During Harvard's student protest of 1969, then President Nathan M. Pusey '28 came under fire from the University's Board of Overseers. Board members, increasingly dissatisfied with Harvard's heavy-handed response to the activism, called for major changes in University policy. The overseers, seen by many as a group of stodgy alumni, attempted to convert themselves into an efficacious governing body that could heal a divisive Harvard community.

"The overseers felt that if they were going to help clean the kitchen, they were going to have to help make the soup," recalls Yale history professor John Morton Blum '43, a former member of the Harvard Corporation.

They cooked a spicy broth.

An extraordinary period of politicization saw increased involvement of the overseers in day-to-day University affairs, particularly those concerning Vietnam War-era protests. But once involved in the issues of the day the overseers proved not to be immune from their impact. In 1970 came the election of Helen H. Gilbert, the first woman on the Board since it received its mandate in the 17th century to the oversee the chief University governing body, the Harvard Corporation. That same year also saw the attempt by two alumni to get a seat on the Board without the official nod of approval Harvard customarily gives overseer candidates.

In the intervening years some of the Vietnam-era changes have per- sisted. The official slate of candidates foroverseer is more diverse, including Blacks andwomen. And six times each year, the overseers holdday-long meetings to see where the Universitystands on issues ranging from the dining halls tothe faculty. But the Board does not take an activerole in determining University policy on activelydebated issues within community.

Yet the Board may once again find itselfimmersed in controversial policy issues. Somealumni favoring divestment are working toreinvigorate the Board by forcing it to considerissues of political import. Saying the overseersrepresent a chance for democracy in the governanceof Harvard, a group calling themselves AlumniAgainst Apartheid (AAA) will this week submitpetitions to get a slate of pro-divestmentcandidates on this year's overseers ballot.

The introduction of anti-apartheid candidatesfor the Board, which first happened last year,signals a major reappraisal of the Board's missionand an indication that politics is back in theballroom of 17 Quincy St, where the overseersmeet. But more significant, many observers saythat the introduction of issues a new era whereBoard members are more responsive to issues of theday.

"Everyone is elected [to the Board] forparticular reasons. These reasons run from thetrivial to the sublimely intellectual," said oneoverseer. Now the reasons may become overtlypolitical.

In last year's election, all three of thepro-divestment candidates received the necessarysignatures to be placed on the ballot sent to allgraduates. The insurgent candidates ran on thesame ballot with those selected by a Harvardcommittee, which each year nominates twice thenumber of candidates for the five spots that openup on the 30-member body. One "unofficial"candidate, Gay W. Sideman '78, was elected andseated on the Board this fall.

This year AAA plans to run a full slate of sixcandidates for the Board. (A resignation hasopened up one more spot on the Board, wheremembers usually serve for six years.) Thesecandidates bring impressive resumes as well as apro-divestment position to the race. They are: NewYork City Councilor Ruth Messenger '62. ConsulWashington, counsel to the House Committee onEnergy and commerce, Peter D. Wood '64, aprofessor of history at Duke University, VictorSidel, a physician and social activist, JeromeGrossman '38, an activist for liberal causes andMassachusetts businessman, and Harold Burns, viceprovost of the City College of New York.

The entrance of political candidates into theelection field has already effected one change. Inthe past, candidates for the Board have run ontheir personal accomplishments rather than onissue platforms. Candidate statements, which aresent in April to alumni in their ballot packets,read more like resumes than policy statements.That has changed. The pro-divestment campaign hasintroduced political issues to an election thathad been viewed as a quiet family affair.

"Now you have a new phenomenon which is like apolitical party. This is a very real campaign,"says Chester Hartman '57, a member of theexecutive committee of Alumni Against Apartheidwhich is organizing the pro-divestment slate.

But some question whether the Board cansuccessfully blend its role as an overseer ofHarvard, a 350-year-old institution, with aconsideration of politics of the moment.

The University's response to the politicizationof the Overseers election has been largely anegative one. In last year's election, thanPresident of the Overseers Joan T. Bok '51 sent aletter to all alumni warning that "specific issue"candidates, it elected, would irrevocably changethe nature of the overseers. It was later revealedthat President Bok, who is an ex officiomember of the Board, had asked Joan Bok (norelation) to write the letter.

This year, the Board has made no publicstatements concerning the pro-divestmentcandidates. But they have ignored requests fromAAA that they not aid the 12 official nominees.