The rash of on-the-job harassment complaints among Harvard University Police Department (HUPD) security guards has been nothing short of appalling. But recent evidence that Chief Paul Johnson may be sanctioning reprisals against department whistle-blowers is far more ominous. If many security guards' accusations are true, Johnson has been doing everything he can to undermine the new harassment investigation by the General Counsel's office.

Last week, we saw one example. A Russian immigrant who complained of harassment and assault within his security guard unit was suspended and finally fired. Johnson said the guard was responsible for a fight with a colleague. Never mind that an internal probe into the incident was declared "not completely conclusive." Never mind that Manager of Operations for Security Robert J. Dowling--who has been accused of condoning a supervisor's harassment of the same guard--was allowed to play witness, judge and jury for the Russian guard's discipline.

Johnson's message is clear--and frightening. Amidst the confusion over contradicting stories, he eliminates the complainant. If indeed this is retaliation, it isn't an isolated example. Numerous guards have told The Crimson of the repercussions they're suffered since going public with their complaints of harassment. One guard, who suffered from back problems, was put on a shift so tough that he wound up in a body cast.

On-the-job harassment is reprehensible wherever it occurs. But in the security department, this kind of chaos is far more frightening. In the police department, this kind of chaos could cost lives.

Harvard clearly needs to clean house--quickly. General Counsel Margaret H. Marshall announced last month that she will open an investigation of any discriminatory practices. For Harvard's sake as well as for the guards', she can't afford the negligence that marred last spring's investigation under then-General Counsel Daniel Steiner '54. In that case, the General Counsel's office purported to carry out a thorough investigation of harassment in the guard unit--without interviewing any guards.

The University now appears to be serious about conducting a competent investigation. Hiring two outside legal pros, A. Hugh Scott and James A. Ring, may give the investigation some independence that Steiner's lacked.

It's suspicious that the two investigators come from Marshall's former law firm Choate, Hall and Stewart. It also represents a troubling conflict of interest. Are these former close colleagues of Marshall's the best two people in the state to get to the bottom of the security guard mess?

Marshall should make sure the investigation is thorough and tough. Her apparent willingess to make sure any guard who wishes to be interviewed is interviewed is a good first step.

The key test, though, will come when the interviews are all done and Marshall has to decide who to believe. With so many conflicting accounts, Marshall should feel no obligation to take Johnson's word at face value.

Johnson has talked about retiring at the end of the year. If he can't fairly and humanely control his department, Marshall should think about letting him retire a little sooner.