Then why did Dean Fitzsimmons resign from SAS four days after media reports pinpointed the company's existence and publicized the government probe? And in doing so transfer the business' legal address from Fitzsimmons' Weston, Mass. home to Reed's?

And why, the day before the news article appeared, did SAS hurriedly file six years' worth of late disclosure forms to the state of Massachusetts?

IN order to clear the atmosphere of confusion, Harvard owes the community answers to these questions. First, what was SAS' precise relationship to the schools under investigation for alleged tuition and finanical aid-fixing?

Next, why is it not a conflict of interest for Harvard officials to sell data--apparently obtained through their Harvard posts and processed on Harvard equipment--back to the University and other schools?

Finally, in the wider scope of the investigation, what is Harvard's role among the targeted colleges since it seems to have played a primary role in the sharing of information?

These answers will not concern only Justice Department investigators or students who may find an unexpected tuition windfall. They should be of concern to all members of the Harvard community, especially the administrators.