If the local's parent union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), was as big a threat as Harvard claimed, then why didn't the administration put its full weight into the campaign and go giant to giant? Harvard's tactics show that it accepted this race as what it really was--the fight of individual workers to be heard and of a scrappy union to represent them.

In the two elections in the Medical Area, the administration had fought bitterly--and won. It energized most supervisors, who viciously challenged their employees' support of the union. It held mandatory meetings with employees, scaring them about losing benefits. Meetings were run by a team of top admistrators, including Vice President and General Counsel Daniel Steiner '54.

This time around, lawyer Taylor was plucked from her job in the General Counsel's office to go it virtually alone against HUCTW. Sure, she marshalled some lower-level managers to hold anti-union meetings. President Bok even wrote two letters.

But where were the powers that put down the union in the last two elections? Two officials left, maybe to avoid the coming storm. But Steiner, a sharp strategist in the previous anti-union efforts and a formidable opponent, gave up the responsibility. That left Vice President Robert Scott as overseer of union matters. Where was he during the campaign? He had delegated his responsibility to Taylor.

If Bok really didn't want the union, why didn't he come out forcefully against it? Speeches, the press and meetings were all tools at his command, but he spurned them for a mainly behind-the-scenes role.

ONE could argue that Bok's previous power hitters wisely left the campaign to women officials to match the women-run union. But then why didn't they deploy Harvard's top-ranking woman administrator--Vice President Sally Zeckhauser? Her office was stripped of jurisdiction over the union when she took over this fall, leaving the duties with Scott. And why wasn't the army of women supervisors catalyzed into effective opposition?

Probably because many empathized with the union. Child care, pay equity and career advancement are all areas in which Harvard has failed its female work force, both management and labor. The University has failed to recognize and respect women workers, leaving them in middle management and turning to men and outsiders for to posts. A case in point is Ronald Petty, the new personnel director, who oversees the mostly female support staff and its supervisors.

Women have often been forced to pay the price for a number of fallen enterprises. For example, former Board of Overseers President Joan T. Bok '51 took the fall for unethical interference in an alumni ballot; she was actually signing her name to a letter written by President Bok.

The best example of the University's attitude toward its women employees can be found in the heart of the anti-union campaign. Unaided by other top administrators and unauthorized to use more heavy-handed tactics, Taylor fought the union mainly on her own. A valiant effort, but a losing one from the start. She was the fall guy in a battle the University did not let her fight to win. The administration's isolation of Taylor is indicative of its disregard for women--probably reason enough for employees to switch their votes to HUCTW.

AS one labor expert said, "If the administration had wanted to win at all costs, they could have." Maybe the administration is extremely concerned for employee relations after all. But in actions ranging from its willful disregard of student input to its inability to eradicate institutional sexism, the administration has yet to prove concern for anything but self-perpetuation. Maybe having a union with 3400 members to contend with will be enough to loosen the hierarchy's hold on power and spur reform.