President Pusey's move this week to include Law students in the selection of the Law School's next dean may be an indication of broader changes to be instituted by President-elect Derek C. Bok when he takes office in July.

Pusey's letter (see below) to Abram J. Chayes '43, chairman of the Law School Student-Faculty Committee on Governance, reflects a consciousness of student opinion uncharacteristic of Pusey's 17-year tenure.

Clearly, Bok conferred with Pusey about seeking student participation in choosing a new Law dean. In his letter, Pusey emphasizes repeatedly that the choice of the next dean will be made in close consultation with Bok and that they concur on the need for involving students in the selection process.

Pusey also points out that traditionally "the power of appointment rests in the President and Fellows." This is a power which he guarded carefully in selecting deans of the University: seldom did Pusey confer with a large number of students about candidates for deans or about the qualities which should be sought.

Instead, Pusey relied heavily on individual consultations with selected faculty and, on occasion, with well-screened students. This method was painfully apparent in the Corporation's search for a new president, even though Francis H. Burr '35- not Pusey- headed that effort.

It is therefore unlikely that Pusey underwent a sudden change of heart in his final term as president. Rather, in close contact with Bok, he is filling the perfunctory role of initiating the search for a new Law dean.

NEWS ANALYSIS

In going to the Governance Committee, Pusey (or rather Bok) is taking a calculated first step toward student involvement in an administrative matter. For the first time, the Corporation is seeking the formal advice of a student group before making an appointment.

The logical next step is permanent student advisory committees to assist in selecting men for vital University posts. But whether Bok has this in mind-especially considering the expected resignation of the University's doans when administrations change in July- is mere speculation.

While Pusey's letter has opened heretofore closed avenues for student participation, the degree of participation

and the ultimate weight of the Governance Committee's findings is uncertain.

In an hour-long meeting with the committee last week, Pusey said he was interested only in results which encompass a thorough sampling of Law School students' opinion. The task is imposing.

The Governance Committee itself is split on how to approach students and about the value of their efforts. Early forums intended to gather opinion have been lightly attended; a proposed questionnaire has not yet been distributed. And yet Pusey wants the committee's report- which must represent the School's 1800 students- in less than three weeks.

Despite the improbability of effectively carrying out Pusey's mandate, his letter represents an important break with tradition. Presented to the Governance Committee this week, the letter was conceived mainly from Pusey's conference with the committee.

It has been suggested by one member of the committee that Chayes drafted the letter for Pusey's signature, but the author is really unimportant. It now remains to be seen whether the letter is a sign of things to come or merely a hollow gesture.

THE LETTER

Dear Mr. Chayes: