To the Editors of The Crimson:

It is time the seamier side of Harvard's handling of the Engelhard question came to light. Administration officials have claimed that they had an "agreement" with us, an "understanding" with us, or that "mutual respect" existed between their negotiators and ours, and that we had somehow acted in bad faith. None of these statements are true, and the events of Saturday, particularly our attitude towards President Bok's speech, must be understood in this light.

Everyone should be aware, for example, that a Harvard police officer admitted that he had been taking down posters announcing the demonstration while leaving up posters announcing the Kennedy School dedication itself--and that he had been doing so on instructions from Archie C. Epps III, dean of students. Epps has denied that he issued any such instructions, but why should the officer have any reason to lie about Epps' having given the order? The matter deserves clarification.

Everyone should be aware that University officials repeatedly promised that the protesters would be allowed into the ceremony. Yet when we attempted to enter, the police stated that we needed "passes," thousands of which they claimed had been distributed. The police could not provide an example of such a pass, of course, and they admitted that only protesters needed these nonexistent passes to enter.

Everyone should be aware of the insults leveled at the student negotiators by Ira A. Jackson '71, assistant dean of the Kennedy School and the man directly responsible for bringing a portion of Engelhard's ill-gotten millions to Harvard. He questioned whether we were fit to be members of an institution of higher learning. He and Epps made thinly-veiled threats of arrest, of disciplinary action by Harvard, and of our being held responsible for the actions of what used to be called "outside agitators." And when the possibility of returning the donation was discussed, Jackson asked, "Where do you want us to send the money, to Yale?"

But Jackson's most offensive remarks were yet to come. At a meeting requested by the administration at 2 o'clock Saturday morning, Jackson claimed he had "new information" that there were still many construction workers at the site--"Irish, Italian, and others of working-class descent" as he put it--for whom the dedication ceremony was the culmination of 18 months hard work. "Think of their reaction," Jackson said; "They will be there in numbers." And here he noted the probability of a riot between hardhats and protesters. He also tried to divide us along racial lines, glancing meaningfully at the members of the Black Students Association as he said that these workers were from Boston and Cambridge and might not like the way we looked. The implication that Jackson thought a racial confrontation possible was clear to us all.

This is the atmosphere of insult and intimidation in which the negotiations on our demands were conducted--an atmosphere that Daniel Steiner '54, general counsel to the University, characterized as one of "mutual respect." We must state very frankly that we have no respect for people who deal with students in this way in private while in public making pious statements about their commitment to reasoned discussion and rational discourse. And in this we include not only Ira Jackson and Archie Epps, but also Derek Bok, the man who has the responsibility for setting the moral tone for the Harvard administration.

Thus negotiations broke off without any agreement having been reached, and we were understandably surprised when Graham T. Allison '62, dean of the Kennedy School, announced that an agreement had in fact been concluded. We had no idea what they thought this agreement was and even less idea of what they would later claim the terms to have been. The University had already been ripping down our posters, they had betrayed their promise to let us into the ceremony, and now they had announced a non-existent agreement. The protesters were understandably angry and frustrated (an increasingly common feeling among those who must deal with the administration), they had no assurance that the audience would stay after the ceremony to hear our speaker, no assurance that some last-minute change in the University's conception of this imaginary agreement would not prevent our speaker from being heard--and when Bok stepped up to deliver his address on "Excellence in Government" they reacted accordingly.

Due in large part to remarks by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy '54 (D-Mass.), our speaker was heard by most of the audience. And for this we are glad; our purpose is not simply to protest, but to get our message across to as many people as possible. But we still think it is important that the reprehensible manner in which University officials conducted themselves should be known to the entire community. These officials may charge that revealing the details of the negotiations constitutes "negotiating in bad faith;" this hardly needs a response. They may also charge that we are becoming too personal in our protests and in letters such as this. Our only response is that individuals must accept responsibility for their actions and the actions of their subordinates.

And here we want to re-emphasize the importance of Bok's role as the man who can make or break the moral standing of his administration. In his 1978 Commencement Address, he said, "We have to demonstrate that we can recognize moral problems without waiting until students press the issues upon us. We have to open ourselves to discussion and disagreement even to the point of being willing to change our minds." If the Harvard administration continues to ignore moral problems and if students continue to press the issues on the administration in increasingly forceful ways, then Bok has no one but himself to blame. Greg Van Buren '81   Georgia Hill '81   BSA Representatives   Margo Nelson '81   Dan Lashof '81   DSOC Representatives   Matthew Rothschild '80   Peter Sacks '79-2   SASC Representatives