Last week, Vice President John Shattuck and Policy Analyst Muriel Morisey Spence '69 issued a report critical of Reagan guidelines for federal research.

Harvard is leading the nation's universities in an aggressive attack on Reagan administration policy in an effort to use the election year to redefine the relationship between institutions of higher learning and the government.

Recent reports and lobbying in Washington mark the renewed vigor with which both Harvard and other schools are fighting federal policies. Universities have criticized President Reagan's attitudes toward higher education since he entered office, but recent efforts are the first time these scholars and educators have sought to establish comprehensive federal policies on their own terms.

There is a difference in this debate. While past attack on the government have emphasized the threats to ideals of academic freedom, the newest University tack is to argue that limits on institutions of higher learning will harm everyone in the nation in very tangible and material ways.

Last week, two Harvard officials issued a report detailing efforts by the Reagan Administration to restrict the free flow of scholarship. Written by Vice President for Government and Community Affairs John Shattuck and Director of Policy Analysis Muriel Morisey Spence '69, the 53-page report charges the White House and other government agencies with pursuing information policies that will cause great harm to the academic community, the economy and national security.

The report is part of a combined effort by Harvard to influence policy making. "Many issues of importance to colleges and universities are being discussed and debated now because of the 1988 presidential elections," says Shattuck. "The elections have presented a forum for public policy issues, and we want to have our say."

University officials are thus linking higher education to economic health and other national concerns. President Bok and other prominent educators have begun calls for a new partnership between universities and government which would entail more financial assistance for higher education and closer university ties to Washington to solve national problems. Last month it was revealed that Bok and other university heads will release a report to presidential candidates of both parties proposing they work together to rebuild American competitiveness, foster equal opportunity, improve the quality of life, and strengthen "ethical rules of conduct" in society.

As part of the initiative to improve American competitiveness, Bok has called for an increased international presence at Harvard. Earlier this month, a special assistant to the President disclosed a report prepared for Bok which recommended that Harvard reform its admissions practices to increase the quality and number of foreign students in its schools. And in a speech last spring Bok criticized the Reagan Administration's foreign policy for tending toward isolationism.

Last week, Bok again addressed the competitiveness issue--one constantly harped on in Congress--in a speech with Stanford President Donald M. Kennedy '52 in Los Angeles. In his remarks, Bok took aim at the Reagan Administration for neglecting long-term spending for university research and facilities. Only with such aid, Bok said, could universities keep pace with world-wide research and take a larger role in improving American economic competitiveness.

While the University is spending much of its time forwarding its view of relations with the government, Harvard is also re-evaluating its ties to industry. A report on the ethical implications of closer University-industry ties is due out later this week, and Harvard officials are kicking off a wide-ranging study of the relationships different research schools across the country have with corporations. As with its thinking on government ties, the University is expected to call for closer cooperation with industry to address the problem of the American economy.

"Bok has returned from his sabbatical and we now have a rejuvenated presidency," says Shattuck. "The University is looking at how we can serve society to solve pressing problems and cooperate with the government and industry to address them."

In this vein, Shattuck and Spence seek to remove a large stumbling block to a closer relationship with the government: restrictions on information. While more federal funds may boost campus-based research, White House information policies produce an opposite effect which may far outweigh the good of more money.

"Too many restrictions will lead to a stagnation of basic science" with dire effects for the economy and national security, the report says. The report argues that the controls stifle the academic innovation and discovery which lie behind technological progress. And if our technological progress does not keep pace with our international competitors, our prosperity and safety will suffer, the report says.

"The long-term security needs of the United States depend on rapid technological development, which is not possible if broad communication restrictions are in place," the report says.

By couching this issue--which has been of interest mostly to academics--in terms of the economy and national security, the report is likely to broaden the base of opposition to the Administration's information policies, say university officials. And by framing their argument in these politically pressing terms, Shattuck and Spence provide a document that may very well persuade congressmen to rescind the Administration's policy changes.