Before Harvard University had broadened its representative membership by making direct efforts to attract men from the south and west its government was, and very properly, largely in the hands of New England alumni. Close association with the center of activity was considered a necessity for election to the Board of Overseers: and since comparatively few candidates lived in places far from Cambridge there arose a custom which has been followed with more or less regularity of selecting prominent graduates in either Boston or New York for the offices. Recent elections have shown that this tradition is still an active factor now, probably as much habitual as intentional, in forming the Board.

Now, however, the University's aim is admittedly to gather a body of students which shall be truly national, having no essential bonds with the New England locale except those of a fine and honorable past. "Not the insular function of a provincial university whose duty is to the youth of that area, but the wider function of a center of learning open to all those in the land who are best fitted to work under her guidance--that is the difficult role which is now Harvard's"--so, wrote the CRIMSON last year, commenting on the University's pamphlet concerning geographical enrollment. Each succeeding Freshman class will go to prove this statement.

This removal of emphasis from the local to the national certainly must affect the alumni representation which governs Harvard. In the current Alumni Bulletin Mr. N. H. Batchelder pleads for a more inclusive delegation to comprise the Overseers. His impetus was Mr. Owen Wister's suggestion, made last year, that all the candidates be drawn from the near vicinity of Cambridge. With this Mr. Batchelder disagrees, basing his opinion on the fact that such a group would give no indication of Harvard's national character.

Mr. Batchelder realizes the difficulty of combining active cooperation between alumni and faculty with non-residents. To obviate this he proposes quarterly meetings for the entire assemblage and also monthly meetings for Boston members, the latter covering the details and routine. This and an enlargement of the Board by the addition to each class of Overseers of two appointed members, making the total forty-two instead of thirty, would allow for increase in the national representation, without decreasing the efficiency of the organization.

This proposal, or at least its spirit, for such radical departures demand exact scrutiny before acceptance, is heartily commendable. As the geographical ratio of student enrollment has extended, so should the enrollment in Board of Overseers. It is not that a Board made up entirely of Boston or Cambridge graduates would not prove as effective as one whose membership included graduates from between the two coasts; men attaining the honor of Overseerships have Harvard's interests too close at heart to neglect her welfare or to ignore any one of her many compound parts. The reason for this move, and the objection to Mr. Wister's proposal lies in the significance of the Board and the part it plays in all phases of Harvard life. As the dominating group influence in the government of the University its roll should include men geographically representative; this can be done, and the recent tendency toward that end should suffer no intervention. There is in this theory and in the notations of Mr. Batchelder's letter no need of sacrificing either the merit or the competency of the Board.