Election Sleaze

IMAGINE IF IN 1984, every citizen eligible to vote in the Presidential elections found a "Reagan in '84" bumper sticker and a letter from the Speaker of the House of Representatives accompanying their ballot explaining that, if a Democrat were elected President, it would fundamentally change our American way of life.

Imagine also that Ed Meese and George Bush were counting the votes.

This is essentially what is happening right now in the election for the Harvard Board of Overseers.

Last week, when the election ballots for the board were sent out, Chairman of the Board of Overseers Joan T. Bok enclosed a letter pointing out that this year three candidates have actively campaigned on the divestment issue. She gives her opinion that the board works best when its members do not press a particular policy and implies that the divestment candidates are not open-minded. Finally, she warns that if these candidates are elected, the overseers "will be a very different board than it has been heretofore."

Also included in this year's ballot mailing is a leaflet entitled "Harvard's Position with Respect to South Africa."

Bok, not related to President Derek C. Bok, claims her letter was "important to highlight once again the functions of the board and the role of the overseers," and that the letter states only her opinion. But the message is a warning, not a clarification; it was issued in an official, not a personal, capacity. Bok's letter, along with the anti-divestment flyer, constitute a totally inappropriate attempt to influence alumni through an official mailing.

The election of overseers is one of the few democratic institutions in the closed hierarchy that governs Harvard. As it is, running for the board is made difficult for candidates not nominated by the Harvard Alumni Association--which also counts the votes. Tampering with this isolated and ill-used democratic process demonstrates just how callous Harvard's heavy-handed decision-makers have become to concerns of fairness and democracy.

Furthermore, the Board of Overseers is hardly the seat of power in this University. To date, it has served a largely passive and advisory role to the seven-member Corporation. That three overseers on this board of 30 seems a threat to the sheltered bureaucrats that run Harvard indicates the tremendous importance they attach to discussion and dissent within the University.

Bok's egregious attempt to manipulate the election through an official Harvard mailing warrants an apology to all alumni. In addition, the University should give the three divestment candidates an opportunity to respond to Bok's propoganda by footing the bill for a mailing to all 190,000 alumni. Finally, to assure the community that the election will be conducted fairly, Harvard officials should invite outside observers more acquainted with democratic processes to monitor the collection and counting of ballots.

Bok's attempt to manipulate the election of overseers is a perfect example of the attitude divestment protesters have tried to dramatize by building an Ivory Tower in Harvard Yard. Harvard is ostensibly dedicated to promoting free and open debate. Yet there are few opportunities for members of the University community to influence decision-making processes and those that exist are treated as mere formalities.

The three divestment candidates are campaigning to bring the debate on divestment to a body where it has not yet been considered. In the end, the alumni voting in the Board of Overseers election will decide if the board is the appropriate place for that debate to take place. In the meantime, Harvard officials should pursue the ideal of a community dedicated to open discourse in whatever way possible, not lobby to stifle it.