Overseers Support Public Inquiry into Faculty Acts

The principle of academic freedom must not limit the right of public inquiry into all activities at a university, the Board of Overseers said in their annual report, it was learned yesterday.

The maintenance of academic freedom rests upon public consent," the board said in a special statement included in last year's report of its visiting committees.

"We believe that it is sound policy to insist upon the rights of the public, in one way or another, to be informed of the acts of private institutions." The men explained that "it is from public authority that Harvard derives its charter and its freedom from taxation."

The Overseers, who form the top governing body of the University, are elected by the alumni as their representatives. Composed mostly of laymen, the board has the final say on all matters of "major policy" and permanent appointments.

Bradford Heads Committee

Robert F. Bradford '23, former governor of Massachusetts, headed the four-man group which wrote the statement.

The statement stressed that the Overseers, as representatives of the public, cannot "subordinate or waive their legal powers and duties in deference to academic custom, however wise and beneficent such custom may be as the result of experience and long tradition developed under lay control."

The report makes clear that the Overseers do not wish to interfere in the operations of the faculty committees or to act for the University's administrative officers. But at the same time, the laymen trustees should know fully what is going on and "give or withhold consent, having the interests of society and of the University in view."

Free Faculty Committee

The Overseers, according to the Bradford statement, must have nothing to do with the appointment of the faculty committees which help formulate the professors' attitudes on University policy.

The statement implies that the Overseers, while holding the final say, must understand the democratic fashion by which the faculty reaches its decisions. The faculty at its meetings debates issues with all members being allowed to speak before an action is taken.

In the actual wording of the report, the Overseers must "inform themselves of the many customs and traditions which have strengthened scholarship and society, and especially the tradition of freedom of thought and expression."

In explaining the role of the Overseers, the Bradford group mentions that "public authority" has made them the representatives of society. The board, in judging actions, must consider the University "as a servant of society in the broad sense," the report concludes.

Reason for Policy Restatement

The reason for this restatement of policy is that today many important matters would not normally be decided by the Overseers, although they are the highest authority at Harvard. When it comes to policies on student discipline, course offerings, and admission and degree requirements, unwritten practice gives the decision to the individual faculty involved.

But the Overseers, as this statement makes clear, are prepared to enter into a controversy and reverse the faculty if the need arises. The recent de-emphasis of geography at the College occurred when the Department of Geology decided not to offer a program for honors in the field of geography.

When severe complaints were received because of this decision, the Overseers did not consider it the slightest abridgement of academic freedom for their board to investigate the faculty decision.

The Overseers are the one group which holds this review power without restriction at the University. The decision over geography may have disturbed administrators in positions above the Geology Department, but no recourse was open to them.

In actual practice, the Overseers let the faculty have its way on most questions, even if the board reviews its conclusions. But this statement of the Bradford group emphasizes that the board does not want common practice to decrease the width of its unlimited power.