DOESN'T IT SOUND like intercultural and race relations were improved in Sanders Theater that night? And what about the Foundation's started goal--"to reduce the isolation and estrangement felt by minority students without encouraging the separation of races." Nothing like reverse psychology. By funding Muhammad, the Foundation supported the very concept that it supposedly is working to erase.

And no one among the organizations which usually work to promote positive intergroup relations on campus is speaking out. There is a Radcliffe Union of Students representative sitting on the Foundation's Students Advisory Council. With no peep of protest, it seems that women on campus and the group that advocates women's concerns were not offended by funding the dissemination of the minister's sexist remarks.

SAC'S CO-CHAIRS, Muneer I. Ahmad '93 and Natosha O. Reid '93, offered explanations, but they are unacceptable. Ahmed cites "the need to place speakers in their context. If Muhammad was speaking on anti-Semitism he would not have been funded."

Reid agreed, saying "We are not judging his political views but how he contributes to a particular project."

This is idea of separating the speaker's personal opinions from his or her topic of discussion is ridiculous. Sure Muhammad was part of a program on Black rap music, but could he be expected not to focus on the divisive doctrines of the Nation of Islam during his speech? After all, he's their campus representative. Would SAC grant money for David Duke to speak about African-American or Jewish culture, ignoring his Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazi past?

Even if there is significant Black Muslim influence in rap music, granting money to bring a leader in the Nation of Islam--a group led by a man who called Judaism a "gutter religion" and termed Hitler a "great man"--to Harvard could only do more harm than good, leading to further polarization of campus racial and ethnic groups.

But even if Muhammad's association with Farrakhan were not reason enough to refuse funding the minister's lecture, Muhammad's past statements should have been enough to hint that he wasn't stopping by for the weekend to talk music but to bring anger and prejudice to a boil and preach the passionate polemics of hate.

But to research speakers receiving Foundation grant money would be asking too much, I suppose, from the student group. SAC Members recall little, if any, debate accompanying the rapper/racist Chuck D/Conrad Muhammad project proposal at the group's February 10 grants meeting.

In fact, the meeting lasted for six or seven hours, and many members who now claim they would have argued against funding a talk by a Nation of Islam leader left the committee gathering before the grant came up for discussion. Those who stayed said the Muhammad grant met with much less resistance than other proposals on the table.

But, unfortunately, this scenario presents nothing out of the ordinary according to members of the committee. Little research is ever conducted to investigate the background of speakers included in grant applications submitted to the Foundation.

Perhaps the large number of applications would overwhelm a student group. But read the following description of SAC found in the Foundation's booklet: "[SAC's] primary responsibility is to review student grant requests and award funding with the approval of the Faculty Advisory Committee." It's not too much to expect SAC to perform its "primary responsibility" in a thorough and respectable manner.

It is also not unreasonable to expect SAC to conduct in-depth checks on speakers under consideration, seeing that the group may pay the individual for coming to Harvard. Even our parents occasionally want to know what they're getting for their $20000-plus tuition bill.

To its credit, SAC does suggest in its grant guidelines the submission of a "short biography...to help us better evaluate the project." But apparently this portion of the application, if included, rarely embarks upon anything more than the speaker's title and place of residence. In any case, if SAC members did have Muhammad's biography during their meeting, then they have exhibited even greater irresponsibility and insensitivity than if they had simply approved the Nation of Islam grant unaware of Muhammad's past.

Someone didn't do their homework. And it wouldn't even have been so difficult.

CONRAD MUHAMMAD spoke only a month and a half ago in the Philadelphia Civil Center, introducing Louis Farrakhan before a Martin Luther King Day crowd of 16,000. Muhammad was featured in national headlines--ranging from The Washington Post to the Cable News Network--for his role in bringing Farrakhan to speak at the University of Pennsylvania less than four years ago.