OUR AUTOCRACY

The most amazing and perhaps most important fact of the entire Baker catastrophe is brought to light in the letter from Langdon P. Marvin printed in the adjoining column. Mr. Marvin, at present an Overseer and one who has served nine years, makes the astounding statement that in the Baker case the Board of Overseers "was not consulted about or informed as to the situation."

If through all the recent years the Overseers have never been consulted on the merits of Professor Baker's case, who has presumed to turn down without discussion his requests for funds, his pleas for equipment, even his offers to raise funds himself for his work? Who, at the time when the apportionment of the $10,000,000 was made in the recent drive, was guilty of not even mentioning Professor Baker's requests to the Overseers?

Clearly the President and Fellows have been seriously at fault. It is true that they, comprising the Corporation, acted technically within their right in neglecting Professor Baker and his branch of the English Department. But here was a matter affecting in a most profound way Harvard policy, and although the Board of Overseers is responsible for the acts of the Corporation and may be consulted by it at any time and may alter its actions, yet in this case not one inkling of Baker's struggle was ever allowed to reach the Overseers, the elected representatives of the alumni.

Too often in recent years such autocratic action on the part of the President and Fellows has wrought lamentable situations. Less of a disposition to make arbitrary decisions and more of a tendency to consult alumni, faculty, and undergraduates in all matters of important University policy would do much to promote harmony in the Harvard family and to eliminate serious blunders.