The Harvard Corporation meets today to decide-along with a flurry of new problems-the persistent issue of how Harvard should vote its 287,000 shares of stock in the General Motors proxy fight.

Although not the most tumultuous item on the agenda, the GM question is the most pressing. Time has run out. The GM annual meeting begins in Detroit on Friday, and the Corporation members remain very much undecided on whom to side with or whether to take sides at all.

The context of the Corporation debate today will be surprisingly unrelated to much of the discussion which has taken place in the rest of the University community.

NEWS ANALYSIS

Corporation members are reportedly amenable to Campaign GM charges that the company has not fulfilled its responsibility in the fields of minority hiring, pollution control, and auto safety. That question has been discussed and virtually dismissed in previous meetings.

Methods Not Goals

Their objection to joining the Washington-based shareholders' challenge lies in the methods and not the goals of Camping GM. Many Corporation members believe the University should not become enmeshed in the internal polities of the large corporations it invests in.

With several years of experience on corporation boards between them, some members are also amenable to Treasurer George F. Bennett's '33 view that Campaign GM is the "opening wedge"in a movement that will foul up corporate polities.

They see the GM proxy fight as more than a vote for or against pollution control. However Harvard votes. Campaign GM will not garner a majority of the 285 million shares of common stock. Harvard's decision will only lead publicity to whatever side it supports.

Internal Politics

Some Corporation members are more concerned that a Harvard vote against the management will have a direct effect on who will become the next chairman of the GM board when James Roche re?? next year. Both Edward N. Co???? GM president, and another ??

?????

?????

?????

Kevin H. White, and Oyerseer Congressman John Brademas '49 (D.-Ind)-have written the Corporation asking it to vote for Campaign GM.

Opinion on a controversial University matter has not been so solidify one-sided among the various Harvard constitute????? faculty and Stuart-in two years. This consensus has ??treed the expectations of pro-Campa?? GM students, who await the Corporation decision.

"What we'd really like to see is more than a reluctant acceptance of our position." Scott Lang, president of the Harvard Environmental Law Society said yesterday. "We're looking for some evidence of good faith from the Corporation."