Welcome to sad world of race relations at Harvard. Amidst all the enlightenment and brilliance at Harvard, relations between races stagnate in a pool of distrust. It is a place where professors and student leaders pursue agendas totally separate from, and often damaging to, the good of the Harvard community.

The most recent flare-up began with the comment by professor Harvey C. Mansfield Jr. in The Crimson that grade inflation was in part due to the rising number of Black students at Harvard. According to Mansfield, professors were hesitant to fairly grade those Blacks who deserved low grades, thus raising the average. He did not substantiate his claims with facts or figures, but based his observation on personal experience.

Without a doubt, Mansfield was within his rights to say what he did. And his comments were not racist; his statement does not imply that Blacks deserve lower grades.

Yet without doubt his comments were inflammatory. Nobody likes to have their achievements brought into question, especially because of race. Mansfield's lack of proof and his reputation made his theories and his motives suspect.

Mansfield explained his comments as a method of broadening debate on campus, expanding the frontiers of what can be said. Opening up new avenues of discussion is a noble pursuit. All too often on college campuses and in society as a whole people avoid issues that are uncomfortable, including many involving race relations. But Mansfield methods were clumsy and harmful. A crusade for open discussion requires tact as much as brute force.

Mansfield seemingly off-the-cuff comment was hardly tactful. If, as it now appears, his intention was to question the validity of affirmative action, there were better ways. Many better ways. Mansfield could have written a piece for a campus publication outlining his questions about or opposition to affirmative action. Or he could have done so in an interview.

If Mansfield was trying to open rational discussion on campus, he should have provided an example of such discussion himself. Instead he created a useless, damaging incident that left bruised feelings all around.

Pursuing both truth and better race relations is possible. Mansfield seemed more interested in publicity than either of them. He is not the only one.

More than one minority leader on campus is guilty of many of the same offenses as Mansfield.

Recent poster announcing the Coalition for Diversity's events were labeled. "The Peculiar Institution." Last year, the BSA headed a flyer "the Harvard Plantation." These references are crude and pathetic attention getting devices that mock the seriousness of slavery.

In addition, the Black Students' Association and the Afro-American Cultural Society have both hosted speakers with little purpose other than a garner headlines. Recently, the latter brought Dr. Khalid Muhammed to speak. His talk was laced with inflammatory remarks that make Mansfield's seem like small change. Similarly, the BSA brought infamous racist and anti-semite Leonard Jeffries to campus last year, heightening tensions between the Black and Jewish communities.

What appears to be missing in the philosophy of many minority leaders at Harvard is the understanding that race relations is a cooperative effort. Much of Hardvard's minority leadership seems to believe that race relations is everybody else's business. They expect deference for their feelings, yet are not concerned when their events offend others.

There are times and places where extreme measures are necessary to gain justice and fairness: Harvard is not such a place. Much more can be achieved through rational and straightforward talk than posturing and grandstanding.

And grandstanding is what has dominated the Mansfield incident. The victim is race relations.