WITHOUT ANY CEREMONY and in complete silence, President Derek C. Bok at the end of this week will relinquish the reins of power and take refuge in Europe for a few months. Having spent the last 15 years of his life in Massachusetts Hall, Bok certainly deserves a sabbatical, but the president really started his vacation sometime in September. Since then the administration line has been one of retreat, defense and obfuscation. Despite the impetus one might think a milestone like the 350th celebration would provide, Bok has advanced virtually no new agendas, ignored student and faculty concerns and restricted his availability to the campus press.

Perhaps a paradigm for Bok's 15th year is the outrageous dictum issued last week by Samuel C. Butler, president of the Board of Overseers, Harvard's alumni-elect governing body. In the notorious tradition of his immediate predecessor, Joan T. Bok, Butler has attempted to cut the board off from the community at large and restrict the free speech of its members. The New York lawyer issued a letter that warned overseers against allowing "leaks" to members of the press, recommending that any media inquiry receive "a no comment, followed by a polite goodbye." Though President Bok may not have been involved in the move to silence board members, he is ultimately responsible for the actions of the administrators he oversees.

Last spring, after Joan Bok's subversion of the election process of the board of overseers, President Bok initially disclaimed any role in that decision. He later admitted that he was responsible for the decision to electioneer against the pro-divestment candidates for the board. Butler's memorandum smacks of the same brand of condescension and elitism. It demonstrates that Harvard has learned nothing from its disastrous effort to stifle the minimal standards of democracy its charter upholds.

Although the president consistently made himself available to reporters and communicated with the community at large through The Crimson until this fall, he has recently curtailed such access almost completely. Sources in the administration say Bok was angered by The Crimson's news coverage and editorial opinions during the 350th celebration. Whatever his reasons, Bok's refusal to speak with Harvard's student daily is uacceptable.

The specifics of Bok's relationship with The Crimson are not the most important aspect of his silence. But what is clear is that the lines of communication between Bok and the Harvard community have reached an all-time low.

The president has done little or nothing to supplement his connection to students, faculty, staff and alumni. When students and faculty objected to several tenure denials and the promotion system in general this fall, Bok answered with a "no comment." When the Undergraduate Council, the Southern Africa Solidarity Committee, more than 20 other student groups and more than 1100 individual students requested an open meeting with the seven-man governing Corporation to discuss apartheid and divestment, Bok refused outright.

Although Bok made a number of public appearances--including a debate with Secretary of Education William J. Bennett in October--and issued one report on CIA funding of research, neither action led to any tangible change in the way Harvard operates. They simply served to quell or dispell concern about University policy. The policy-making apparatus remains off-limits to those whom it affects.

Bok must face the widening gap between Massachusetts Hall and the community it administers. As Bok completes this year's retreat with a three-month vacation, we stand amazed that so much time can pass at Harvard while constructive action on so many fronts remains deferred.