Don't Overlook the Overseers

WHEN Gay W. Seidman '78 won election to the 30-member Board of Overseers last spring, she prevailed over a recalcitrant administration and initiated gradual but perceptible reforms in the governing body.

As the rest of the University community enjoys peaceful somnolence in this its 351st year, Alumni Against Apartheid, which sponsored Seidman's candidacy, has mounted another offensive. With continued alumni support, some of this year's six unofficial divestment candidates may continue to spark reforms in Harvard's bureacratic mudpuddle. May they lift a few heads from the sand.

Since the University lost its status as a state university and Beacon Hill lost its grip on the Board of Overseers in the late 19th century, the alumni-elected governing body effectively has ceded ultimate control of University affairs to the seven-man governing Corporation, only one of whom, the Harvard president, answers to the community.

The Overseers have evolved into a tangential and powerless organ. Members usually rubber-stamp major decisions and concentrate on informally advising academic departments. Their agenda has become limited and largely inconsequential, their proceedings have become shrouded in secrecy, their members are ordered not to speak to the media, or by extension to the public.

To borrow a Reaganism, Harvard's founding fathers never intended the Board of Overseers to become so passive and unresponsive. By charter and in spirit the board was intended to reflect the concerns of the larger community, which exercised considerable control over the selection of faculty, the president and the design of the curriculum. Although religious fundamentalists and anti-communist crusaders at times found seats on the board, in the end the existence of a democratically perpetuated governing body helped keep Harvard a strong, secular and diverse university.

THE DEMISE of the board represents a failure of Harvard's one semblence of democracy. A reinvigoration of the body might help shake Harvard from its defensive and isolated stance on many issues. More important, a revival would offer this community a reliable means of influencing a powerful and important leader in education. Even with an injection of vision and enthusaism, Harvard's governing structure will remain quite insulated from what its top officials consider the ravages of democracy. But this May's election puts within reach at least a symbolic reassessment of the board and its powers.

The Alumni Against Apartheid candidates deserve broad-based support, despite a single-minded commitment to one cause. For one thing, arguments against divestment have now completely expired; American corporations themselves have admitted defeat. It's impressive that Harvard has the fortitude to withstand increasing public pressure on divestment, but its resilience lacks moral backing. Electing the six outside candidates will not immediately force Harvard to divest, but it would be the most substantial advance for divestment advocates yet.

Second, the election of the divestment candidates would help cement the advances made last year by Seidman, who won election despite considerable and unethical opposition from the University itself. If outside candidates prove successful this year as well, a precedent for dissent and minority representation will be set. Harvard should discontinue the practice of nominating "official" candidates for the board, allowing any interested alumni to collect the necessary signatures and face the scrutiny of the electorate rather than the administration. A vote for the outside candidates equals a vote against the Corporate practice of in-house nomination.

Third, divestment candidates, though not explicitly committed to broad reforms, necessarily will work to reestablish to board's influence in the vital area of finance. President Derek C. Bok and the six other members of the Corporation control virtually every aspect of the $715 million budget and $4 billion endowment. In order even to call divestment to a vote, Overseers would have to investigate and to assume increased responsibility for Harvard's purse, limiting to some extent the self-perpetuating Corporation's primary source of power. Although Bok includes Overseers in some of the financial decisions facing the University, divestment candidates would demand financial review on their terms, not his.

FINALLY, the election of this year's divestment candidates would help to revive the board's historical responsiveness to the alumni electorate. In recent years, the official University candidates have won election primarily because of their prominence. Few of the candidates ever address the sensitive issues facing the community or promise to work for reforms in a certain area. The divestment candidates, and the candidates who oppose divestment as well, now will have to produce results for the thousands who voted for them.

The past two presidents of the board, with Bok's implicit and in some cases expressed endorsement, have forced Overseers to operate in a closed, privatized manner. A democratic competition among members will help to open up and to enliven the proceedings, hampering absurd efforts to shut out an interested public.

The Harvard Alumni Association has released its list of the 12 official candidates to compete for the six available spots in May's election. Famous names abound. At least one of the official candidates, Louis I. Kane '53, a local businessman, has voiced support for divestment. Several others said they sympathize with the cause. But votes for these candidates, many of whom have some good ideas, will not accomplish a needed reworking of the board.

The divestment alumni, prominent businessmen and educators themselves, represent a movement to establish a tradition of dissent. They will help to open the board to public eye, and play a role in revitalizing and broadening its powers to include regular review of financial policies. This year's election should not repeat past popularity contests but instead begin the mammoth task of democratizing and scrutinizing the administration of Harvard.