Harvard has lobbied hard in favor of the middle income assistance program, says Thomas R. Wolanin of the House Select Committee on Post-Secondary Education. R. Jerrold Gibson '51, director of Harvard's office of Fiscal Services, has made frequent trips to the Capitol. "Gibson has been helping our staff devise a bill that technically does the right thing; he's really one of the national experts on student loans," Wolanin says.
Gibson elaborates on Harvard's opposition to the tax credits proposal, saying, "Tax credit money goes to the wrong people--38 per cent of the money will go to families with incomes over $30,000." Although tax credit supporters cite the administrative simplicity of the plan--taxpayers can claim the benefit by answering a few questions on their tax forms--Cottington says the Internal Revenue Service would have to develop a complex bureaucracy to monitor the program that will duplicate the functions of existing financial aid bureaucracies.
Despite months of preparation and cajoling, the fight is far from over. Gibson sees "a long and tortuous road" on the horizon. The contest over tuition assistance for middle income families may well turn into a fight to endure rather than to pressure.
Harvard consistently urges Congress to continue government grants for university research projects. Organizations such as the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Endowment for the Humanities traditionally award many research grants to Harvard. Harvard works both through these organizations and Congressional committees responsible for authorization of grants and appropriation of federal money. Walter Dodd of the National Science Foundation says the foundation itself is prohibited from lobbying Congress for support of the grants it approves. Harvard faculty members, he says, play an important role by testifying at Congressional committees. A spokesman for the National Endowment for the Humanities notes that faculty testimony helps keep Congressmen informed of how the grant money is spent and of other ways universities could use grant money.
A staffer for the House Subcommittee on Science and Technology adds other ways Harvard can exert pressure for more research support. Members of prominent universities are often on the governing boards of funding organizations like the National Science Foundation, and so can urge a foundation to grant as much money as possible for research, he says. In addition, University faculty members are on disciplinary advisory commissions that oversee applications for grants falling within their disciplines. "Practically any full professor at the Medical School and the Biology Department has served," Dr. Bernard C. Davis, Lehman Professor of Bacterial Physiology at the Med School, says.
Harvard also uses the "old boy" network, the staffer adds. Because of the huge number of former Harvard students and faculty members in federal agencies and on Capitol Hill, Harvard can often find a sympathetic ear.
Perhaps the most pressing research-related problem is overhead recovery of operating expenses universities must dole out in order to conduct federal research projects. Recent decisions by President Carter--including an 11 per cent increase for 1979 in basic research funds for universities and the proposed formation of a separate Department of Education--make research costs all the more important. There are two kinds of research expenses--direct and indirect. Direct expenses include those which provide for lab instruments, technicians and other specifically earmarked items. Both the government and Harvard agree that these costs should be covered by the group directly benefiting from the research efforts.
The problems come in the area of indirect costs--those expenses for providing an "environment" in which research can take place.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) governs allocations of federal subsidies to universities for such costs. The OMB recently proposed revisions in the guidelines. And Harvard, which has always felt the regulations "left much to be desired," now finds "glaring deficiences."
The debate--and any Harvard lobbying efforts--is not over what Cottington labels "broad premises" but rather the "nuts and bolts" of the situation. Harvard's position is clear--"It is not equitable to expect Harvard to provide an environment for work without any assistance at all from the federal government," says Cottington. He admits, however, Harvard would still sponsor research regardless of the availability of federal funds.
Both the AAU and the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) are playing the lead role in lobbying for the universities' position on research monies. The NACUBO has formed a committee of the 100 largest research institutions in the country to specifically attack this problem on Capitol Hill and elsewhere in Washington.
The present revision, says Cottington, fails not only in equitably sharing costs but will also impose upon universities, "extremely difficult and expensive administrative requirements." Beneath these comments, however, lurks an underlying feeling in the Office of Government Affairs that Harvard's policy influence is shrinking. "What began as a full-fledged partnership," says Cottington, "has been eroded over the years. This issues is crucial not just to Harvard but to basic research in America."
Harvard and the government, says John Lordan of OMB, are not partners nor are they adversaries. "It's an overworked analogy," he insists. But, sematics aside, it is clear that Harvard isn't about to give up. Cottington's promise bears an air of finality: "Whatever effort it takes, we will bend to come to a happier solution."
In 1973, Congress passed the Rehablitation Act, which set guidelines, implemented in 1977, to accomodate disabled and handicapped students.
The new guidelines mandate strict adaptations to make all academic "programs" accessible to disabled students. "Harvard," says Nancy Randolph, President Bok's special assistant for Affirmative Action, "has made every attempt to comply" to effect this transition.
For disabled and handicapped students, such as Marc Fielder '78, president of Students Advocating a Better Learning Environment (ABLE), this has meant advances. At this time, more than half of Harvard's facilities are accessible, says Randolph. She adds that the University is making special preparations for incoming handicapped students, helping disabled students find their way around campus, and rescheduling classes so disabled students are able to take the courses that most interest them.
Currently, Randolph's committee is working on a self-evaluation mandated by the law. Did Harvard do things for disabled students before the law went into effect? Yes, says Randolph, but only on an individual basis. What is Harvard doing now in Washington to facilitate this transition? Lobbying hard to secure federal aid to fund architectural changes that are required in order for the University to comply with the regulations.
There are more battles ahead for disabled students at Harvard and the University itself, but neither is showing a shortage of energy to work for what it wants.
To keep abreast of developments in Washington, Harvard juggles a fair number of complex issues. It is for this purpose that the University cultivates an effective lobbying staff--one that forcefully represents Harvard's position through the many avenues of lobbying. The government may remain obdurate on many of its positions, but Harvard is equally stubborn, and as long as both sides stick to their guns, the lobbying game is bound to continue.