Members of the Graduate School of Education would also be unlikely to associate themselves with the HIID. Its dean, Paul N. Ylvisaker, who is one of the four deans on the HIID governing board, has also publicly expressed his opposition. The relationship between the HIID and the Ed School has been cordial, "but could stand great improvement," according to one HIID staffer. Harberger's appointment would torpedo closer ties.

The list of opponents goes on, including historians, sociologists and Government professors. And much of this opposition has not reached the news, but is being privately expressed.

The future costs of the appointment should also be considered. The HIID, and possibly Harvard as well, will have trouble recruiting people eminent in the field of development, especially outside economics. Harberger's appointment could seriously impair the University's ability to lead the field of development into new, more fruitful directions.

Finally, there is what the economists call the "opportunity cost" to consider. The opportunity cost is what you lose by making one choice instead of another. Simply stated, HIID could have had somebody much better. Instead of a man who would make the HIID a "moral leper," in the words of one, it could have had someone with greater sensitivity to the ethical questions that are the daily fare of the developmental adviser.

IN OCTOBER, 1976, President Bok wrote an article in Change magazine entitled "Can Ethics be Taught?" In that article he said that it is "important to look to our colleges and universities and consider what role they can play" in the moral education of their students. He went on to say:

The moral aspirations of Harvard students undoubtedly profited more from the example of Archibald Cox than from any course, in ethics.

Arnold Harberger would not provide the example of a man engaged in sophisticated and inspiring moral thought. One HIID staff member put it this way:

Harberger isn't able to face up to the issues or even to be aware of the issues involved. He is an economic genius and a moral imbecile. To call his logic sophomoric would be an insult to sophomores. He's not even Machiavellian; he's just plam obtuse.

In a field that demands rigorous moral awareness, Harberger's moral obtuseness--which became abundantly clear at the debate on Sunday--is a devastating liability. His blindness has put him in this situation, where students and scholars alike rush to dissociate themselves from him.