An Interview With President Bok

The following are exerpts from a recent interview with President Bok conducted by Crimson reporters Paul M. Barrett and Robert M. McCord. This is the second of two parts.

Crimson: You implied in your recent open letter on race relations that the main obstacle to increasing racial diversity on Harvard's Faculty is that few members of minorities chose academic careers. How might Harvard act to reverse this trend so that greater diversity can be achieved on its Faculty?

Bok: Well, that's rather difficult. Of course there are some things you can do. We have scholarship money available. We even raise scholarship money specifically for minority graduate students. We have done a fair amount of recruiting. We have taken a number of other measures that you could inquire into more specifically, because they are highly detailed, from the graduate school office. The reason it is difficult is because, number one, we don't have very much power over the career choices of students. You may be able to persuade a student who wants to do Ph.D. work to come here instead of some other university. It's quite another matter to persuade students who think they want to be lawyers that they really should get a Ph.D. It's also an undertaking one can pursue only so far because it is a fact that the job prospects for Ph.D.s are not ood. It is a fact that the real income of professors across the country has been declining. In the face of these undeniable truths, one could not in good conscience go too far twisting arms to get people to leave these professions and pursue a Ph.D.

Crimson: In a related area of concern, the recently released Minority and Women Faculty Study stated that there is a large pool of qualified female academics but that Harvard has not done enough to recruit women Faculty members. Do you agree, and what are your plans to increase the number of tenured women Faculty?

Bok: I'm very optimistic about the prospects for increasing the number of tenured women. Over the last ten years, we have been recruiting our Faculty primarily from an age cohort in which the proportion of the women Ph.D.s was probably at its lowest ebb in this century... Now, a much larger proportion of women have gone through graduate school, and the period of junior faculty service...so that the pool of women Faculty available to us for tenure positions is likely to rise appreciably... That is already having an impact. We are now beginning to see three or four tenured women appointments a year. Those appointments are going to have a very significant impact as they accumulate. I would put it even more positively than that... In this unfavorable environment, the only optimistic note is that women are entering academic life in larger numbers. That is the one new major source of academic talent that we have.

Crimson: Sociologist Theda Skocpol, whom some describe as a leader in her field, was recently denied tenure. She has since filed a complaint saying she was discriminated against because she is a woman. Would you care to comment on her case?

Bok: No, because the case is actively under review, and it's quite conceivable that I will be involved in that review.

Crimson: Discussing the economic impact of Harvard in a global sense, the Corporation decided not to invest in banks which make direct loans to South Africa.

Bok: Yes.

Crimson: You said recently, that Harvard should reconsider this policy because some American banks make loans to South Africa for humanitarian projects, such as schools and hospitals for Blacks. In reconsidering this policy, how would you determine whether these loans were simply freeing up money for more oppressive projects or institutions?

Bok: Well I don't know. As other difficult problems, one would have to investigate it. And I don't know what the answer is, so when I say reconsider. I mean reconsider. It is not a code word for necessarily changing our policy. But...if you say that loaning money to South Africa for building hospitals or schools for Blacks simply free up money which they say they can then use for defense or for the police force, you are assuming something very strange. That is that if the South African government couldn't get those loans that they would have to spend their money on schools and hospitals for Blacks, while sacrificing the budgets for police and defense. That is a very strange assumption...for the opponents of South Africa to make...Opponents believe, and I think I would agree, that those hospitals and schools for Blacks are not the highest priority for the South African government... In our efforts to strike out at somebody, to satisfy ourselves that we are making some decisive move, we may inadvertantly be striking out against higher standards of living...for Blacks. There is, of course, one other school of thought, which I would want to acknowledge...and indicate my vigorous opposition. That is. "Let's keep those schools from being built. That will increase the level of discontent and maximize the possibility of rebellion, and that's the way we'll get rid of apartheid." I think that may be a judgement that Black South Africans are free to make, but I do not think that's a responsible judgement for people sitting in the United States.

Crimson: Do you have any idea about what percentage of American loans are now being made for humanitarian projects?

Bok: None whatsoever.

Crimson: The Advisory Committee on shareholder responsibility has recommended that all future divestments, such as the one involving Citibank last October, be publicized at the time that they occur. Do you support that recommendation?

Bok: I haven't studied the recommendation, so I'm not in a position to comment.

Crimson: Do you think it is a good step to have all major divestments from South Africa publicized?

Bok: Well, that depends on how you're going to publicize it. If you're going to say. "Is Harvard afraid to admit what it has done?" No. If you are going to say. "Should Harvard wage a publicity campaign in order to try to pressure these banks?" I would say, no. That's not why I divest these loans. I divest those loans because I am uncomfortable that Harvard's money is being used for those purposes. I am not advocating that policy because I think Harvard ought to use its economic muscle to force corporations into changing their policy. I don't advocate that course for two reasons. One is that I think it is a fruitless policy. Harvard doesn't have the leverage to have that kind of impact. Secondly, I think it ill behooves an institution that is founded on the premise of keeping outside organizations from putting pressure on it to then turn around to use its economic assets to try to put pressure on other organizations. If Harvard pursues that policy. I will predict that you will find greatly increased pressures on Harvard's academic issues.

Crimson: Last fall, the Corporation decided that Harvard should not own shares in a company that used University-owned patents in the manufacture of drugs using recombinant DNA. At that time you said that such commercial ventures "can be structured in ways consistent with Harvard's academic values." Under what conditions--

Bok: I didn't say definitely they could be. I said it is possible they could be, but that until we are sure that they can be, we shouldn't enter into such arrangements because of the risks we run with academic values. That is an important difference because I am still not at all sure that you can structure such arrangements in a [satisfactory] manner.

Crimson: Are you at all constrained by your position as president of Harvard when you respond to the kind of ethical and policy questions that we have been discussing?

Bok: I don't think so...On these issues. I have felt free to express my own views, without feeling that somehow my job gets in the way... If there was a sustained and significant difference between my ethical feeling and what I was forced to do as president. I would not remain as president.