Behind Closed Doors

IT HASN'T BEEN AN EASY YEAR for Harvard's administrators. From the John F. Kennedy School of Government to Massachusetts Hall to 17 Quincy St., some of the University's highest officials have found their time occupied by angry students, faculty and alumni. Patent administrative blunders and muddled thinking have caused some of the worst behavior by Harvard's leaders, rocked the University with controversy and exposed a severe governance problem at our institution.

First, there was the CUE Guide controversy in the fall, when an administrator in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences thought it would be better if students weren't informed of their peers' opinions of certain professors. So he censored the write-ups of several courses, omitting student criticism of the faculty members and ignoring the pleas of the guide's student editors.

Then, there was the South African internship program, proposed by President Derek C. Bok in an open letter released in late September. The program, which would send interested Harvard students to serve as interns in South African educational institutions that help Blacks, came under fire in the winter. Harvard continued to support the program, dismissing student and faculty criticism, until it became obvious that those the University hoped to help-South African Blacks--didn't want the interns. The University cancelled the program in March.

A third controversy broke out just before Spring Break. Lawyers and public servants around the nation had a hearty laugh when Kennedy School Dean Graham T. Allison '62 announced that his school of government would award Attorney General Edwin Meese III a medal for distinguished public service. Allison eventually was forced to apologize to students and faculty at the school for his unilateral decision to honor Meese, who quite clearly does not merit such an award.

Finally the University became embroiled in perhaps the largest controversy this year when it included a letter by Board of Overseers President Joan T. Bok '51 (no relation to Derek Bok) in the official election packet for that governing body, which is sent to all alumni. That letter criticized the campaign of three graduates running for the board by petition and on a pro-divestment platform. A blatant attempt to influence the election, the letter elicited strong protests from alumni. Yet, not only did University officials defend their misguided attempt to tamper with an election, Derek Bok failed to present his whole involvement in the decision to send the letter. No until the press confronted him with the facts, did he acknowledge that he actually asked Joan Bok to send the letter.

Meanwhile, the University continues to refuse to divest from companies that do business in South Africa, despite the growing bloodshed and oppression in that racially divided nation by the white minority government. The University has shunned discussing that issue with interested members of the Harvard community. Instead, students, faculty, alumni and staff have been forced to build a symbolic shanty in the Yard and takeover buildings, in order to remind University officials of the regime Harvard's investments support.

What these examples show is a University leadership that refuses to listen to the criticisms or the suggestions of other members of the Harvard community. Instead, our leaders have become a little clique stumbling their way to haphazard solutions to problems that concern all of us. Rather than listen to the advice of students, faculty, alumni and staff, these leaders make unilateral decisions that harm the University, thereby keeping from the overall goal we all share--the advancement of knowledge.

If we could trust the leaders of this University to listen to other opinions perhaps we could continue with the present system of governance at Harvard. But this past year has left us with doubt in our leaders' ability to listen to criticism. All members of the Harvard community need a voice, and its become clear that those at the top of this University have ignored the cries of the less powerful.

Consider the internship program. Rather than talk with the people of South Africa, who Harvard was ostensibly trying to help, the University prescribed their own solution to the problem of apartheid. And when students and faculty revealed that the program did not meet the needs of Blacks, Harvard ignored their criticism. That is until some of the most eminent South Africans, including Desmond M. Tutu joined people in attacking the Harvard internship idea.

But the internship program is only a small part of the broad issue of divestment. Although its becoming more and more clear that opposition to divestment is no longer a viable position, it still is true that reasonable people could oppose such a move by the University. However, those people, of whom many are Harvard administrators, should not be afraid to debate the issue openly with members of our community who disagree. Rather than trying to influence an election where some candidates are running on a pro-divestment platform, Harvard should listen to alumni on this issue. And, the Overseers, rather than being afraid to debate that issue on the floor of their meetings, should welcome the opportunity to open their minds through discussion of the issue. It would probably liven up that petrified body.

The University should not be afraid of an open discussion of the matter of divestment. That is why we support the move of several alumni to include the issue on the agenda of the annual meeting of the Harvard Alumni Association, which is this afternoon. When the meeting is called to order by the association president all those who support openess, whether they favor divestment or not should shout "open the doors," thereby letting Harvard's officials and the watching world know that we will no longer let the University be run by a closed administration.

But the letter by Joan Bok brings forward more than just issues of governance, it makes us wonder exactly what goes behind the closed doors of our governing bodies. It's been more than two months since alumni protested the inclusion of that letter in the election packet and the Harvard community still does not know the whole story behind the decision to write it. Indeed new facts are being revealed each day. The University should not wait until alumni sue before it releases the minutes of Overseers meetings--it is a responsibility it owes all members of the community. Meetings of the governing bodies of Harvard need to be open. There should be no secrets at a university, because all of us are concerned with the same goal--education.

In addition, senior administrators should not make unilateral decisions that affect us all as was the case with the Meese medal, when Allison ignored a faculty committee already set up to award the medals, and with the CUE guide, when Dean K. Whitla overruled the student editors.

Geyser University Professor Henry Rosovsky, now a member of the seven-man Corporation, used to tell students that they were only here for four years, he was here for life and the University was here forever. We don't accept that twisted logic; all of us are concerned about the future of Harvard and more significantly, the advancement of learning.

We are all members of the same community at Harvard, and we want it to continue expanding the minds of generations to come. The University won't be able to that, however, if it refuses to expand its own mind right now to the voices of others.