Bok on the Record

On Technology Transfer

...many forms of technology transfer not only benefit the economy but offer opportunities to the university for new sources of income... The dangers of technology transfer to the quality of academic science are equally clear. They are four in number. First of all, the prosepect of reaping financial rewards may subtly influence professors in choosing which problems they wish to investigate... The second concern is that professors may be diverted from any form of research (and teaching) in order to perform other tasks involved in the process of technological development... The third danger is the risk of introducing secrecy into the process of scientific research... The fourth and final danger is a threat to the quality of leadership and ultimately to the state of morale within the scientific enterprise. As we have already noted, the traditional ideal of science was based on a disinterested search for knowledge without ulterior motives of any kind. --Annual Report for 1979-80, April 1981 On "The Federal Government and the University"

Because higher education has become so centra' to our culture, government is more and more inclined to intervene in order to make certain that our colleges and universities serve the public well. Yet we know that government can easily clasp education in a deadly embrace that stifles its creativity and vigor...   --Public Interest, Winter 1980

Affirmative Action in Admissions of Undergraduates:

The opportunities for minority students to contribute to the understanding of their fellow students and to the welfare of society as a whole seem sufficiently important to us to justify an effort to enroll a significant number of applicants from these racial groups. This policy leads us to admit some minority students with prior grades and test socres somewhat below those of other applicants whome we must run aside... This does not mean that we should admit persons who are not well qualified to meet our academic standards, nor does it mean that we should fix some predetermined goal or quota for minority students or for any other category or group. All applicants must be evaluated as individuals, and attention must be paid in each case to all of the characteristics and qualities that relate to our educational goals. In making these assessments, however, we cannot rely exclusively on prior grades and test scores, since these criteria clearly fail to provide a sufficiently reliable or comprehensive means of helping us to achieve our objectives.   --Open letter, February 27, 1981

On "Reverse Discrimination":

Question:

If you pick out a student and give him preference because he is a member of a racial minority, would you be willing to call that reverse discrimination?

Bok: You can attach any label you want. I think it is designed to enhance the educational process and to chance the contributions wich graduates of the institution will make. I do not apologize for it. I defend it. We can attack anything by attaching labels. But I don't think labels really get at the subtler process of how we admit students in ways that will enhance our contribution and the educational experience those students undergo.   --Meet the Press, November 28, 1976

On THE CIA on Campus

In our guidelines we do ask our faculty and staff members, because of professional obligations and their voluntary relationship with other members of the academic community, to forego rights that they otherwise have as citizens (i.e. "the gathering of intelligence nd other covert activities on behalf of the CIA"). We made this request because we concluded that the practices in question are inconsistent with the nature of a university community and the obligations of a member of the academic profession. Covert recruiting by university personnel and its attendant practices bring a new and disturbing element into the relationships among members of the academic community, represent a serious intrusion of the government into our campus classrooms, and violate the privacy of individuals within the community. The use of a professor for operational purposes while he is abroad for academic purposes, suchj as attending a conference in his field, is simply a use of the academic profession as a cover and consequently compromises the integrity of the profession and casts doubts on the true purposes of the activities of all academics.   --Letter to CIA Director Adm. Stansfield Turner December 5. 1977

On Third World Center Proposals:

My reaction to such proposals is much influenced by the form that such a project might take. One could conceive of the Center as a physical facility serving some sort of cultural and recreational resource, nominally open to all students but effectively used almost exclusively by minorities. I would not want to forbid this type of facility any more than I would wish to deny the right of any group of students with similar interests or backgrounds to gather together informally in pursuit of common interests. On the other hand, I do not advocate investing Harvard's resources in such a project. Why any group is free to gather and socialize as it chooses. Harvard's aim is to encourage interchange among all types of students. As a result. I would not attach a high priority to any project that might serve, at least symbolically, to emphasize a separation between different races...

On the other hand, one can conceive of another type of organization with the primary mission of improving racial understanding at Harvard and supporting activities and programs that bring the the entire community a greater appreciation of other cultural perspectives and traditions. It is this model that has recently been proposed by the committee chaired by Peter Gomes which recommends 'that Harvard University establish a foundation devoted to the improvement of relations among racial and ethnic groups within the University.'

If there is genuine interest in this project, I will advocate support for the enterprise--modestly at the beginning but more substantially over time if the effort attracts sustained commitment and achieves constructive results.   --Open letter, February 27, 1981

On the Ethical Responsibilities of a University--

Universities are designed to achieve particular purposes. Their special mission is the discovery and transmission of knowledge...their institutional goal is not to reform society in specific ways. Universities have neither the competence to administer foreign policy, set our social and economic priorities, enforce standards of conduct in the society, or carry out other social functions apart from learning and discovery...

...Learning and suffering are plainly matters of grave concern. We may justly feel impelled to give our time and effort as individuals to the struggle against these evils. We may also expect the University not to act deliberately to increase the suffering of others. But the principal issue before is whether we should go further and use the University as a means of expressing moral disapproval or as a weapon in our fight against injustice even if we threaten to injure the academic functions of the institution.   --Open Letter, March 9, 1979

On Academic Freedom--

In recent weeks, we have witnessed an active debate over a candidate proposed as Professor of Economics and Director of the Harvard Institute for International Development IIIID)... Despite the opposition. I have supported the search committee's decision that its candidate was the person best qualified for the position. Nevertheless, the candidate has informed us that he cannot accept our occer for reasons unrelated to the recent controversy. Thus. the relevant issue for Harvard now is not whether his behavior was morally right or wrong or whether his economic views were correct or not but whether such economic, political, and moral judgments are ever appropriate matters to consider in making an appointment of this kind... In principle, almost all universities have come to oppose efforts to apply such...judgments to decisions involving academic employment... To put the point affirmatively, academic institutions are dedicated to the discovery and transmission of knowledge and are committed to the view that suchj efforts will proceed best in an atmosphere of intellectual freedom where teachers and scholars need not fear that their careers will be endangered by embracing controversial opinions or ideas...

By now...most thinking people recognize that a university does not necessarily endorse the views or the behavior or its professors and that any academic institution dedicated to freedom of thought will include faculty members whose opinions seem unwise or irresponsible even to its own administration and trustees.   --Open Letter. April 11, 1980

On Accepting Gifts

All universities depend heavily on donations--from individuals, foundations, corporations, and even governments. Such gifts rarely present a moral problem. But disputes occasionally airse, either because donors seek to achieve improper objectives through their gifts or because they have previously acted in ways that seem reprehensible. Although such controversies have occurred over many decades, little effort has been made to consider the subject with care....

In one group of cases, however, the lines have become reasonably clear. This category consists of situations in which donors seek to attach conditions to their gifts that invade what Justice Frankfurter once termed the "four essential freedoms of the university"--"to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study."

...In and of itself, the act of accepting a donation does not imply an endorsement of the views or actions of the benefactor.   --Open Letter, May 4, 1979

On Boycotts

A number of student groups have urged the University in the past five years to stop buying goods from firms embroiled in public controversies--Gallo Wines, J.P. Stevens, and the Nestle Corporation among others.

Several objections can be made against refusing to buy from firms on social or ethical grounds. Because of the infinite variety of corporation activities and practices, it would be difficult to develop consistent standards to determine when a company's behavior was sufficiently objectionable to merit this treatment. Such an effort would also raise extremely difficult and divisive questions. If an university health service purchases abortion services from a neighboring clinic, some people may claim that it is subsidizing murder while others will insist that the practice is legitimate, and perhaps even obligatory...

If universities claim the right to pressure others to do what they believe is morally right, we must acknowledge that all sorts of organizations and groups may likewise feel impelled to turn the screw in behalf of standards that they consider to be important and just... The risk of abuse is so great that it seems wiser for private organizations to leave to public agencies the task of imposing standards of corporate behavior. For all its impertections,' the government is at least responsible to the voters and subject to the procedural requirements and all the other safeguards that our constitutional system provides.   --Open letter. May 18, 1979

On Curriculum Reforms--

There is wide agreement today that the General Education program lacks a clear sense of purpose and permits students to sample from too large and varied an assortment of courses... To remedy this problem, faculty committees have urged that the General Education program be replaced by a core curriculum... Some critics may attack the core curriculum for restricting freedom of choice. In discussions both in Cambridge and around the country. I have found a noticeable difference of opinion on this issue. Undergraduates often argue that they should have the right to choose for themselves and that no single set of requirements can fit the needs of such a diverse group of students. Parents and alumni are more likely to feel that students lack the experience to assume full responsibility for selecting their course of study and that the College should take steps to insure that they are exposed to subjects of fundamental importance. This is a perennial debate, and the proposal strikes a judicious balance. Although the new curriculum provides more structure than the existing General Education program, the core itself will take up only a quarter of the entire undergraduate program, and students will be free to choose among several courses in each required category.   --Annual report for 1976-77, March 17, 1978