And, incidentally, the Harvard Foundation maintains, the only student race-relations office located in the central administration building University Hall (this includes Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Dartmouth and Brown.)

Seven years after the founding of the Harvard Foundation, and following a series of large demonstrations in Harvard Yard to protest racial harassment in the classroom by white professors, an office for racial harassment complaints was formed. A temporary committee drawn largely from the student protesters, along with some faculty and members of the elected student representatives to the Harvard Foundation was formed in the Office of the Dean of the College to review complaints and responses to instances of racial harassment.

Later, this newly formed committee recommended an Office for Racial Harassment complaints similar in structure to the sexual Harassment office.

The Harvard Foundation (including its director, faculty chairman and students) was instrumental in the creation of the Racial Harassment Office. Hilda Hernandez-Gravelle, M.S.W., a social worker and part-time counselor at the Bureau of Study Council, was brought over to University Hall to head the new Office for Racial Harassment Complaints on a part-time basis.

Perhaps part of the confusion expressed by the Crimson group regarding the two separate offices stems from the fact that Hernandez Gravelle re-named the Racial Harassment Office, The Office of Race Relations and Minority Affairs (similarly the Sexual Harassment Office is officially called the Office of Co-Education). Naturally, the Harvard Foundation and the Racial Harassment offices have somewhat different goals.

The goal of the Faculty-established Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations is to create a racially harmonious atmosphere and reduce racial conflicts to the point where there are few if any racial harassment complaints. The purpose of the College's Racial Harassment Office as originally conceived by the faculty and students is to hear and process racial harassment complaints in a manner similar to the sexual harassment office.

Our investigation indicates that the dissatisfaction with the Harvard Foundation expressed in the Crimson articles is more representative of the Crimson group than the student body, minority and non-minority.

We have talked with the leaders of all of the minority student groups and the leaders of the various white student organizations about their evaluation of the Foundation's effectiveness. These students expressed no dissatisfaction with the work of the Foundation, and enthusiastically endorsed our programs and efforts. A number of students complained to this office that they had given the Crimson group "extensive interviews" and that "none of their pro-Foundation comments were included in the articles because they did not fit with the Crimson's ulterior slant."

Some students who work closely with the Foundation have expressed the view that the Crimson's editorial and articles were not designed to enlighten but rather to discredit the Harvard Foundation for its lack of involvement in the Crimson's racial agenda. For example, students cite the Harvard Foundation's refusal to be dragged into the Crimson group's recent hostilities with a Black City University of New York [CUNY] professor over his political beliefs.

Panelists at a recent Harvard Foundation program entitled Challenges to Race Relations in Today's Ivy League and Public Colleges indicated that Professor Leonard Jeffries and Professor Michael Levin (a Jewish professor also on the CUNY faculty who has written extensively and promoted the belief that "Blacks are innately inferior to Whites" and other equally racist ideas) were invited to debate at Princeton.

Levin's racist teachings (which are the same as those of David Duke) have been defended as free speech. Some of the panelists and students asked "why The Crimson and other Jeffries detractors and given so little attention to or shown interest in Levin's demagogy." And "could the Crimson writers' silence on Levin possibly suggest agreement?"

The dogma of the Crimson group's challenge to the Foundation appears to be "if you are not serving my special interest, then what good are you?" As the Foundation's programs have become more successful, more and more student organizations have sought involvement.

Invariably, some groups will feel that we are not doing enough for them or that some of our programs are in conflict with their interests. For example, The Crimson frequently cites the Harvard-Radcliffe Hillel, a Jewish students organization, as one of the student groups that is dissatisfied with the Foundation's work. Recently, students from Hillel have protested Harvard Foundation support of guest speakers such as MIT professor Noam Chomsky who was called "too political " for the Foundation's mandate (Professor Chomsky was invited to the University by the Society of Arab Students) and popular Black "rap" recording star, "Chuck D."

The Crimson group, however, failed to point out that the frequently quoted student leader of Hillel is on the student advisory board of the Harvard Foundation. Further, it should be pointed out that from its very inception, the Harvard Foundation has reached out to Hillel students, initially to be told that its members were white and not a minority group. Subsequently, members of Hillel have been elected to the student board of the Harvard Foundation and receive a portion of the Harvard Foundation's annual grant budget for Hillel's programs.

While most of our white, Black, Hispanic and Asian students are getting along admirably, our most intractable racial conflict has been between Jewish and Black students. This is also the case at many other colleges and universities. The most frequent conflict (at Harvard and other schools) centers on the charge by Jewish Students that "Black students invite speakers to the University whom Jews find distasteful" and allegedly "anti-Jewish."