Both Sides Lose In Wounded Knee II

We're sorry. We couldn't resist. We feel a public obligation, a duty to both our readers and to the Harvard community, to speak out on the most pressing and important issue of our time.

That issue? Yes, guessed it: the Tonya Harding-Nancy Kerrigan affair, which the mass media has so lovingly dubbed" wounded Knee II."

The United State Olympic Committee considered excluding Harding from Olympic competition because of the questions over her role in the Jan. 6 attack on Kerrigan.

Then Harding filed a $25 million lawsuit against the U.S.O.C. The Committee took fright--and caved in.

Under the settlement adopted last weekend, Harding dropped her lawsuit and the U.S.O.C. agreed to allow her to skate in the Olympics next week. The Committee also canceled an administrative hearing which had been called for the purpose of questioning Harding about the attack.

Now that Harding's place on the Olympic roster is assured, and CBS executives start fantasizing over the ratings, a new question arises: Who will win the gold medal?

Will victory go to the tough, hard-driven, huffing-and-puffing Tonya Harding? Her technical ability is unquestioned, although her gracefulness leaves something to be desired. Or will triumph fall into the lap of the perfectly pretty, endearingly vacuous Nancy Kerrigan? Kerrigan claims her knee has made a full recovery.

Along with the rest of America, we are 100 percent behind Nancy Kerrigan. And we are totally opposed to the idea of Tonya Harding strutting her stuff in Norway.

Whether she is guilty of planning the attack on Kerrigan remains to be seen. But Harding has publicly admitted to having been less-than-forth-coming with knowledge related to the attack it occurred. Many other questions about her role remain.

Certainly athletes the U.S.O.C. seeks to prevent from competing deserve the safeguards of due process. This was precisely the reason for the canceled administrative hearing. Which would have given Harding ample opportunity to defend herself against the various charges.

Competing in the Olympics is a privilege, not a right. The Committee has a legitimate interest in making sure that all of its athletes are above moral and ethical scrutiny.

The evidence linking Harding to the attack, including accusations by Harding's ex-husband Jeff Gillooly that she had advance knowledge of the assault, gave the U.S.O.C. ample grounds for enjoining Harding from skating in the Olympics.

Harding has taken on a near-demonic aspect in the eyes of America since the attack on Kerrigan, and justifiably so. Now she represents not only tackiness in skating outfits, but all that is evil in the world.

Still, after all of this scandal and all of this national attention, the anticlimactic result is inevitable: both Harding and Kerrigan will do terribly at Hamar. Being at the center of the mass media menagerie can't help but take its toll on one's psychological state.

And who will walk away with the coveted gold medal? Oksana Baiul of the Ukraine? Surya of France? Or some other skater of similar ability? We must also acknowledge the possibility that the Clockemas County investigators might dig up enough evidence to indict Harding before she skates. The law could preclude her performance before she skates.

Regardless of the results, the Harding-Kerrigan showdown will make for a great program. This operatic confrontation between good and evil is the stuff that fairy tales are made of.

It would also make a wonderfully terrible made-for-TV movie, one to rival "The Amy Fisher Story." (Kerrigan's agent already received over 35 offers for such a movie.)

We are counting down the days until Feb. 25.