Much ink has been spilled in the past few weeks about the University's decision to disregard student community service leaders' recommendation to appoint the current executive director of Phillips Brooks House (PBH), Greg A. Johnson '72, as the new assistant dean for public service. Student indignation was swift, effective and fully appropriate.

The search process was unfair to the existing leaders of PBH. More importantly, it attempted to put too much control over Brooks House into the hands of those who, however well-meaning, have insufficient ties to local communities and experience in working with student-run programs. In order to protect the integrity of PBH's commitments within the communities served as well as to its staff and student leaders, PBH unanimously resolved to distance itself from the University by incorporating the staff component of Brooks House under Phillips Brooks House Association, Inc., instead of under the University.

To make this feasible, PBH has had to seek out support from every quarter: students, faculty, fundraisers, politicians, etc. In order to beat the drum, the rhetoric has contained a measure of animosity and vituperation. The message has been that the University has done us wrong and has forced us to take steps to make ourselves more autonomous. And much of the rhetoric rings true.

But the time has come to mitigate the negativity of the Harvard community's response to the administration in order to move towards an agreement that is best for all parties involved. Failure to initiate positive and public dialogue between the two sides threatens to cause irreperable damage to the that historic relationship between PBH and the University. Brooks House and Harvard need one another.

Phillips Brooks House derives innumerable benefits, financial and otherwise, from the University. The administration, in exchange, uses PBH's world-class student-run programs on the front page of many of its fundraising appeals. It also benefits from PBH's quality programs in terms of the town-gown relationship.

Assistant Dean Kidd is here to stay. The University, at its most cynical, thinks that the only thing that PBH is seriously threatening by moving away from the University is PBH itself. They figure they can just wait out the storm: three years from now, Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 and Judith Kidd will be here, while Vin Pan '95-'96 and Eric Dawason '96 won't. If PBH does not take steps to work things out with the University, then Harvard can just use its substantial resources to create a new frame-work under Kidd through which to support public service at Harvard.

From my standpoint, this is the worst thing that can happen now; it's a short-sighted policy as far as services to existing communities are concerned. Over the course of the past century, PBH has established quality programs and trusting relationships with innumerable communities across Boston and Cambridge. No amount of money can begin to act as a substitute for experience like that. Any programming that attempts to do things on these terms will be operating from the top down and will be hard put to develop a trusting relationship with the communities, one that focuses on their needs as defined by the communities themselves.

But the University has a point: benign neglect from the Harvard administration is not in the best interest of PBHA. With substantial support from the Harvard community and leaders in Cambridge and Boston, PBH can probably survive radically divorced from the University. However, this is not the most effective way for it to continue its public service.

Those concerned with the future of community service must firmly and publically support Brooks House in a positive way. Show the University that those who are passionate about Brooks House's autonomy and quality programming are not limited to a few, soon-to-be-gone students, and a handful of other devotees. We need an outpouring of support from every corner of the Harvard community. And much of this can center on the December seventh rally and public statements of support.

But the message must stay positive and we must keep in mind the goal of a symbiotic, reciprocal relationship between a more autonomous PBHA and Harvard University, one from which everyone benefits. Just because we are angry at the University's decision, and just because we support an independent PBH, does not mean that we do not seek a positive relationship with the University.

PBH must keep beating the drum in the campaign to get broad-based support for a more autonomous Brooks House, while taking public steps of rapprochement with the University. Brooks House leaders must keep the following goals clear: the University should not be able to hire or fire PBH staff, affect its fundraising if their capital drives are slow or decide whether or not new programs enter the PBH family.

But we want and need a positive relationship with the University. As we are securing the other goals, we must keep in mind that the quality of PBH's programming can be severely threatened by any negativity that gets associated with its campaign, even if it does not come directly from PBH leaders themselves.

In the end, the communities and the student programs have the most to lose from an all-out war. We must secure our gains, but realized that ultimately, the University should continue to be an important partner in PBH's quality programming into the next century.

Quentin A. Palfrey '96 is co-chair of Partners for Empowering Neighborhoods (PEN).