Working D.C. On Harvard's Name

Last Wednesday, as a measure that would have ended affirmative action in American universities failed in the House of Representatives, it seemed that Harvard might be the 300-pound gorilla of the higher education lobby.

According to lobbyists, President Neil L. Rudenstine's lobbying against the measure drew national significance from Harvard's "intellectual and moral authority." The measure, known as the Riggs Amendment, seemed to have been buried by Harvard's academic prestige translated into political power.

But one week later, it seems that "intellectual authority" fades in a real world where all politics is local.

Harvard's prestige does mean that many in Washington accord its faculty and administrators the respect of expert witnesses on higher education and other subjects. It often even opens doors for Harvard lobbyists--seen by many as among the best in the business.

But Harvard's real political pull seems not to extend far beyond Massachusetts delegates and Capitol Hill alumni. To win on a national stage, it must work through alliances with other schools, each putting pressure on their own representatives.

And its leadership of these higher education alliances is hardly automatic--on some issues, the world's richest university is just another face in the crowd.

The Issues

Harvard is at once research laboratory, vast library system, teaching university, enormous landholder and not-for-profit billionaire. Its four full-time lobbyists have their hands full just staying abreast of how Congressional decisions will impact such a vast institution.

Recent Congressional battles have included fights over research and humanitiesfunding, federal student aid, copyright law, bondtaxes and, last week, diversity in admissions.

Victories for Harvard's interests include thecontinued growth of funding from the NationalInstitutes of Health (currently around half of theUniversity's federal paycheck), as well as fromthe National Endowments for the Arts andHumanities.

All of these were expected to take a big hitafter the 1994 "Republican Revolution," but fundlevels have continued to creep upward, accordingto Vice President for Government, Community andPublic Affairs James H. Rowe III '73.

And the Higher Education Act, approved by theHouse last week, sealed in law a number oftriumphs for the Harvard lobby.

Interest rates on federal student loans willdrop, voluntary early-retirement incentives arenow perfectly legal, and most importantly, thebill keeps Byerly Hall firmly behind affirmativeaction.

Another win was the repeal of a cap on theamount of tax-free bonds that a university couldfloat to raise funds. The cap's removal will makeit cheaper for Harvard to fund ongoingconstruction.

Still up in the air is a law attempting tostrictly apply copyright laws to the "electronicarena," which Harvard opposes out of fear that itwill hamper the expansion of on-line research andcommunication.

This continuing debate aside, for the mostpart, Harvard seems to have batted 1000 inside theBeltway. But the secret of this success lies inthe nature of the higher education lobby: Harvardcan't win in Washington without nationwidesupport.

And if that support is not forthcoming, theissue dies a quiet death in conference calls,meaning few spectacular failures for Harvard onCapitol Hill.

Lobbying Problems

Washington insiders say that Harvard's"intellectual authority" does not go unrecognizedon the Hill.

Massachusetts Hall often fields calls fromrepresentatives or staff members looking forHarvard's opinion on a particular subject. Facultymembers have long shuttled between government andacademia and are frequently sought out as expertson a number of subjects.

In fact, representatives from across thecountry say this means Harvard's opinion almostalways gets a hearing--but a hearing only.

"Harvard automatically [is recognized] as areliable and insightful source of information,"says James Wilcox, press secretary for Rep. BillArcher (R-Texas). "But, all things being equal,the constituents take top priority."

For representatives like Archer, it seems thatHarvard's name gets lobbyists in the door, butonce inside it is local presence, not nationalprestige, that moves representatives to action.

During the Riggs Amendment debate, Rudenstinesent letters and made phone calls to theMassachusetts delegation in the House--"burningup the phone lines" in the words of one opponent.

And lobbyists say Rudenstine's strategy wasright: political influence begins at home.

"We tend to work within our delegation and ouralumni," says Nan Nixon, Harvard's full-timeWashington lobbyist. "For the reason that allpolitics is local."

But among the Bay State's representatives onCapitol Hill, Harvard's voice is only one among achorus of voices, and all are careful to say thatthey give Rudenstine and company no specialtreatment.

"In all candor, while we pay close attention towhat Harvard says, there are so many institutionsto hear from, it's hard to say that one has moreweight than the others," says David B. Williams,chief of staff for Rep. John F. Tierney (D-Salem).

Jim Manley, press secretary for Sen. Edward M.Kennedy '54-'56 (D-Mass.), agreed, saying thatwhile Kennedy worked closely with his alma mater,in the end he gave Harvard's lobbying the sameweight as that of other area schools.

Harvard alumni like Kennedy are still veryactive in government--several dozen graduates sitin the House, and another significant portion inthe Senate--and these connections are also used byHarvard lobbyists.

"Often the phone calls [to Congressionalalumni] will be returned," Nixon says. "It's as ifwe had a larger [state] delegation."

But for Kennedy and others, while the alumniconnection gives Harvard's lobbyists a foot in thedoor, it is no guarantee of legislativesuccess--especially outside Massachusetts.

Even Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a HarvardMedical School graduate and one of theUniversity's strongest Republican allies in thepast, can't be seen to favor Harvard over those ofhis constituent colleges.

"We hear from Harvard as we would hear from anyother school," says Margaret Camp, a Fristspokesperson. "And Senator Frist seeks Harvard'sopinion no more than any other school."

All of this adds up to uncertain political pullfor Harvard acting alone, even among its mosttheoretically loyal groups.

The cause for this uncertainty? In the words ofone Ohio representative's assistant, "you dancewith those that brung you," meaning that everyrepresentative other than Joe Kennedy must ignoreeven Harvard if a constituent institution says so.

"The old days, if they ever existed, of Harvardcoming down, whispering in someone's ear andgetting results are decades gone by," Rowe says."That's...why you join the associations."

Finding Solutions

These "associations" are higher-educationlobbying groups like the American Association ofUniversities (AAU), representing 60 Americanresearch universities, and the American Council onEducation (ACE), a supergroup with members in thethousands.

"What's good for Harvard is often what's goodfor Ohio State, Williams and Smith," says TerryHartle, spokesperson for ACE. And from thisrealization springs a better way for highereducation to lobby.

Schools like Harvard join a number of groupslike the AAU and ACE, looking for large groupswith similar views on a particular issue. Or theycan form their own groups--Harvard and MIT formedthe Science Coalition in 1994 to press for moreresearch funding, and the group now has 60members.

In the fight against the Riggs Amendment,Harvard's views were shared by the ACE.

Group members then put pressure on their ownrepresentatives, making a combined difference thateven Harvard alone could not on a national scale.

"If our goal is legislative action, then welook to a coalition," says Jane H. Corlette, aCambridge-based Harvard lobbyist.

The problems with this strategy lie in keepingthe coalition together. On some issues wherelegislation could divide schools between publicand private or large and small, some institutionshave to swallow their objections or ambitions forthe good of the whole.

Rep. Frank Riggs (R-Cal.) tested this cohesionwhen, after being roundly outlobbied, he exemptedprivate universities from his attempt to eliminateaffirmative action. But Rudenstine and otherleaders were able to keep private schools in thefight--Rudenstine serving as a spokesperson forthe ACE as a whole.

"Members of Congress recognize that thepresident of Harvard speaks from a personal pointof view, but that [ACE speaks] for thousands ofinstitutions," says Beau Philipps, an aide toRiggs.

According to Nan Wells, Princeton's chiefWashington lobbyist, on issues of studentassistance, research funding and tax policy, thehigher education community looks to Harvard forleadership.

This leadership, they say, has been establishedby Rudenstine's rhetoric on these issues, as wellas a focused effort by Harvard's mission toWashington.

And lobbyists say this kind ofleadership--within associations, out of sight ofrepresentatives unwilling to take dictation fromHarvard--seems the best chance for the Universityto get its way on Capitol Hill.

"You say 'Who is on the committee? What are theright states? Then you use other universities asconstituent institutions," says Cambridge-basedlobbyist Kevin Casey. "You try to find ways tomake you matter and your views matter."Courtesy of the GazetteOPENING DOORS: Harvard lobbyists JANEH. CORLETTE (L) and NAN NIXON (R).

Victories for Harvard's interests include thecontinued growth of funding from the NationalInstitutes of Health (currently around half of theUniversity's federal paycheck), as well as fromthe National Endowments for the Arts andHumanities.

All of these were expected to take a big hitafter the 1994 "Republican Revolution," but fundlevels have continued to creep upward, accordingto Vice President for Government, Community andPublic Affairs James H. Rowe III '73.

And the Higher Education Act, approved by theHouse last week, sealed in law a number oftriumphs for the Harvard lobby.

Interest rates on federal student loans willdrop, voluntary early-retirement incentives arenow perfectly legal, and most importantly, thebill keeps Byerly Hall firmly behind affirmativeaction.

Another win was the repeal of a cap on theamount of tax-free bonds that a university couldfloat to raise funds. The cap's removal will makeit cheaper for Harvard to fund ongoingconstruction.

Still up in the air is a law attempting tostrictly apply copyright laws to the "electronicarena," which Harvard opposes out of fear that itwill hamper the expansion of on-line research andcommunication.

This continuing debate aside, for the mostpart, Harvard seems to have batted 1000 inside theBeltway. But the secret of this success lies inthe nature of the higher education lobby: Harvardcan't win in Washington without nationwidesupport.

And if that support is not forthcoming, theissue dies a quiet death in conference calls,meaning few spectacular failures for Harvard onCapitol Hill.

Lobbying Problems

Washington insiders say that Harvard's"intellectual authority" does not go unrecognizedon the Hill.

Massachusetts Hall often fields calls fromrepresentatives or staff members looking forHarvard's opinion on a particular subject. Facultymembers have long shuttled between government andacademia and are frequently sought out as expertson a number of subjects.

In fact, representatives from across thecountry say this means Harvard's opinion almostalways gets a hearing--but a hearing only.

"Harvard automatically [is recognized] as areliable and insightful source of information,"says James Wilcox, press secretary for Rep. BillArcher (R-Texas). "But, all things being equal,the constituents take top priority."

For representatives like Archer, it seems thatHarvard's name gets lobbyists in the door, butonce inside it is local presence, not nationalprestige, that moves representatives to action.

During the Riggs Amendment debate, Rudenstinesent letters and made phone calls to theMassachusetts delegation in the House--"burningup the phone lines" in the words of one opponent.

And lobbyists say Rudenstine's strategy wasright: political influence begins at home.

"We tend to work within our delegation and ouralumni," says Nan Nixon, Harvard's full-timeWashington lobbyist. "For the reason that allpolitics is local."

But among the Bay State's representatives onCapitol Hill, Harvard's voice is only one among achorus of voices, and all are careful to say thatthey give Rudenstine and company no specialtreatment.

"In all candor, while we pay close attention towhat Harvard says, there are so many institutionsto hear from, it's hard to say that one has moreweight than the others," says David B. Williams,chief of staff for Rep. John F. Tierney (D-Salem).

Jim Manley, press secretary for Sen. Edward M.Kennedy '54-'56 (D-Mass.), agreed, saying thatwhile Kennedy worked closely with his alma mater,in the end he gave Harvard's lobbying the sameweight as that of other area schools.

Harvard alumni like Kennedy are still veryactive in government--several dozen graduates sitin the House, and another significant portion inthe Senate--and these connections are also used byHarvard lobbyists.

"Often the phone calls [to Congressionalalumni] will be returned," Nixon says. "It's as ifwe had a larger [state] delegation."

But for Kennedy and others, while the alumniconnection gives Harvard's lobbyists a foot in thedoor, it is no guarantee of legislativesuccess--especially outside Massachusetts.

Even Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a HarvardMedical School graduate and one of theUniversity's strongest Republican allies in thepast, can't be seen to favor Harvard over those ofhis constituent colleges.

"We hear from Harvard as we would hear from anyother school," says Margaret Camp, a Fristspokesperson. "And Senator Frist seeks Harvard'sopinion no more than any other school."

All of this adds up to uncertain political pullfor Harvard acting alone, even among its mosttheoretically loyal groups.

The cause for this uncertainty? In the words ofone Ohio representative's assistant, "you dancewith those that brung you," meaning that everyrepresentative other than Joe Kennedy must ignoreeven Harvard if a constituent institution says so.

"The old days, if they ever existed, of Harvardcoming down, whispering in someone's ear andgetting results are decades gone by," Rowe says."That's...why you join the associations."

Finding Solutions

These "associations" are higher-educationlobbying groups like the American Association ofUniversities (AAU), representing 60 Americanresearch universities, and the American Council onEducation (ACE), a supergroup with members in thethousands.

"What's good for Harvard is often what's goodfor Ohio State, Williams and Smith," says TerryHartle, spokesperson for ACE. And from thisrealization springs a better way for highereducation to lobby.

Schools like Harvard join a number of groupslike the AAU and ACE, looking for large groupswith similar views on a particular issue. Or theycan form their own groups--Harvard and MIT formedthe Science Coalition in 1994 to press for moreresearch funding, and the group now has 60members.

In the fight against the Riggs Amendment,Harvard's views were shared by the ACE.

Group members then put pressure on their ownrepresentatives, making a combined difference thateven Harvard alone could not on a national scale.

"If our goal is legislative action, then welook to a coalition," says Jane H. Corlette, aCambridge-based Harvard lobbyist.

The problems with this strategy lie in keepingthe coalition together. On some issues wherelegislation could divide schools between publicand private or large and small, some institutionshave to swallow their objections or ambitions forthe good of the whole.

Rep. Frank Riggs (R-Cal.) tested this cohesionwhen, after being roundly outlobbied, he exemptedprivate universities from his attempt to eliminateaffirmative action. But Rudenstine and otherleaders were able to keep private schools in thefight--Rudenstine serving as a spokesperson forthe ACE as a whole.

"Members of Congress recognize that thepresident of Harvard speaks from a personal pointof view, but that [ACE speaks] for thousands ofinstitutions," says Beau Philipps, an aide toRiggs.

According to Nan Wells, Princeton's chiefWashington lobbyist, on issues of studentassistance, research funding and tax policy, thehigher education community looks to Harvard forleadership.

This leadership, they say, has been establishedby Rudenstine's rhetoric on these issues, as wellas a focused effort by Harvard's mission toWashington.

And lobbyists say this kind ofleadership--within associations, out of sight ofrepresentatives unwilling to take dictation fromHarvard--seems the best chance for the Universityto get its way on Capitol Hill.

"You say 'Who is on the committee? What are theright states? Then you use other universities asconstituent institutions," says Cambridge-basedlobbyist Kevin Casey. "You try to find ways tomake you matter and your views matter."Courtesy of the GazetteOPENING DOORS: Harvard lobbyists JANEH. CORLETTE (L) and NAN NIXON (R).