H$A

Whenever the Student Council considers one of its long range reports, a motion is made to commend the document as "intelligent and worthwhile." This parliamentary move, which does not imply acceptance of the proposals, in-variably passes unanimously. There is, however, strong reason for the feeling that even this courtesy should have been denied to the recent report on the Harvard Student Agencies.

From the very beginning, the project was sloppily handled. Of the three men who submitted the report, two were directors of agencies and thus incapable of conducting and objective study. While the practice of having members of the group being investigated represented on the investigating body may have some merit, it is a decidedly poor practice to give them a majority.

The report itself glosses over many of the harsh criticisms which have been leveled against the HSA. While admitting that many of the agency directors "could not be called needy in any sense of the term," it offers no plan to correct this, but merely suggests that the practice stop. The policy of having agency directors pick their own successors with a rubber stamp approval from the board of directors is mentioned, but there follows no discussion of the possible harmful implications of this procedure. No attempt is made to evaluate the high prices of such groups as the milk and donut concession, which enjoys a virtual monopoly in the Houses and the Yard.

The body of the report deals with four specific complaints which have been levelled at the HSA, and admits that three of them are justified. Nevertheless, the authors of the report conclude that the HSA "is fulfilling its self-appointed task." Hopefully, the Council watchdog appointed to keep a close eye on the HSA will prove to be one valuable result of the report, and will keep the Student Body informed of the doings of the HSA, but the report offers no other solutions to few abuses whose existence it admits.

Like any other group, the HSA is entitled to a fair trial. A sloppy report stemming from an investigating group whose objectivity is suspect is as unfair to the HSA as would be a report prejudiced in the other direction. More to the point, it is unfair to the Council and to the student body whose interests it supposedly protects.