On Two Fronts: Questions of Control

Overseer Letter

Harvard-Radcliffe Alumni Against Apartheid's (HRAAA) fight to force the University's divestment from its South African-related investments is far from over, but the activist group this week claimed a small victory against the administration.

According to a letter obtained this week, Harvard Alumni Assocation (HAA) officials are prepared to make "more than the usual effort" to ensure that their candidates for the Board of Overseers win over HRAAA's five "dissident" candidates.

For the last four years, HRAAA has independently nominated candidates for the 30-member alumni governing board in an effort to force a vote on the University's current "selective divestment" policy. This year, their slate includes South African Archbishop Desmond M. Tutu, whom most say is a shoe-in to win a seat.

At least officially, though, the University has said it does not want to politicize the Overseers election process. When President Derek C. Bok authorized a mailing endorsing the HAA slate over the independent candidates two years ago, he was widely criticized, and few expected any more such efforts.

Yet in this week's letter, HAA overseer candidate Peter L. Malkin '55 said University officials were concerned that Tutu's election would "play havoc with the administration of Harvard." HAA was set for electioneering, and HRAAA members said they welcomed the discussion.

"The petition slate of candidates was actually electioneering for votes, something which had not come to my attention before," Malkin said in an interview. "Frankly, I was rather surprised by that."

"I think it's fine that they're electioneering," said HRAAA member Herbert Gleason, who received Malkin's letter.

HRAAA--which nominates candidates through petition drives--has always relied on highly public media campaigns. They announced this year's slate at a press conference at Bok's Mass Hall front door, and have already mailed letters to some 35,000 alumni.

And Malkin said he only acted because he had received a similar letter from Professor of Law Derrick A. Bell, endorsing Tutu on official Harvard stationary. Malkin said he was especially angered because such official endorsements are against Law School policy.

Whatever the reason, HRAAA succeeded in--if nothing else--goading University and alumni officials into electioneering, something they had hoped not to do.

Still, what significance this victory will have is unclear, considering that many of HRAAA's so-called triumphs have been short-lived.

After HRAAA candidates won three overseer seats in two years, they came up empty last year. The divestment movement was slowly dying on campus, and HRAAA couldn't stir up the kind of controversy that won seats for Overseers Peter H. Wood '64 and Gay W. Siedman '78.

HAA had meanwhile taken to nominating famous candidates whose high profiles guaranteed them overseer seats. With Transportation Secretary Elizabeth H. Dole, former Democratic Party Chair Paul G. Kirk '60 and actor John Lithgow '67 on this year's official slate, HRAAA needed somebody like Tutu--a Nobel Peace Prize winner--just to stay alive.

Attempts by HRAAA's vocal minority on the Board to force a vote on divestment have also failed. After four years, the only substantial University response was a reform proposal which would make it more difficult for future independent candidates to be nominated.

And though Tutu will likely win his bid, many play down the impact he would have as an overseer. Even HRAAA activists concede the South African political figure will be hard-pressed to attend the five annual overseer meetings in Cambridge.

HRAAA director Robert P. Wolff '54 has often said he can't wait until Bok tries to tell Tutu why complete divestment is bad for South African Blacks. But if the issue is never considered, and Tutu rarely attends meetings, Wolff may never see his prophecy realized.

For the moment, HRAAA is content with having forced the University into political play and knowing that at least one of their candidates will win a seat this year.

The activists have secured at least a momentary victory. Whether they can finally achieve their political goal, however, remains to be seen.