Cause for Hurrah?

THE Harvard Alumni Association's directors this week finally showed some scruples, agreeing to halt all "negative campaigning" in future elections for the Board of Overseers.

Last year, of course, those same officials waged a vicious campaign against overseers candidates nominated by the pro-divestment group, Harvard-Radcliffe Alumni Against Apartheid (HRAAA). As it had in past years, HRAAA was simply putting forward an independent slate of candidates to force the University's divestment from companies that do business in South Africa.

When HRAAA's campaign--spearheaded by the candidacy of Archbishop Desmond M. Tutu--gained steam, however, top Alumni Association officials launched a bitter attack against the group.

Alumni Association President Charles J. Egan '54 compared HRAAA's leader to former Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.), accusing him of exploiting Bishop Tutu to achieve his own ends. He also said HRAAA's candidates were "second-rate." At one point, Executive Director John P. Reardon '60 reportedly asked attendees of an Alumni Association meeting, "What's to keep them from nominating Fidel Castro next time?"

Egan and Reardon's actions last spring shamed the University. They turned the Alumni Association, which ostensibly represents all Harvard alumni, into their own political party. And while HRAAA is by no means innocent, it was the Alumni Association that made the elections the most bitter in recent memory.

This week's agreement to refrain from such personal attacks in future elections is long overdue, but Egan and Reardon should still be commended for their change of heart.

OF course, it is easy to be conciliatory when you already have the upper hand, and the Alumni Association's sudden switch may be more rooted in their newfound confidence that they have gained the advantage than in any real goodwill.

While Egan and Reardon were making headlines last year, Harvard officials quietly pushed through the Young Report, a controversial proposal that gives the University more control over future overseer elections. Under the plan, which will be implemented this year, the University will mail letters to alumni endorsing their official slate of candidates. The plan will also require HRAAA candidates to be listed as a group separately on the ballots, after the University candidates. Previously, they were listed in random order.

So thanks to the Young Report, the Alumni Association may not have to campaign against pro-divestment overseers candiates, since the elections will already be rigged in the University's favor.

This week's agreement could mark a good first step towards ending the University's monopoly over policy-making. But for an organization that has shown itself so resistant to openness, we can only hope the agreement is more than empty symbolism.