IT WAS NOT ONLY an "opportune" time for President Bok to make public his views on issues of race; the time for a statement on the subject was long overdue.

His letter must be viewed in its proper context. It was, in effect, prepared and released at the request of a University-wide coalition of Third World students--it constitutes a reaction. Had the preliminary draft of the Klitgaard report on admissions not been disclosed, had the president of the Black Students Association not received a death threat, and had the Gomes committee not stopped short of recommending the establishment of a campus Third World center, Bok probably would have considered continued silence a more "opportune" strategy.

At points, the letter is reassuring. It is fortunate that after 15 years or so, the president of the University is not yet ready to abandon Harvard's principle of diversity in admissions. And although some members of the community still quietly question the legitimacy of Afro-American studies as a discipline, it is encouraging to see Bok reaffirm his commitment to it.

In general, however, the letter tells us little that is news. Bok has yet to explain adequately the Klitgaard report. He identifies the shameful shortage of minority faculty, but offers no solution besides "vigorous" recruitment. He neglects to note that since 1972, the available number of qualified Black PhD's has doubled while Harvard has failed to double its tenured Black professors. And, in the most heavily-qualified and tentative portion of the letter, Bok says he "will advocate support" for the recently proposed Foundation, "modestly at the beginning" and only "if there is genuine interest in this project."

"Genuine interest" on the part of whom? What will constitute the "constructive results" Bok hopes the foundation will achieve? These are just some of the questions Bok's letter begs. Bok seems to suggest that the primary reason to admit minority students is that they can contribute to Harvard's diversity and help increase racial understanding. He relegates to a secondary realm the more abiding purpose for admission--the future contribution minorities can make to society. "Depart to serve better thy country and thy kind," holds less value for Bok. Also, while Bok forcefully outlines the obstacles facing the University in hiring minority faculty, he concludes that he feels "strongly that our criteria for choosing faculty are soundly conceived and fairly administered." If the means are admirable, the end result remains embarrassing and unsatisfactory.

No one can pretend that the issues Bok addresses are easy ones with immediately apparent solutions. But the University has a moral responsibility to be a leader in affecting meaningful change--only then will race relations and the lot of minorities improve. A Third World center and increased minority faculty were two of the specific measures suggested by minority students to help improve their status here; since Bok expresses pessimism about both ideas, it is his responsibility to formulate alternatives. His letter does not do that--it defends the status quo, and the status quo serves well neither the interests of Third World students nor the interests of the general Harvard community.