The 1800-member Middle Eastern Studies Association of North America (MESA), at its annual convention in November, voted overwhelmingly to "deplore" Safran for violating its 1982 resolution calling on academics and institutions to reveal funding sources in advance.

And earlier that month, more than half of the 35 local graduate students associated with the Harvard center called on the University to ban all intelligence agency funding and reduce the director's authority.

Throughout the controversy, Harvard officials have maintained that University policy does not prohibit acceptance of CIA funds, but requires that such contracts be disclosed in advance and conform to generally accepted research policies guaranteeing academic freedom.

Book Contract

In discussing the contract under which the CIA granted Safran funds for researching his book on Saudi Arabia, Spence says in the report that Safran had properly notified not only Rosovsky, but also an acquisitions editor at Harvard University Press, which published the book in the fall.

Safran acknowledged grants from the Rand Corporation and the Rockefeller Foundation--but not the CIA--in the book's preface, and has said that the spy agency made no changes in the work. (see related story, page one)

Spence devotes much of his discussion of the book contract to the issue of determining whether Harvard's general research guidelines would apply to a "personal" CIA contract like the one Safran signed.

When researchers use Harvard's facilities, staff, students, resources, or name to the extent that their work falls under the "aegis" of the institution, Spence says, then prepublication review and other measures that might compromise academic freedom are not permitted.

But in the report, Spence does not determine the degree of Harvard's institutional involvement. Instead, he says that Safran properly offered Rosovsky an opportunity to review the contract, and that no determination of Harvard's involvement was made at that time.

Spence acknowledges earlier reports that Safran made "some use of the facilities and personnel of the center during the performance of his research contract," and faults the University for not looking into the extent of Harvard's institutional involvement.

Rosovsky, who was out of the country yesterday and could not be reached for comment, told The New York Times last week that his office had made an "administrative error."

"I regret that," he said.

Spence's report reiterates his October 11 statement finding Safran had erred in the handling of the CIA grant for the conference on Islam and Muslim Politics held October 15-16 at the Faculty Club. More than half of the 25 scheduled speakers boycotted the conference after learning of the source of funding, and one returned to Cairo immediately after arriving in Cambridge.

The new report finds three "problems" associated with Safran's handling of the conference grant: that the director did not disclose the contract to the dean of the faculty, as required by University policy; that Safran did not disclose the source of the funding to conference participants, as the center's six-member executive committee had recommended; and that Safran did not channel the contract through the University, which routinely receives a portion of the funds to cover overhead costs.

Safran said during the fall that he accepted the conference money "as an individual," not on behalf of the center, and therefore did not have to report the grant. Safran last week told The Boston Globe that he "made a mistake in judgment in not informing [the conference participants] as soon as the CIA funding came into the picture, and I attempted to repair the damage by doing so before the conference began."