Closed Doors

MEMBERS OF THE HARVARD COMMUNITY have been calling for a meeting with the Corporation for years. And for years President Derek C. Bok and his six cohorts have refused their requests. Friday in the face of a request from 23 community groups spearheaded by the Southern Africa Solidarity Committee (SASC), a request from the Undergraduate Council and 1100 letters from students, the Corporation once again refused to talk.

This high-handed rebuff is particularly disturbing because--as President Bok so often reminds demonstrators--the University is founded on the principle of the free exchange of ideas. The Corporation should not flee from open discussion.

Bok sent a letter to both the council and SASC explaining why the Corporation would not meet. His proposal to set up a committee to look into the possibilities for opening up dialogue is at best roundabout and at worst a cover-up of the refusal to meet. Bok's letter to SASC stated that "in ten years of contact with your organization I cannot say that I have ever detected much interest by SASC in putting forth a detailed argument in support of total divestment." That's just absurd.

Bok's letter to the council stated that "most issues of direct concern to undergraduates are decided by the Faculty and not the Corporation." A recent Crimson poll of 500 students--in which questions were phrased in an open-ended format--reveals that the two issues of most concern to students are divestment and the tenure process--both of which fall under the decision-making power of the Corporation, not the Faculty.

Student are not requesting an opportunity to scrutinize the Corporation's ledgers; they are simply asking that their concerns about the future of our institution be heard. The student body is one of the groups in whose interest the Corporation allegedly acts. If the democratically elected government of the student body and a large number of student groups would like a meeting, there ought to be one.

The Corporation's refusal to meet with students vindicates the rhetoric of protesters concerned with the closed-door administrative structure of the University. How patronizing of our administrators to insist that they be above a one-time dialogue with their student constituency. At a minimum, such a meeting would be a gesture of good faith--a gesture that would show that Bok's appearance last spring at a question-answer session on divestment was a step toward dialogue, not an isolated attempt to appease student concerns.

Instead, the Corporation continues to demonstrate callous disregard of the community, sticking to the claim that dialogue with students would generate heat, not light. It's time a little warmth reached the chilly seclusion of the Corporation's deliberations.