Board of Overseers Electioneering

To the Editors of The Crimson:

The reaction of alumni to the crass (and possibly illegal) "electioneering at the polls" by Overseers President Joan Bok is understandably widespread and vitriolic. Some specific aspects of and questions about the various enclosures to the Overseers ballots perhaps are worth highlighting, however.

The sheer amount of electioneering material, subtle and not so subtle, is striking. First, a postcard (sent first class) from A. Bronson Thayer, President of Alumni Association, alerting us to the pending arrival of the ballots and urging a large turnout. Has this ever been done before? (I recall no such instance.) It's a mighty big expenditure, too--190,000 cards at $00.14 for postage alone, likely over $30,000 adding in printing costs.

Second, a covering letter from James N. Bailey, Chairman of the Nominating Committee for Overseers candidates, making a clear distinction between the 10 candidates proposed by his Committee (whose process he extols in two long paragraphs) and the three "self-nominates" candidates, who merit three lines. (And that phrase "self-nominated" is pretty cute in itself--it's pejorative, echoing similar journalistic devices like "self-proclaimed" and "self-styled," as well as untrue: they were nominated by 800 of their fellow alumni, as the procedures call for.)

Mr. Bailey's covering letter is somewhere between humorous and self-deluded. In praising the 10 official nominees, he carefully notes that the 13 persons on his Nominating Committee "represent a diversity of backrounds and experience." Perhaps. But on the evidence of what they produced, they either did not follow through on the logic of their diversity is pretty myopic: of the ten official nominees, nine are either current of retired CEO's, chairs or partners in investment banking, real estate, law firms, and other large corporations. Not a single one of the candidates says a word about divestment, which The New York Times (April 5, 1986) referred to as "the biggest campus issue since the end of the Vietnam War." Rather, we get from the official candidates such platitudes as "To maintain Harvard's preeminence in today's rapidly changing world will reqUire the continuing support from one of Harvard's greatest resources, its alumni/ae."

Finally, a letter from Overseers Secretary Robert Shenton, highlighting the enclosed "brief, factual description" of Harvard's policies on South Africa, all backing Mrs. Bok's letter. As has been cogently demonstrated by others, the Harvard description is not so objectively factual; it is, rather, in the sense Mr. Shenton did not intend, a "brief," and as such ought properly to have been accompanied by an answering brief.

Said position paper is unsigend. Was it prepared by the Administration? And if so, do they not bear equivalent responsibility with Mrs. Bok for the electioneering?

Whose decision was it to electioneer? According to President Derek Bok (The Crimson, April 15), Mrs. Bok wrote her letter on her own initiative. Is it credible that there was no consultation and assent by the University administration? What role did other Overseers play in this decision? Are there any rules that govern Overseers acitons in the elections and the role of the President?

Lastly, a few observation/questions about the contents of Mrs. Bok's letter. She states, "the issue at stake is not one that should be resolved casually or decided by a small minority of Harvard undergraduates?" Why then have such elections? The statement is particularly bizarre in light of her statement earlier in the letter that it is the Corporation, not the Overseers, that decides investment policies (and if the Overseers are powerless in this matter, why the great effort to see that the divestment slate loses?) What would be less democratic that the six-person, self-perpetuating Harvard Corporation?

Sadly, the University's actions raise real questions about how much confidence alumni can have in the results of the balloting. Quite simply: how do we know they will not cheat? It is terribly simple to do so--ballots can be discarded, invalidated, remarked, and no one will ever know. A University Administration and Board of Overseers that have gone to such unprecedented lengths to influence the results of an election they are administering cannot be entrusted to tabulate the results of that election fairly. Should the AAA slate fail, I for one will never be fully convinced that the same unprincipled actions that led to electioneering did not also characterize the vote count. Chester W. Hartman, '57, PhD '67