The Harvard Corporation played Round Two the way it played Round One as it voted with management yesterday in the second annual Campaign GM proxy battle.

The Corporation voted against the first two Campaign GM resolutions and abstained on the third. However, as the Austin Committee noted in its report last March, "It is a truism in the financial world that abstention in a proxy contest is a vote for management,"

Harvard also opposed the resolution sponsored by the Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church that called for GM to end its operations in the Republic of South Africa.

Last year, Harvard opposed the two resolutions that Campaign GM introduced on the GM proxy statement.

Harvard owns 288,160 GM shares worth $17,901,940.

Campaign GM proposed three resolutions this year.

Proposal One would permit 100 stockholders or the owners of 1500 shares to nominate by petition a candidate for the Board of Directors. A maximum of 30 candidates could be nominated by this process, and their names and 100-word platforms would be listed on the proxy statement alongside the management slate.

Proposal Two would allow the constituent groups of employees, consumers and dealers each to nominate a candidate for the Board.

Proposal Three would require General Motors to publish specific data on its policies regarding auto safety, minority hiring and pollution control.

The official votes will be recorded Friday at the GM annual meeting in Detroit.

In a statement released after yesterday's meeting, President Pusey explained the Corporation's reasons for its decision.

Although the Corporation favors "the principle of having a nomination process which will insure obtaining the best qualified individuals as corporate directors," it voted against Proposal One because it felt the suggested mechanism would be "cumbersome and unrealistic," Pusey said.

Responding to the Corporation statement, Philip W. Moore '64, Executive Director of the Project on Corporate Responsibility-the group of Washington lawyers behind Campaign GM-said yesterday, "Most of us who drafted the proposals are Harvard graduates, and the first pro-posal is modeled almost exactly on the way Harvard chooses its Overseers. Is that 'cumbersome' and 'unrealistic'?"

The Association of Harvard Alumni nominates an official slate of candidates for the Board of Overseers, and any group of 25 alumni can nominate by petition another candidate for the Board. Biographies of all candidates are printed on the ballots, but the nominees are not permitted to submit policy statements.

George F. Bennett '33, Treasurer of Harvard College, said that while he was not familiar with the Overseer election procedures, he thought that lengthy proxy statements, as Proposal One could create, would be too bulky.