To the Editor of The Crimson:

As a graduate of Harvard I get a number of benefits: a magazine, periodic requests for donations, and the respect and awe of those who were unable to attend our esteemed institution. I also get a ballot each year which allows me to vote for the Board of Overseers, an important advisory body to the Harvard Corporation. I rarely participate in this election, since all of the candidates are generally chosen by the Harvard Alumni Association, and are indistinguishable.

This year's election seems to be different. My ballot packet is larger than usual and filled with alarms. Three candidates have been nominated by petition, circumventing the AlumniAssociation. These candidates are running, according to the cover letters in the packet, for the sole purpose of bringing up the University's policy of continuing to invest in firms doing business in South Africa. The ballot packet's cover letter draws my attention to this disturbing fact, and the packet thoughtfully includes a one page description of the University's current policy on South African investments. The packet also includes a letter from Joan T. Bok urging my participation in the election, and suggesting that election people interested in pressing a particular policy would drastically change the nature of the Board of Overseers (presumably for the worse) and might lead to the "casual" resolution of the vexing moral and financial problems posed by Harvard's South African investments. Ms. Bok also urges my careful consideration of the candidates.

I am patiently waiting for the follow up packet. I mean, of course, the packet which will detail the changes in Harvard's investment policies which the petition-nominated candidates are seeking, and their reasons for doing so. This packet, which I'm sure has been prepared in the spirit of fairness, will allow those of us who already received the administration's position to make an informed judgement.

As I wait for that second packet, I can think back on the record of Harvard's administration over the past two decades of our mutual acquaintance. While I was an undergraduate, the administration argued that undergraduate training for military duty deserved a separate department, but that Black or women's studies did not, and that research directly tied to military and counterinsurgency programs should be exempt from moral review. At least our administration has remained consistent--support of the status quo is neutral, and change is an intrusion into the academy.

I will participate in this year's election with some pleasure and hope that it can make the Overseers "...a very different Board than it has been heretofore." Mark R. Dyen '70-'72