"I attempt to speak to tenants and listen to their concerns." Kenneth W. Erickson '69, an attorney for Harvard's real estate division, in August 1981

The words sound nice, but coming from the man tenants call a spy, they have little chance of convincing anyone that the University is seriously interested in the quality of life in its 2400 apartments.

"There will never be a formal report delivered to anybody" on the management of Harvard's real estate.   Herbert P. Wilkins '51, President of the Board of Overseers, in April 1982

One' year earlier. Wilkins promised publicly that he would issue a document in the fall of 1981 on an investigation by the Overseers' committee on institutional policy.

"That's astounding...it seems a classic case of suggesting belt-rightening to those who can least afford it and an extended bout of generosity to those who least need it."   Michael Turk, coordinator of the Harvard Tenants' Union, in March 1982

Turk was responding to the news that administrators at Harvard Real Estate (HRE), which manages the University's properties, received pay hikes last year of up to $17,000. One increase raised HRE President Sally Zeckhauser's annual, stipend to $65,500 more than the salaries of most members of the Faculty.

* * *

For years, Harvard has been portrayed in Cambridge political circles as a hypocritical grant that takes far more from city residents than it gives to the community. In debates over institutional expansion into city neighborhoods, the failure of Cambridge's non profit private universities to provide ample in lieu of tax payments, and the need for private assistance to the Cambridge public schools. Harvard has consistently been cited as a major villain. The contradictions between the words of Harvard officials and their actions have been all too readily apparent.

During the past 12 months, however, tensions in the ordinary intense cold war between Harvard and Cambridge have decreased significantly, parts because city officials have been almost exclusively busy with the budget complications created by Proposition 2 1/2 and partly because of a new strategy used by University officials. In several cases that would most likely have led to angry exchanges with the city council in years past. Harvard administrators this time realized that their goals could best be achieved through cooperation with neighborhood residents. Harvard responded positively, for example, to a request by local merchants for and in finding more parking space. The University offered the businessmen the use of part of the Business School lot, and thus avoided a series of hostile public exchanges.

The most obvious area where, Harvard has failed to gain a fresh perspective on relations with the outside world is in its treatment of tenants, and particularly in its attitude towards the Harvard tenants Union (HTU), which organized in 1981 to gain desperately needed strength in disputes with the University. In its treatment of HTU members. Harvard has maintained the same bellicose, short sighted and obstinate posture that originally generated Harvard's traditional image as a Goliath menacing a city of Davids.

The two case studies that follow illustrate the advantages of the beginnings of a newly approach able Harvard, and the effects of the remnants of the old take-it-or-leave-it University.

* * *

Case-1-The Enlightened Giant

Harvard's plans for a $25 million office and condominium complex off Mt. Auburn St. hit an unexpected snag last December when the Cambridge Historical Commission voted to prevent for at least six months the demolition of two buildings on the site of the proposed "University Place" development.

Community residents had played a major role in the planning of the project, and until the historical commission meeting neighborhood opposition had been muted and insignificant. But the meeting drew dozens of locals and a petition that included the signatures of several Harvard professors.