Only Overseers

WE agree that the Corporation should become more responsive to the views of the rest of the Harvard community, but we have reservations about the staff position.

The staff calls for increased involvement of faculty, staff, students and alumni, yet all it proposes is the enfranchisement of the alumni. The staff position may want to include other groups, but it has certainly not produced any mechanism to incorporate them into the process.

And the one proposal that is made is confusing. The staff simultaneously calls for a direct alumni vote and a vote of the Board of Overseers, which is supposed to act as the official voice of the alumni. If giving the Board a role is to be used as a "good first step," who is to decide when and if the second step--towards a direct vote of all the alumni--is to be taken? Moreover, if complicated issues, like the choice of Corporation members, can be decided by a direct vote of the alumni, what is the purpose of having the Board in the first place? The staff position offers no answers to these questions.

We call for the Board to assume a permanent role in electing Corporation members. University governance is handled primarily by the Corporation. Giving the Board of Overseers a significant role in the selection of the Corporation's membership will certainly invigorate the long-dormant Board. Candidates for the Board who run on platforms that include issues like divestment could make the Corporation more amenable to the objections of other groups on campus.

A greater political role will make the Board--and the Corporation--more sensitive to alumni concerns, without jeopardizing the weeding-out process the Board could perform.

The Corporation should listen to the opinions of students, faculty and support staff, but these groups should not have a say in the selection of Corporation members. Students, most of whom are uninterested and uninformed about the Corporation, can express their views after they graduate. And while University employees should have their grievances heard by a sympathetic ear, allowing them to vote could create a conflict of interest for Corporation members. Members might be forced to back the wishes of the group that selected them over the best interests of the rest of the University. Alumni are far enough removed from the daily operation of the University to prevent a similar situation from arising through Board of Overseer elections.