"WE'RE TALKING too much about what the national government can do for higher education rather than what higher education can do for the country," President Bok said last week. In this Kennedyesque statement, the leader of Harvard in effect called for a much-needed change in higher education's agenda.

Our colleges and universities recently have concentrated their efforts in Washington on financial matters, with lobbyists going to Capitol Hill to plead for everything from student financial aid to scientific research to tax exemptions. They have adopted lobbying techniques pioneered by selfish special interests, although such tactics are understandable in light of the Reagan Administration's hostility.

Now, however, the threat appears to be over. Recognizing the importance of education and research in stimulating the nation's economy, Congress has mandated large increases for both science and financial aid programs, despite the cries for fiscal and budgetary restraint. The Administration has consequently failed in its efforts to put the reigns on educational spending.

But in winning the battle, the nation's colleges and universities may have lost the war. Senators and Congressmen interviewed last week, for example, expressed negative feelings toward "the higher education lobby." It is apparent that in resorting to mundane and "dirty" tactics on Capitol Hill, American colleges and universities have lost much of the credibility that lies at the heart of their influence with the nation's legislators and indeed with the people.

CREDIBILITY. If there is anything that higher education cannot afford to lose, it is credibility. Institutions of higher learning have no PACs and no large constituency; they operate on moral force and credibility alone. It would indeed be a frightening word for Harvard and her fellow universities if more and more of the public started to accept Secretary of Education William Bennett's "Our Greedy Colleges" argument.

This is not to say that higher education should stop worrying about financial aid or research money. As Senator Clairborne Pell said in an interview with The Crimson last week, the first priority for the nation's colleges and universities must be to insure that their gates remain open to students of all socioeconomic backgrounds.

The time has come, however, for universities to broaden their focuses and play a more active role in the nation's public policies. With their endowments and resources, large faculties and promising students, universities have the potential stature and influence of corporations, religious organizations, and even parts of government itself.

The issue, then is not how much influence higher education has, but rather how it uses it. Harvard and higher education thus must do more than seek bigger checks--passively receiving from society without actively returning the investment.

Of course, universities produce the educated students and the basic research that fuel the economy. Universities such as Harvard, however, can do much more. The activist university must start to enter the scene, venture out past the walls of the ivory tower and tackle the problems--such as illiteracy, a lack of competitiveness and faltering ethical standards--facing the real world. It must place such goals among its top priorities if it is to retain the public trust.

WHAT ROLE does Harvard have in all of this? Harvard is, like it or not, the de facto leader of the higher education community. "Where Harvard shifts, others will shift," acknowledges Secretary Bennett. It thus lies within Harvard's power to encourage higher education to refocus its efforts.

Up to now, however, Harvard has not taken advantage of its opportunity to lead higher education down new and more active paths. Bok has made some good speeches and written some thoughtful books; his next step must be to follow through on his recent words and take active, if modest, measures to address the problems facing society. The credibility--and consequently the future security--of America's universities demands nothing less.