It's easy to cast Senator Edward M. Kennedy '54-'56 as an anachronism. GOP challenger and living Ken-doll W. Mitt Romney has obviously figured that out.

Kennedy and his message aren't as contemporary as some might like. Kennedy clings to sixties liberalism like Harvard clings to its antiquated calendar. Yet, in an election year when "change" is the message and liberals are "out," Kennedy's dogged refusal to alter his image is refreshing.

Ted Kennedy works hard. He's committed. He's not ashamed to boast of his beliefs, no matter how belabored and belittled his points might be. Even the staunchest congressional conservatives will admit they respect his tenacity. He gets things done, and usually the way he wants them.

To our benefit.

Harvard administrators have called Kennedy a champion of higher education in general and of Harvard in particular. In the 103rd Congress alone, as chair of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, (CLHR) Kennedy--responsible for every non-budgetary domestic policy that gets to the Senate floor--engineered support for six major education reform bills.

Just last month the Senator secured more than $1 billion in research grants for Massachusetts colleges and universities. In 1993 Kennedy shepherded the National Service Act through Congress--a task that recalls his 1972 work to fund Pell Grants that have benefited millions of college students. Throughout the years, Kennedy has especially been a best friend of Harvard--frequently obtaining federal grant money for scientific research specifically at the College and the Medical School. Kennedy even helped persuade President Clinton to nominate Law School Lecturer Stephen G. Breyer to the Supreme Court. After Breyer was nominated, Kennedy ensured an easy confirmation process in the Senate.

And in efforts more generally beneficial to Massachusetts voters, Kennedy sponsored the bills that secured freedom of access to abortion clinics, crusaded for battered women's rights and pushed Congress to fund breast cancer early detection programs. Kennedy has been the chief sponsor of most major liberal legislation in this decade, like the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.

Kennedy's commitments are clear: in a year when Democrats across the country are fleeing from Clinton's endorsements, Kennedy remains unabashedly liberal. Some might not like his politics, but unlike his opponent, Kennedy stands for something and he isn't afraid to be open about what that is.

The real deals here are the records of the candidates. Romney has none. Where Kennedy is experienced, Romney is puerile. Kennedy has proved that he has the influence and respect in the places he needs it--the halls and chambers of Congress--to get things done. Noted as a coalition builder, Kennedy maintains a close relationship with Kansas Republican Nancy Landon Kassebaum, CLHR's ranking minority member.

Kennedy has sacrificed much for his largest and most enduring goal: universal health care. Few know that President Richard M. Nixon offered a Kennedy a Clintonesque health care proposal in his last years in office. At the time Kennedy rejected that plan because it didn't go far enough to insure all Americans. Dumb move, perhaps. But Kennedy didn't compromise Later, he even gave up the chance to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee. He wanted to bide his time on the CLHR to make sure the atmosphere was right when health care came around again.

It is especially crucial that Kennedy be re-elected in order to prevent gridlock, while maintaining a Democratic majority in the Senate so that control is not turned over to Republicans like Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond and Orrin Hatch.

And if there is one purely pragmatic reason to vote for Kennedy, it's exactly what his opponent attacks: his seniority. In his 32 years in office, Kennedy has built a network of influence hardly paralleled in contemporary politics. Why vote him out just when he is in the best position to do the most for Massachusetts?

Still, this best reason to vote for Kennedy is that he will continue Massachusetts's long tradition of propagating liberal ideas. Personal record aside, Ted Kennedy represents Massachusetts better than Mitt Romney ever could.