More Oversight, Please

WITH ITS Orwellian name, lofty charge to review the decisions of Harvard's seven-man governing Corporation, and limited authority, the Board of Overseers is regarded widely as a small joke with a big title. The group seldom does anything more substantial than author reports on Harvard's more obscure departments. That's why apathy at first seems. like an appropriate response to the attempts by some administrators to interfere with its up-coming election.

Of course, there's something inherently ridiculous about a board that does not prevent electioneering by those it nominally oversees. But the board's inefficacy highlights disturbing truths about the state of decision-making at Harvard.

The ivory tower that stands amid shanties in the Yard supposedly symbolizes Harvard's insulation from a world of broader concerns. The recent electioneering highlights the extent to which Harvard has been captured by those who act in its name.

For quite a while it seemed the President of the Board of Overseers, Joan T. Bok '51, had singlehandedly set out to undermine the pro-divestment campaigns of three aspiring board members. Joan Bok sent a letter to alumni which cautioned them not to vote for candidates who--like the three divestment activists--base their bids on opposition to a particular University policy. She signed the letter and included in the official election package which contained the ballots.

Several weeks ago, however, it became clear that President Derek C. Bok himself made the decision to send the letter. "I then spoke with Joan Bok about her sending a letter and fully approved the contents of the letter eventually sent," Derek Bok wrote in response to a question submitted by The Crimson.

Derek Bok, who is no relation to Joan Bok, and his cadre of vice presidents guard power so jealously that they not only exclude students from University decision-making but also seek to put a stranglehold on review boards that are no more menacing than luncheon clubs.

PERHAPS THIS would not concern anyone if episodes this year did not clearly suggest that the professional administrators have made expediency the end of Harvard policy. Derek Bok nearly sent Harvard interns to all-white South African prep schools and other institutions that bolster apartheid as what administrators called an educational initiative to benefit South Africa's Blacks.

Administrators promised that a long-needed review of the College's disciplinary system, which was supposed to yield results this spring, will be completed next year. A three-month investigation of the use of CIA funding by a government professor who gave the agency the right to review and censor his work concluded without even determining if University rules applied in the case.

It goes without saying that these decisions invite criticism. But at a university where administrators answer only to one another, it's easy to wonder if anyone is voicing those criticisms.

It's clear that the overseers who spend six afternoons a year in Cambridge are supportive friends of Harvard. And--with resumes that would make the CEOs of the Fortune 500 seethe with envy--one imagines the University regards them with affection, too. The overseers aren't the best group to bring critical gazes and a diversity of opinion to the review of Harvard's action.

There is no reason to believe that a university that apparently fears proud peers of the Establishment like the overseers will allow a more diverse--and therefore potentially more rambunctious--group a decision-making role. The overseers at least have a place in the Harvard hierarchy and a forgotten charge to oversee the administration. Perhaps now that they are faced with a letter which must bring the administration's manipulative practices close to home, the overseers will examine their function here and take a more active role in University affairs.

The Boks' letter represents an attempt to tip the election away from the three pro-divestment candidates who gained spots on the ballot by petition and toward their competition, which the University invited to run. Harvard--more accurately Derek Bok--either believes the "Company of Educated Men and Women" need to be told how to exercise their franchise or that Harvard has failed in its educational mission.

IF THE LATTER is true, then the University should consider a thorough revamping. But if that's not so, and the letter is just an example of the administration's concern that alumni can't vote without someone to tell them which lever to pull, then Derek Bok needs to be instructed of his error. Maybe then such paternalistic, unilateral decision-making will be avoided in the future.

The overseers whose election will be announced at Commencement can begin taking a constructive role here. They have a clear opportunity to serve their alma mater as more than marks in the credits column of some future fundraising drive. If they care for Harvard enough to hate its injustices, they must publicly condemn Derek Bok's action.