Overseers' Elections: A Change In Politics

During Harvard's student protest of 1969, then President Nathan M. Pusey '28 came under fire from the University's Board of Overseers. Board members, increasingly dissatisfied with Harvard's heavy-handed response to the activism, called for major changes in University policy. The overseers, seen by many as a group of stodgy alumni, attempted to convert themselves into an efficacious governing body that could heal a divisive Harvard community.

"The overseers felt that if they were going to help clean the kitchen, they were going to have to help make the soup," recalls Yale history professor John Morton Blum '43, a former member of the Harvard Corporation.

They cooked a spicy broth.

An extraordinary period of politicization saw increased involvement of the overseers in day-to-day University affairs, particularly those concerning Vietnam War-era protests. But once involved in the issues of the day the overseers proved not to be immune from their impact. In 1970 came the election of Helen H. Gilbert, the first woman on the Board since it received its mandate in the 17th century to the oversee the chief University governing body, the Harvard Corporation. That same year also saw the attempt by two alumni to get a seat on the Board without the official nod of approval Harvard customarily gives overseer candidates.

In the intervening years some of the Vietnam-era changes have per- sisted. The official slate of candidates foroverseer is more diverse, including Blacks andwomen. And six times each year, the overseers holdday-long meetings to see where the Universitystands on issues ranging from the dining halls tothe faculty. But the Board does not take an activerole in determining University policy on activelydebated issues within community.

Yet the Board may once again find itselfimmersed in controversial policy issues. Somealumni favoring divestment are working toreinvigorate the Board by forcing it to considerissues of political import. Saying the overseersrepresent a chance for democracy in the governanceof Harvard, a group calling themselves AlumniAgainst Apartheid (AAA) will this week submitpetitions to get a slate of pro-divestmentcandidates on this year's overseers ballot.

The introduction of anti-apartheid candidatesfor the Board, which first happened last year,signals a major reappraisal of the Board's missionand an indication that politics is back in theballroom of 17 Quincy St, where the overseersmeet. But more significant, many observers saythat the introduction of issues a new era whereBoard members are more responsive to issues of theday.

"Everyone is elected [to the Board] forparticular reasons. These reasons run from thetrivial to the sublimely intellectual," said oneoverseer. Now the reasons may become overtlypolitical.

In last year's election, all three of thepro-divestment candidates received the necessarysignatures to be placed on the ballot sent to allgraduates. The insurgent candidates ran on thesame ballot with those selected by a Harvardcommittee, which each year nominates twice thenumber of candidates for the five spots that openup on the 30-member body. One "unofficial"candidate, Gay W. Sideman '78, was elected andseated on the Board this fall.

This year AAA plans to run a full slate of sixcandidates for the Board. (A resignation hasopened up one more spot on the Board, wheremembers usually serve for six years.) Thesecandidates bring impressive resumes as well as apro-divestment position to the race. They are: NewYork City Councilor Ruth Messenger '62. ConsulWashington, counsel to the House Committee onEnergy and commerce, Peter D. Wood '64, aprofessor of history at Duke University, VictorSidel, a physician and social activist, JeromeGrossman '38, an activist for liberal causes andMassachusetts businessman, and Harold Burns, viceprovost of the City College of New York.

The entrance of political candidates into theelection field has already effected one change. Inthe past, candidates for the Board have run ontheir personal accomplishments rather than onissue platforms. Candidate statements, which aresent in April to alumni in their ballot packets,read more like resumes than policy statements.That has changed. The pro-divestment campaign hasintroduced political issues to an election thathad been viewed as a quiet family affair.

"Now you have a new phenomenon which is like apolitical party. This is a very real campaign,"says Chester Hartman '57, a member of theexecutive committee of Alumni Against Apartheidwhich is organizing the pro-divestment slate.

But some question whether the Board cansuccessfully blend its role as an overseer ofHarvard, a 350-year-old institution, with aconsideration of politics of the moment.

The University's response to the politicizationof the Overseers election has been largely anegative one. In last year's election, thanPresident of the Overseers Joan T. Bok '51 sent aletter to all alumni warning that "specific issue"candidates, it elected, would irrevocably changethe nature of the overseers. It was later revealedthat President Bok, who is an ex officiomember of the Board, had asked Joan Bok (norelation) to write the letter.

This year, the Board has made no publicstatements concerning the pro-divestmentcandidates. But they have ignored requests fromAAA that they not aid the 12 official nominees.

Divestment activists say the University's"hostile" attitude toward the anti-apartheid slaterepresents a Tacit acknowledgement that politicsare playing an increasingly large role in theBoard's composition: welcome or not.

"Harvard is probably a little surprised becausethere are political issues being raised. Before itdidn't matter [to the University] who won. Nowthey have a situation where it does matter,"Hartman says.

Alumni against Apartheid last week charged thatthe University's interest in the election hasinterfered with the impartiality of electionprocedures. "What's happening is an unraveling,"says Hartman. "It's becoming clearer that they arenot just a neutral party. They can't be trusted to[run the election] right."

Observers close to the process say thatUniversity administrators have exerted anincreasingly heavy influence on the selection ofthe official candidates to the Board. Thecandidates are nominated by a 14-personsubcommittee of the Board. Members of thesubcommittee are chosen in part by the currentoverseers and in part by President Bok, butprimarily by the Harvard Alumni Association, whichalso serves the subcommittee in an advisorycapacity. In recent years, Harvard Vice Presidentfor Development and Alumni Affairs Fred L. Glimp'50 has been added as a non-voting member of thesubcommittee to advise the group as it selectsfrom some 500 nominations.

Some administrators say that the officialcandidates include several well-known, liberalalumni. Specifically they point to Sen. AlbertGore Jr. '69 (D-Tenn.) who is a strong advocate ofSouth African sanctions and Frances FitzGerald'61, who is a member of the editorial advisoryboard of the leftist political journal, TheNation.

Many overseers do not think the divestmentslates will have much affect on the Board. "Idon't think there's going to be a polarization onthe Board of Overseers," said Board member Jane C.Bradley '49. "Education is what were allabout--we're not about politics."

Most board members interviewed said that whilethe pro-divestment candidates may run onsingle-issue platforms, they thought thatcandidates whose abilities and interest wentbeyond divestment stood the best chance forsuccess. Says Bradley: "I would hop that all whoare going to run have the long-term goals of theinstitution at heart. It's okay to run onone-ticket, but I hesitate to think that anyonecould get elected on the basis of one issuealone."

The divestment issue will not change theBoard's role in serving the University, saysoverseer Peter C. Goldmark Jr. '62. The Board'smain function is to send visiting committees toreport on Harvard's various departments andfaculties.

Some pro-divestment activist have said thatbecause the Board has the constitutional mandateto restrict actions by the Corporation it coulduse its power to force Harvard to divest.

Yet even Sideman says she believes theOverseers functions most effectively in itsadvisory role. "The role of the overseers ispretty subtle. I don't think most people on theBoard would want major eruptions. I think theoverseers are much better at raising question thatin working in other ways."

Seidman said she felt that the entrance ofdivestment candidates into the overseers'elections increased discussion of apartheid.Divestment, infrequently discussed in the past,was placed on the agenda this fall at Seidman'sfirst meeting.

Even if the pro-divestment activists fail toforce Harvard to divest by running candidates forthe Board, they say such political issues areexactly the ones which the Board needs to beaddressing in order to adequately representHarvard's 200,000 alumni.

But there are those who doubt that the activistcan overcome the long tradition or cooperationbetween the overseers and the Corporation.

It has been more than 30 years since the Boardand the corporation have stood in direct conflict,as they would on the divestment issue if AAA hadits way. When Warburg professor of EconomicsEmeritus John Kenneth Galbraith's tenurenomination arrived on the overseers, desks, theBoard balked saying he was communist. Although theproposed tenure had been successfully sent throughnormal channels, awaiting only the Board'scustomary approval, members agreed to exercisetheir long-standing right to deny facultyappointments. The administration was appalled.

Then President James Bryant Conant '14 gave theoverseers a ultimatum. "They could grant Galbraithtenure or find a new president," Says Blum. TheOverseers backed down.

The Galbraith episode, an oft repeated piece offolklore, sounded the acquiescent tone which hasbecome the norm for the Board.

"If the Board was informed of decisions in the making,it was reasonably amicable situation" between theoverseers and the Corporation, said formeroverseer Maurio Lazarus, '37, President of FederatedDepartment store. At the time of the appointmentof President Bok [in 1971, the Board was keptappraised of the process so that there weren't anysurprises."

Concurs Blum: There was always a cooperativespirit between the chief bananas so we didn't haveany spoiled fruit."

The six non-official candidates for theBoard of Overseers, all members of the groupAlumni Against Apartheid, had to submit petitions(like the one pictured below) in order to gain aspot in this year's election.CrimsonYumi E. AndoGeyser University Professor and ActingPresident Henry Rosovsky (with pipe) leaves 17Quincy St. yesterday after the conclusion of theBoard of Overseers meeting.