When a Princeton historian wanted to research the influence of anti-Communist sentiment on academic hiring during the 1950s, most of the nation's universities opened their archives to the scholar. Harvard did not.

While other universities are making it easier for scholars to do research on the history of higher education, Harvard has stuck by its rule that denies access to administrative records authored in the last 50 years.

This policy meant a dead-end for Princeton Lecturer in History Ellen W. Schrecker, who tried for several years to obtain Harvard documents from the 1950s. Published several months ago, Schrecker's book, "No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities," has renewed the battle between scholars and universities over access to archival material.

Archivists and some historians contend it is necessary to limit access to recent materials in order to encourage donors to leave full and frank records. To have more complete long-term historical records, the archives must protect the privacy of the living people mentioned in the material, they argue.

But scholars, including Schrecker, say that by restricting access to archival materia, universities, are preventing historians from obtaining a complete understanding of historical events.

This is clearly completely counter to the [University's] stated purpose of helping scholarship," Schrecker said last week. Archival restrictions harm scholarship because when the documents are made public, many of the key participants will be dead, Schrecker said.

"Fifty years is too long for anything in this business," said Stanford sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset. An expert on the McCarthy era, Lipset pointed to a personal experience that exhibits the tension between scholars and universities.

While a young professor at Columbia University Lipset was asked to write an article tracing the history of the school's sociology department.

It didn't Lipset when the department chairman asked him to remove parts critical of living professors. But much to Lipset's dismay, the chairman also edited out any critical references to the dead faculty members, concerned that it would

"offend the [faculty member's] family."

Lipset was only researching the history of a

small university department for an article he

doesn't even include on his curriculum vitae. But

historians say stringent archival rules, such as

those at Harvard, may permanently harm the

understanding of more politicized subjects like

McCarthyism.

Scholars still sharply debate Harvard's rule

during the McCarthy era. The University is

considered by many to have been a strong, if not

the leading, defender of academic freedom. Yet

some historians, such as Schrecker and Lipset, say

that while Harvard adamantly defended its tenured

professors, who had been communists.

If historians are to get a proper understanding

of how Harvard acted in that period archival rules

have to be changed, Schrecker said.

In the appendix of her book she wrote: "Those

colleges and universities which have not opened

their archives to scholars many not realize how

hypocritical it looks for an institution

ostensibly devoted to scholarship to create

obstacles to it. Perhaps when that realization

dawns, their policies will change."

Some universities have repsonded to the

scholarly concerns of these historians by relaxing

archival rules.

After Schrecker attempted to get at the

archives of New York University (NYU), the

institution created a committee to formalize its

access rules. The material to which Schrecker had

been denied access is now open to any scholar,

NYU's archivist Thomas J. Frusciano says, adding

that the University changed its policy and

releases material after 20 years.

"I am embarrassed for NYU in its protrayal in

the book. I wish she had had access to our

material," said Frusciano.

But Schrecker's efforts at Harvard did not

change University policy. She expresses anger that

a institution of higher learning like Harvard has

made it more difficult for her to conduct research

on the history of universities.

"They don't let anyone in," Schrecker said.

But supporters of Harvard's 50 year policy

argue that there are good reasons for having a

long grace period on archival material. In the

battle between privacy and scholarship,

scholarship must defer, they contend.

By dealing with sensitive documents "we are

dealing with the reputation of people who are

still alive," said Trumbull Professor of History

Donald H. Fleming.

"I think scholarship ought to yield to not

doing harm to the living," Fleming said.

Fleming pointed out that if universities are

fast and loose with their archives, it means that

people will be less willing to donate their

material. In addition, universities are likely to

be more selective about what is made public after

the grace period ends.

"The filtering process is the crux of the

matter," said Fleming, who cowrote a history of

Harvard that did not address questions more recent

than 50 years ago.

Harvard's chief archivist could not be reached

for comment.

Not releasing documents for a long period

"encourages people to donate, and be more frank in

their donations," agreed Yale's Chief Archivist,

Judith A. Schiff.

But Schiff added that because there are much

longer limits--typically 75 years--placed on

sensitive material, such as grades, 20 years is an

appropriate time frame to release most archival

documents. Yale has a 20-year policy.

The chief archivist of the University of

Pennsylvania, Mark F. Lloyd, said it was a

question of having complete long-term history of

having some short-term. If there is not a long

closure period "administrators will strip the most

sensitive papers--this is a disaster for the

archivist."

Lloyd said that he thought Harvard's

restrictions were "overly, conservative, but not

unheard of." He added that the 50-year rule

"discourages recent history."