"Two students came to testify to the committeebelieving that the archives should be much moreopen," Ford says. "But after they testified andanswered questions from the committee, they hadchanged their perspective."

Ford says the committee agreed that theUniversity should be flexible in grantingexceptions to the 50-year rule. For example, Fordsays he would like to see the release ofadministration papers from the period of campusunrest in April 1969, when Ford himself came undersharp criticism from students and faculty.

But Ford acknowledges that it will still behard for historians to secure access topresidential and Corporation papers.

"The closer you get to real power, especiallywith the people who come in as outsiders, there'smuch more of a tendency to not make exceptions, togive categorical responses," Ford says.

Ford says he accepts the reasoning behind the50-year rule. The limit on access to the archives,he says, will preserve the historical record.

"There's never been a tradition around here ofgetting out the old shredder after a bigdecision," he says. "But it wouldn't take manycases of irresponsible release [of archivaldocuments] for that to happen."

Information Controls

Despite these arguments, some scholars remainbitter about the review process. One Harvardhistorian, who spoke on condition of anonymity,notes that at the same time the committee wasreaffirming the 50-year rule, the University wasactively publicizing a report severely criticizinggovernment restrictions on the flow ofinformation.

The report, "Government Information Controls:Implications for Scholarship, Science andTechnology," was authored by then-Vice Presidentfor Government, Community and Public Affairs JohnShattuck and then-Director of Policy AnalysisMuriel Morisey Spence.

It charged that "a broad system of nationalsecurity controls" and a "broadened classificationsystem" had set back scientific research,"increased the need for compartmentalizeddecision-making" and boosted the risk of"substantial abuses of executive power."

"That report [on the government] isinteresting," says the historian, "because onecould make the argument that Harvard's secrecy,particularly with regards to the archives, hassimilar effects."

The Historian says Harvard's rules have theeffect of isolating the University from studies ofhigher education.

"I'm particularly concerned that the 50-yearrule makes it difficult for historians to includeHarvard in historical studies of multiple schoolsbecause you can't compare stuff from otheruniversities to Harvard. [Harvard] won't give youthe historical records as fast."

Other Schools More Flexible

What many scholars find most irksome is thatother schools have far more open archivalpolicies. Dartmouth and Brown don't have firmaccess policies, and Cornell opens up all records,including those of its governing boards andpresidents, 30 years after they were created,according to former Cornell archivist HerbertFinch.