The Harvard Current, which has regularly--albeit briefly--scratched its way into the national media with quirky political scoops, is embroiled in a war of words with the Republican National Committee.

At issue is an article published on the newsmagazine's website describing a visit to the committee offices by a group of seventh grade students.

Written by Current Executive Editor Daniel Z. Levine '03, the article quotes a parent and student who accuse the committee's constituent services director, Rebecca King, of calling Vice President Al Gore '69 a "pathological liar" and "a Communist" during a field trip.

The story attracted national news attention after Lloyd Grove, a well-known Washington Post political gossip columnist, wrote about in his column.

Committee officials have strongly disputed the account.

Clifford D. May, the committee's director of communications, said in an interview that the Current story was "journalistic malpractice," and told the Post, "The poor woman [King] is getting knifed and getting her reputation slandered, and there's no truth whatsoever to it."

May also told the Post that the comments attributed to King by parent Judy Gelman and a student, Sivan Jacobovitz, were either incorrect or were taken out of context.

Levine, however, noted that the committee hasn't explicitly disavowed the comments.

"It's unclear whether they're outright denying [King's alleged words]" in their public statements, he said.

But May cast doubt on whether the primary accuser's information is dependable.

Gelman, who described herself to the Post as a "partisan Democrat" and Jacobovitz are not "necessarily reliable," May told the Post.

Gelman's son Ezra Salop, another student on the trip, was able to corroborate their account for the Post.

Levine took issue with May's charges, and said his story was accurate.

"Like any reporter, I pursued the tip, checked on the sources," he said.

Levine wrote in his article that "several" unsuccessful attempts were made to reach King by phone, an assertion May disputed.

According to May, Levine left a single message for King at the committee's offices, but that a medical absence prevented her from responding in time.

May said Levine had apparently made no attempt to reach the communications office for either an official comment or for help in reaching King.

Levine counters that he did indeed call the committee's communications office, but that a message he left with an employee was not returned.

Next came a series of vituperative conversations between May and Levine before and after the publication of the Post article.

Levine accused May of trying to intimidate him and to deflect the story by challenging the author's credibility, while May said that Levine "treated us very unfairly" by going to press without any comments from King or from the committee.

May said the committee does not plan to take legal action against the Current at this time.

The Current stands behind the article, Levine said.