To the Editors of The Crimson:

According to press reports, Derek Bok, during his address to the final convocation of Harvard's 350th anniversary celebration, warned Harvard against pressures from those "outside" the academy. Both the New York Times and the Boston Globe interpreted this remark as referring to the group of anti-apartheid protesters who blocked the entrance to Memorial Hall on the evening of September 4 and forced the cancellation of a black tie dinner for 300 and more of Harvard's wealthiest contributors. As one of those who locked arms in the doorways that evening, I should like to call attention to the ideologically prescriptive narrowness of Mr. Bok's notion of who is an insider and who is an outsider at Harvard.

Many, if not most of us, that evening were Harvard and Radcliffe graduates, some as recently as last year, others, like myself, from the '50s and even earlier. Those whom we confronted, and who missed out on their dinner that night, were also Harvard and Radcliffe graduates. What divided us was not our relationship to our alma mater, but, our willingness or unwillingness to cooperate in the politically conservative tone and orientation that the current Harvard administration chose to give to its birthday party.

As though to prove the truth of the slogans we chanted that evening. Secretary of State Shultz the next morning used the steps of Memorial Church as a podium from which to defend Ronald Reagan's thoroughly discredited "constructive engagement" with the fascist regime in South Africa.

Thirty-five years ago, as a young sophomore, I wrote to The Crimson to protest then-president Conant's announcement that he would refuse to hire a member of the Communist Party, no matter what his qualifications (I say "his" because there was hardly any chance that Harvard might hire a woman, communist or otherwise). Each generation, it seems, has its own test of conscience. Why do the presidents of Harvard always fail? Robert Paul Wolff '53