democratic rights is crucial to resistance to the new Jim Crow