WHEN PRESIDENT BOK finally announced last week that professor James Vorenberg will succeed Albert M. Sacks as dean of the Law School, many students did not know how to react.

Most were not surprised at Bok's choice--they knew last fall that Vorenberg was one of the leading contenders for the post--but few knew what he stood for. Students know Vorenberg from the classroom--he is a popular criminal law professor--but his vision of the school and the issues it faces remain enigmatic.

Students' unfamiliarity with Vorenberg is testimony to the secrecy and mystery surrounding the way Bok chose the new dean--a procedure that should be changed in time for the next dean search at any of Harvard's faculties.

Given the century-old Law School tradition of deans selected from the faculty, the choice of Vorenberg to head the school seems a good one--no one is more knowledgable and dedicated to the school than he. We hope he will be amenable to student participation in both discussion and decision-making at the school. The issues students seem most concerned with include faculty hiring--particularly the search for qualified minorities and women to join the faculty--and the school's generally casual attention to affirmative action. Vorenberg should be sensitive and receptive to these concerns.

The law faculty agreed last fall to discuss changing the dean selection process for future dean searches once the current search ended; they should now seriously consider giving students a formal role in the procedure. Vorenberg's indication last week that he saw no problem with the current process is disappointing. His support for changing the selection system is crucial, and Vorenberg should reconsider whether he is satisfied with the way he got his new job.

One of Bok's reasons for not allowing students to participate formally in the selection is that students attend the school for only three years and would not know the candidates nor the qualities required in a dean. But surely the solution is not to exclude students from the process, but to let them inform themselves about the views of the candidates and then submit their evaluation. Instead of arguing that students are too uninformed to assume a formal role, Bok should give the students the chance to inform themselves, by interviewing and evaluating the candidates and offering their unique perspective. In fact, students and faculty should have an institutional role in the selection of each new law dean. Committees of both these groups should be able to evaluate a President's nominees, offer their own suggestions and veto prospective deans whom they feel would ill-serve the Law School community.

The current search illustrated the weaknesses of the procedure Bok employed in picking a new dean. Candidates refused to have student interviews for fear of appearing to be interested in the job; consequently, students were uninformed and left out of the decision. Bok kept his list of finalists secret, and students and faculty learned of the possible deans only through rumors. The choice of Vorenberg seems acceptable. The way he was chosen is not.