Lobbying One's Own

ONCE again, President Bok and the Corporation have tried to influence the Board of Overseers. In the third of an ongoing series of clumsy Mass Hall maneuvers, it was revealed last, week that Board members were subject to an extraordinary lobbying effort on the part of top Administration officials.

Two of President Bok's right-hand men--Vice President and General Counsel Daniel Steiner '54 and Secretary to the Governing Boards Robert Shenton--journeyed to several cities to "discuss governance questions," according to Steiner. Steiner and Shenton pressured overseers to seek non-confrontational, "informal" channels for expressing their discontent about campus unionization, tenure battles, and the University's failure to divest.

This was an attempt to sway overseers from voting to recommend that Harvard divest of its holdings in companies that do business in South Africa. The Board is elected by alumni to represent them, and advises the Corporation mainly through its visiting committees which evaluate the University. The Corporation's sudden interest in governance shows its concern over the Board's movement toward an activist role in the University.

MASS Hall fears the public embarassment that would come from a formal Overseer vote for divestment and is willing to go to some lengths to prevent it. Two years ago, President Bok blatantly tried to influence the Overseer election by asking Overseer head Joan T. Bok '51 (no relation) to mail a letter to all alumni criticizing the campaign of three pro-divestment candidates. And last year, the University fielded an unusually strong slate of Overseer candidates in order to prevent the Harvard-Radcliffe Alumni Against Apartheid from winning any more seats. The victory of three pro-divestment candidates in the last two years should have told Bok and the Corporation that divestment as an issue will not disappear, and that activism on the Board will grow unless such issues are addressed.

Instead, the Corporation's latest hijinks demonstrate their complete disregard for the opinion of alumni and students and their overriding fear of public embarassment. The Board of Overseers is charged only with giving advice when it is solicited. Last week's revelation shows that Bok wants advice that confirms his policies, or none at all. The University's fear of public criticism means that we will have to bear with more administration heavy-handedness until alumni and student criticisms force it to listen.