HARVARD has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar.
At a time when higher education leaders have been crying about the scarcity of federal research funds, Harvard was using some of its "desperately needed" federal money to pay for a retirement party for a senior dean and for costs associated with President Derek C. Bok's home.
Harvard is not alone in its malfeasance. Stanford, MIT, and many top universities have been hit by a federal probe into "indirect cost" disbursements and have come away red-faced after using taxpayers' money for frivolous purposes. (Indirect costs are those paid to universities' administrations above and beyond funds that go directly to individual researchers.)
Harvard's decision last month to withdraw $500,000 in indirect cost requests was only a first step. Like the University's decision this winter not to participate in the financial aid overlap group (which is the target of a Justice Department inquiry), the refund was preemptive, designed to shed the appearance of impropriety. Sixteen other universities have similiarly admitted improper billings in order to avoid paying fines.
SO the government gets a few million back this year. But how long have Harvard and other schools been overcharging the government? From what is already known, it appears that many worthy medical causes--like AIDS, cancer and cystic fibrosis--might be receiving greater research support if the federal government were not pouring millions into illegitimate overhead charges.
The government is also at fault here. For years, it has failed to keep a watchful eye on university billing practices. In fact, the Navy has been a target of a federal investigation into its regulatory practices at Stanford.
But Harvard and other research universities must do everything they can to restore the public's trust in their handling of government money. A good start would be for Harvard to release a full accounting of its indirect cost requests for past the past five years and to disclose the results of study on the topic that a private firm completed this spring.
If the federal government thinks its money is being misused by academia, it will invest it elsewhere--perhaps in airfare for top Bush Administration officials. The loss of funding would be a disaster for the academic community, and universities would have no one to blame but themselves.
A Report on the Future of the UniversityFor everyone miffed about what's happening to their university: for the last 20 years tenured professors have been accepting large
Money From CongressIN A PIECE in the CRIMSON Supplement last Wednesday, I pointed out that the federal government has become the largest
Profit From AEC DeniedL. Gard Wiggins, the man responsible for all Federal programs at the University, vigorously denied yesterday that the U.S. Atomic
From Report On Harvard, GovernmentFollowing are excerpts from the report by Daniel Cheever, "Harvard and the Federal Government": Federal funds in 1959-60 supplied one-quarter
Whose Worry?The most disturbing development as last week's Faculty of Arts and Sciences discussion on federal aid to the University was
The PartnershipThe report on federal aid to the sciences and its impact upon universities issued last week by the President's Science