Zeroing In The Presidency: Going Underground?

THERE is a peculiar paradox in the latest list of 23 names currently being considered for the Harvard presidency. While it represents a very clear and definitive survey of the remaining candidates, the list must be seen only as a beginning, not an end. The list has been nine months in the making. For the most part it is the result of an arduous and painstakingly open narrowing of over 900 nominations. But it is important to note that many university search committees start with 23 names, and the Corporation's current plans to "go underground" for a final decision jeopardizes the trust which many have put in the Corporation's search to date.

When the search committee was still unchosen early this year, the Faculty unanimously passed a resolution on February 10 asking the Corporation to include at least one Faculty member on the new search committee. Explaining that this would lead to the selection of a representative from each of the nine faculties, the Corporation rejected the proposal. Coupled with the rejection, however, were several assurances of Faculty participation. At the very least, the Corporation said the final nominee would be placed before the Faculty Council. But that was only a minimum: the Corporation promised consultations with students and Faculty at each step of the way. The pattern for these consultations was set out in a letter to students, alumni and Faculty early last Spring, which heavily implied that the decision would come only after a thorough and open search.

The preliminary consultations are over, but there are now strong indications that the Corporation will soon cut off the open debate and make the final decision in the same isolation as before. The latest pretext offered for such a move comes from Corporation member Charles Slichter, who sternly warned the Committee on Governance that "the fact that this list has been published as a list of candidates throws open the whole selection process and may make new ground rules necessary."

IT IS probable that the new ground rules have been in the works for a long time. Even before the list was published, Mr. Burr had spoken of going underground. And both today's list and the previous one of 69 were semi-public several days before publication. On at least one occasion, members of the Corporation referred a group of students to the CRIMSON for a look at the lists.

Surely the Corporation must have expected copies of the list to appear. The melodramatic shock at their release and resultant threat to change the rules now that the search committee is getting serious only nurtures skepticism over the Corporation's good intentions.

Corporation members cannot be blind to the fact that the search will decide not only the new president but also their own sagging credibility. The long conversations with student and Faculty groups have so far convinced most people of the Corporation's sincerity and dedication. But these preliminary discussions are not a substitute for having student and Faculty representation at the time the decision is being made. It is not the sincerity, but the individual perspectives of the five-man Corporation that are in question.

The lists of names presented to student and Faculty groups have been too bulky for any detailed discussion of specific candidates. Often the lists have been incomplete. In some cases, the suggested names have been misleading; for instance, Mr. Nickerson last week asked a group of students to comment on four persons, two of whom had been dropped from consideration.

The Corporation is fearful that continuing the extensive dialogue through the final stages of the search might be both unwieldy and crippling in the amount of misdirected time involved. The alternative-closing off consultation altogether or keeping it within a closed circle of trusted friends on the Faculty-is equally as crippling. Both the Faculty Council and the University Committee on Governance are representative enough to serve as spokesmen for the students and Faculty whenever the Corporation believes it necessary to narrow its circles of consultation. If the Corporation does intend to renege on its promise to place the final nominee before the Faculty Council, each group might still choose two representatives to sit in on the last Corporation meetings. Even in a non-voting capacity, they can provide a representative internal view.

The list of 23 remains a diverse collection of candidates. In the last analysis, it will make a great difference whether the president is Carl Kaysen or Alexander Heard, for instance, Professor Meselson or Rosenblatt. These are the kinds of distinctions that can not be made in short conversations; perhaps they can only be made in the last Corporation meetings. But they are distinctions which ought to be made with the same eye toward Faculty and student opinion that has marked the preliminary discussions.