Harvard has a problem. One that I have become aware of in my short time here and one which I am sure others have noticed, also. The virus is that many students, who seem to be in very influential positions, have administrativegromalephobia, or fear of a Black man who holds an administrative job. (I purposely leave females out of this group, because I don't know how Harvard students would react to them since there aren't many here in any position of power.)

How have I come to make such a seemingly outlandish prognosis? By looking at the student publications, of course. In the period of two weeks, two student-run publications have attacked, unfairly and offensively, two of the most influential, dare I say powerful, African-American men on campus.

First offensive. On Oct. 13, the Harvard Lampoon published a parody of The Crimson. On the second page, snugly set between "Calvin & Hobbes" and "I, Argus Aardvark," set a picture of Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III fornicating, since he is married, with Ziggy, an asexual looking cartoon.

Why is that so offensive? As a Black student, I have to ask why Dean Epps, and not a multitude of other administrators, is depicted in this cartoon? On the surface, I could dismiss it as college students poking fun at the administration. Or, I might wonder if the artist unintentionally used Dean Epps in this sexual cartoon because of all the beliefs surrounding the sexual prowess of the Black male in American society. I could even suggest that, instead of it being a Freudian slip of the brush (pen), the Lampoon artists and the board blatantly used a racial stereotype, knowing its offensive ability.

I realize that I might be over-sensitive. Being Black in America can do that to a person. I challenge every student to look at how other administrators are portrayed and how often. When was the last time we saw an exaggerated drawing of the president of either Harvard or Radcliffe or the provost gracing the covers of a student publication? Why does this void exist? Why is Dean Epps the favorite target of such actions?

Offensive two: The Crimson staff decided it was time to reinstitute their written war against Dr. Allen Counter ("Counter Drags the Foundation Down," Opinion, Oct. 25, 1994) by stating that his "miserable" conduct on race relations is the motivating force behind the Harvard Foundation move to Thayer Hall. Although their ammunition, excuse me, facts seem flawless, I must caution readers not to believe every article printed, even if it is in The Crimson. After doing some investigation of my own, I believe some statements were misrepresented and even made up.

I read the letter that the staff said was "widely perceived as anti-Semitic." After finishing the article, I wondered how loosely the editors were using the word "widely," especially after a number of student organizations came out in support of Dr. Counter.

Honestly, I did not see why there was such controversy over Dr. Counter's letter to the editors. He merely questioned the motivation behind The Crimson's attack on the Harvard Foundation and their objectivity in the reporting of racial issues, mainly Black/Jewish relations on campus. But, because he was a Black man, whom they did not like, and since a large part of The Crimson staff at the time was Jewish, he was accused of anti-Semitism. Have we seen this pattern before? If you are wondering if this is my only take on the issue, it is not. An editorial published in the 1992 February supplement of the Peninsula, not a magazine I cite often, by a self-identified white Roman Catholic who was on The Crimson board, agrees with me. He plainly states that "...because the Harvard Crimson doesn't like Dr. Counter, the Crimson interpreted the remarks in his letter as something sinister and evil, when a much more reasonable explanation beckoned."

The editors also alleged that Dr. Counter assisted leaders of the Asian American Association in writing a letter criticizing Dean Epps's "handling of campus race issues." I have found no proof to substantiate that claim. In fact, it seems to be one of the many things conceived, formulated and believed only by The Crimson staff editors. Furthermore, Dr. Counter will remain in University Hall, not because the Deans are twisted people who get some sadistic pleasure at seeing him walk across the Yard to meet with his staff, but because there is not enough room in Thayer to house an officer for him without removing some other student organization out of the building.

It all goes back to my initial assertion that we have some administrativenegroemalephobiites on our campus, who, although they aren't doing it in a centralized fashion, continue in treat Black administrators in distinctly offensive ways, and print false and misrepresented materials to achieve that goal. Joshus Bloodworth. W

The writer is treasurer of the Black Students Association.