WHEN A faculty member gets into personal difficulties, the University is put in an awkward position. Glenn C. Loury, a professor of political economy at the Kennedy School, twice has put Harvard in such a position. Twice, then, the University has been forced to say something about a professor in personal difficulties. But the something the University has said are seriously flawed.

Statements on the indiscretions of faculty members by Harvard inevitably end up evaluating the seriousness of the indiscretion, thus notifying the public of the University's moral calculus. Similarly, when the University chooses not to comment on indiscretions, dismissing them as personal matters, that too sends a message to the community about what Harvard finds objectionable and what it does not.

Following Loury's arrest last week for possession of small amounts of cocaine and marijuana, the University's Vice President and General Counsel Daniel Steiner promptly issued a statement which read, "Harvard University treats criminal charges on a case-by-case basis. We normally withold final resolutions pending the outcome of the judicial process. We take seriously any charge of illegal drug activity."

On its own, that statement seems reasonable. Loury pleaded not guilty to the charges, and the case is not scheduled for trial until January 21. So the University is right to be cautious in its pronouncements on the matter. Compared, however, to the University's response to Loury's problems in June, when he was charged with assaulting and threatening to murder a woman he was sharing an apartment with, Steiner's statement becomes problematic.

THE UNIVERSITY didn't say, "We take seriously any charge of threatened murder or assault." The different responses make the University seem to find possession of small amounts of drugs more serious than a violent domestic encounter. Harvard can thus be thought to be telling the community that it shares the traditional--and sexist--notion that domestic disputes between men and women are to be expected, that men will be men, and that sometimes a few good kicks can do wonders for a relationship.

It may be that Harvard's swift response to Loury's arrest last week may have been related to the revelations about drug use on the Law School faculty which came out after Douglas Ginsburg's nomination to the Supreme Court. The University may be trying to avoid earning a reputation for condoning drug use on its faculty. But if that's the motivation behind the response to Loury's most recent arrest, the Administration should have said that during the Ginsburg fiasco and not at a time when such a statement makes another indiscretion seem acceptable.

The University failed to follow a consistent policy in responding to the two charges against Loury. And while consistency can be foolish, it would have been a virtue in this instance. Having said nothing about taking charges of assaulting a woman serioulsy, the University should not have said they were bothered by charges of drug use. This means either the University feels charges of drug use are more serious--in which case the University should rethink its moral judgments--or the University does not realize that its response to such matters is taken by the community as an expression of its moral judgments.