Indian Obligations

STATE AND LOCAL legislators occasionally like to take pot shots at Harvard and its tax free status. Over the years the University's relationship with the Cambridge City Council has been lukewarm at best, and often downright cold. State lawmakers from the western part of Massachusetts resent Harvard's big-time stature, and welcome any opportunity to test the University's influence.

Three weeks ago, State Representative Charles F. Flaherty Jr. (D-Camb.) filed a bill requiring Harvard to grant a minimum of 25 Indian fellowships. The bill cites a 1693 agreement made by Harvard and the Commissioners of Massachusetts. In the pact, the University agreed to provide "rent-free" studies to Indian students in return for permission to demolish the Indian College, built in 1654. The Indians were to live in the new building that Harvard erected to replace the structure.

It is difficult to determine the extent of Harvard's obligation under this agreement, and probably absurd to fight through the legalese of a 300-year-old commitment. Daniel Steiner '54, the University's legal counsel, contends that Harvard has not violated any of its three Indian trust funds. Although Flaherty's bill is still in committee, the attorney general decided his office should handle the matter, and he appointed a Boston lawyer last week to investigate.

The terms of the 1693 agreement are suspect -- treaties made by white men on behalf of Indians somehow never work to the advantage of Indians. But Harvard's main concern should not be the stipulations of the 1693 pact. Even if the University has not violated the letter of the law, it should abide by the spirit of the agreement.

Harvard undoubtedly could accept more Indian students each year, particularly if the admissions office undertook strenuous recruiting. Steiner's legal evaluation of the 1693 pact may meet legal standards, but it will do nothing to bring Indian students to Harvard.

Since at least 1840, the University has failed to publish a section of William Stoughton's will, which could provide financial aid to Indians. The Stoughton trust lists Indians as a third preference for scholarship assistance. Harvard's current administration cannot be held accountable for an omission made prior to 1840, but as a result of the oversight, no Indian has ever received aid from the Stoughton trust. Since 1923, the first year in which funds were dispensed from it, five Dorchester and Milton students -- the first and second preferences under the will -- have received annually the fund's scholarships.

Clearly, the University could find five needy Dorchester applicants each year. But Harvard should correct the omission by not only returning the proviso to the listing in the official Register--as Steiner has promised -- but by awarding at least one Stoughton scholarship each year to an Indian student.

The University must wade through the arbitrary figures of the Flaherty bill. The issue at stake is not whether 25 or even 250 Indian students should be brought to Harvard, but whether the addition of a substantial number of Indian students would benefit both the Indians and the Harvard community.

Flaherty said when he introduced his bill that it "appealed to my sense of humor and righteousness." The Indian question is not a laughing matter. The University must make a positive commitment to Indian students regardless of the fate of the Flaherty bill or the attorney general's study.