NSF and the Affidavit

If a line must be drawn between those affidavits of belief which the University will accept and those which it will not, President Pusey's decision to continue administration of all National Science Foundation fellowships was a wise one. But the foundations of this decision made by Faculty vote last Tuesday conflict with the University's entire rationale in dealing with the National Defense Education Act.

Many Faculty members were surprised and annoyed by the Administration's decision that the University should continue to cooperate in processing all NSF fellowships, for the Faculty had voted against continued participation in some of them. But the idea that Harvard could keep its hands clean by not actually touching the polluted affidavits was, and still is, ridiculous.

The only conceivable reason for further participation in any of the NSF programs is that the University's money is not involved. But this is not, and should not be, the basis of the decision. Rather, it should be based on freedom of belief. Harvard must do everything in its power to ensure that inquiry into belief is not a concomitant of Federal aid to education.

This does not simply mean that Harvard must righteously refuse to touch forms with an affidavit of belief attached; the University must also refuse to participate in any program which includes such an affidavit. A decade ago it might have been possible to secure repeal of the NSF affidavit by lobbying, but past inaction has committed Harvard to taking a far stronger position if it wants the affidavit removed.

It is not only inconsistent, but hypocritical to take a moral stand against the affidavit, as the Faculty and the Administration have done, and then to imply that the affidavit is quite all right if the College does not have to administer it. If this noxious part of aid to education is to be eliminated, Harvard must refuse to participate in any program demanding such an affidavit, even those in which its only task is to distribute forms or lick a postage stamp.

This question concerns tactics as well as strategy. Even members of the Administration have said that Harvard has no excuse for opposing the loyalty affidavit as long as it accepts the NSF fellowships. Furthermore, if the NSF oath is ever to be repealed, the change will have to be part of a larger crusade, for, by itself, the NSF issue is of little importance to most of the country.

Justice must be tempered by realism. It would be profoundly unjust to prevent students already holding grants or fellowships from renewing them, for many have planned their education around these funds. But as long as the NSF affidavit remains, it will serve as a dangerous precedent. Any sort of participation in the NSF program at this time serves to support the very affirmation of belief which Harvard so vigorously protests.