LIKE a man accused of a bank robbery who defends himself by saying that he was with his mistress the whole time, the University recently wiggled out of allegations of illegality by confessing to immorality. In a recent investigation of Harvard's admissions policies, the U.S. Department of Education accepted the University's contention that suspiciously low percentages of Asian-Americans admissions were caused not by illegal discrimination, but by Harvard's practice of extending preferential treatment to recruited athletes and children of alumni--groups which include few Asian-Americans.

The University's defense in the Ed. Department probe slays the popular notion--expounded by many and believed by few--that all Harvard athletes are just as academically fit as non-athletes. Any criticism of athletes' academic qualifications in the pages of the campus press inevitably invites a storm of criticism, which usually points to athletes who excel in the classroom as well as on the field. It's true, plenty such examples can be found at Harvard.

But that does not change the facts: By its own admission, Harvard gives special preference to recruited athletes. Less-than-sterling academic records, if not outright academic deficiency, can be forgiven if the applicant has a good enough fastball or outside jump-shot.

But is there anything wrong with forgiving a few "C's" on the records of students who have to balance their time between academics and extracurriculars? Of course not; the admissions office makes allowances for students who are talented musicians and champion debaters. But the Ed. Department probe reveals that Harvard makes far greater allowances for athletics than for non-athletic extracurricular activities. Asian-Americans, for example, make up a disproportionate share of Harvard's orchestras. Obviously Harvard does not think that spending 30 hours per week practicing the violin is as important as similar dedication to football or rowing. As far as admissions are concerned, athletics are emphatically not just another extracurricular activity.

HARVARD'S brush with the law forced University officials to essentially confess to an accusation that they have long brushed aside--that many athletes admitted to Harvard are substantially less qualified than the rest of the student body. Although the University has been loathe to release specific figures in the past, casual observation reveals the nasty truth that a "jock" sub-culture exists at the nation's most prestigious academic institution. Admittedly, Harvard is not Oklahoma University. Nevertheless, one of Harvard's outstanding hockey players told a Crimson reporter two years ago that he was "not an Ivy League kind of student" and that he could not call himself a "student-athlete... without a smirk on my face."

When officials from the Ivy League swore off athletic scholarships and proclaimed that student-athletes should be students first and foremost, they set up an ideal standard for intercollegiate athletic competition. Harvard's promotional literature reiterates this rhetoric, and the national press gushed about the geniuses in uniform who took the national hockey championship in 1989. Unfortunately, Harvard athletics fail to live to this ideal.

We love a good ballgame as much as anyone else, and we appreciate the fact that popular athletic programs may boost Harvard's fund-raising efforts. But nothing--not tradition, not money, not school spirit--can justify lowering admissions standards for jocks.