Speaking Softly:

In the world of city politics, Harvard has long been accustomed to being everyone's least favorite neighbor. As one of the area's largest and wealthiest institutions, the University is often perceived as wielding a disproportionate influence on many local decisions.

But beyond the boundaries of Cambridge, the influence of the Harvard name falls off dramatically. In the realm of state politics, Harvard tends to maintain a low profile, speaking quietly--but often--on the large range of issues that concern it.

"Harvard does not weigh in as a heavy," says State Sen. Michael J. Barrett '70 (D-Cambridge). "It never tries to threaten passage of major legislation."

Harvard's near invisibility as a state lobbyist, Barrett says, is not the result of a lack of interests. Because of its size and the variety of programs it offers, Harvard often finds itself particularly suseptible to state regulation.

"The University has been around for so long that even relatively mundane business tends to interfere with state policy," explains Barrett.

Although Harvard's interests on the state level are broad, they tend to concentrate on the areas of state scholarship funds, environmental regulation, real estate and academic research, according to Kevin Casey, the University's director of state relations.

But, says Barrett, Harvard is not one to issue ultimatums--in part because it does not have the same kind of leverage that for-profit institutions of comparable size possess. Other large corporations, Barrett says, may threaten to pack up and leave the area--taking valuable jobs and tax dollars with them--if their demands aren't met. Harvard does not have that option.

Additionally, Barrett says, Harvard is not just another large business interest. It is a non-profit corporation with a reputation for liberal, progressive thought.

"Harvard does not tend to identify itself with business interests in outright opposition to legislation," Barrett says. "It doesn't tend to enter coalitions with other large corporations."

State Rep. Mark Roosevelt '78, says that Harvard is in fact less vocal than many other area colleges--primarily because it enrolls a smaller percentage of students from Massachusetts.

Not only does that policy reduce the University's interest in one of the key areas of college lobbying--scholarship funds, it means that Harvard has a smaller pool of alumni whom it can appeal to in the State House. Although House Speaker George Keverian '53 is a Harvard graduate, Harvard alumni in the legislature number only about a dozen.

As a result, Roosevelt says, Harvard rarely tries to exert influence over individual lawmakers.

"The influence of a Northeastern or a Boston College is much greater," Roosevelt says. "Harvard is a very minor player."

"Here I am, a Harvard graduate, a legislator, and I don't even know Harvard's position on the issues," he says. "I don't know what Harvard wants."

Harvard's influence may be more keenly felt in the executive branch--particularly under the administration of Gov. Michael S. Dukakis. Dukakis, a Law School graduate, is a former lecturer at the Kennedy School of Government, and some state politicoes have identified a "revolving door" between Harvard and the Dukakis administration.

Former Harvard administrator L. Edward Lashman, for example, is now Dukakis' secretary for administration and finance. And Kristen S. Demong, the governor's chief fundraiser during his 1988 bid for the presidency, now heads Harvard Real Estate, which manages the University's non-academic land holdings.

Several dozen state leaders have been through management training programs at the Kennedy School. And among Dukakis' critics, it is a common complaint that the executive branch is populated with "Harvard hacks," Barrett says.

"There is considered to be an old-boy network," Barrett says.

But in the House and the Senate, the Harvard name does not carry much weight. Many lawmakers come from blue-collar backgrounds and tend to distrust the University. Most efforts by Harvard to exert pressure on the state would be ineffective, if not counterproductive, Barrett says.

"The Massachusetts legislature is a rather funky place," says Barrett. "It's neither tilted for or against Harvard."

On many state issues, Harvard tends to operate in conjunction with other state colleges and universities, Casey says. Many of these efforts can be traced back 20 years, when Harvard and several other institutions joined together to create the the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts (AICUM), to lobby for increases in the state scholarship fund.

Although the vast majority of Harvard's students come from out of state, approximately 10 percent are Massachusetts residents, consequently eligible for financial aid from the state government.

AICUM Vice President Roger F. Sullivan credits the lobbying group with dramatically increasing the state's yearly contributions to its scholarship funds, from $4 million a year in 1970 to $84 million today.

But although all schools in Massachusetts share a common interest on the scholarship issue, Casey says, other pieces of legislation have a disproportionate impact on large research institutions like Harvard, MIT and Boston University.

In these instances, he says, Harvard finds itself negotiating with lawmakers alone, or in conjunction with one or two other universities.

Such was the case this summer, when officials from Harvard and MIT joined together "to take care of technical problems" in a proposed piece of legislation, meeting with the sponsors of a bill which designed to regulate production of environmentally hazardous waste.

The bill passed by the legislature in July is intended to reduce by 50 percent the amount of toxic waste generated in the state by 1997.

Although Casey says the law was aimed at eliminating the waste production by large industrial chemical companies like Dow Chemical Corporation and the Monsanto Company, early drafts of the bill contained certain "technicalities that would have been overly burdensome" to several Harvard programs.

In its initial form, the bill would have mandated strict state scrutiny on all materials used in projects that utilized even small amounts of a single toxic chemical.

According to Casey, this provision would have buried many Harvard researchers under a mound of paperwork. Ironically, scientists exploring safer alternatives to the targeted chemicals would have found themselves particularly susceptible to the onerous requirements.

"It was a great piece of legislation," Casey says, except for a few "unintended consequences."

On issues such as the environment or protection of animal rights, Casey explains, lawmakers tend to be ignorant of the needs of the scientific community. The role of Harvard lobbyists, he says, is primarily to make sure that legislators know what Harvard's existing policies are, and how a change would work.

"Legislators are overwhelmed with the issues that confront them," Casey says, "They can't be experts on everything."

Another area in which Harvard often attempts to wield its influence relates to its real estate holdings. Although most land-use laws are enacted at the municipal level, state actions can often create difficult legal snags for the University, Casey says.

One bill currently working its way through the legislature, for example, concerns Single Room Occupancy (SRO) hotels. The measure, which is sponsored by Barrett, would mandate an 18-month moratorium on their elimination.

SRO units, which are generally occupied by individuals who cannot afford permanent housing, are sometimes demolished or renovated by developers to make room for condominiums or apartments.

This displaces low- to moderate-income people who cannot afford to pay for the improvements to their dwelling, housing activists say. With the current shortage of affordable housing in Cambridge, these individuals either join the ranks of the homeless or are forced to leave the area.

As written, the bill would have applied to two hotels owned by Harvard: the Quality Motor Inn on Mass Ave.--earmarked for eventual use as Law School housing--and the Harvard Motor House on Mt. Auburn St., which is scheduled to be demolished to make way for an office building.

As a result, the bill would have placed a severe barrier to Harvard's immediate plans for the two sites. But neither structure can be adequately described as an SRO housing unit, Casey says.

"The intentions are excellent," Casey says, but because of a "drafting technicality, it would have frozen the development of new dorms even if it was new construction, even if it did not displace an SRO unit."

A series of changes to exclude Harvard, which the sponsor has agreed to, "make it a more crisply-drafted piece of legislation," Casey says.

Casey stresses that the type of lobbying in which Harvard engages tends toward this type of technical change to legislation, watching out for the University's interests without creating a big fuss.

Harvard's lobbying approach is "very proper and above-board," Barrett says. "They don't tend to be very grabby."

And if Harvard doesn't get its way on every issue, it apparently doesn't seek to retaliate. In part, this is because the University doesn't contribute to state political campaigns and doesn't endorse particular candidates.

"They don't mark you as an enemy if you fight them on any particular issue, and politicians appreciate that," Barrett says.