Divestment activists say the University's"hostile" attitude toward the anti-apartheid slaterepresents a Tacit acknowledgement that politicsare playing an increasingly large role in theBoard's composition: welcome or not.
"Harvard is probably a little surprised becausethere are political issues being raised. Before itdidn't matter [to the University] who won. Nowthey have a situation where it does matter,"Hartman says.
Alumni against Apartheid last week charged thatthe University's interest in the election hasinterfered with the impartiality of electionprocedures. "What's happening is an unraveling,"says Hartman. "It's becoming clearer that they arenot just a neutral party. They can't be trusted to[run the election] right."
Observers close to the process say thatUniversity administrators have exerted anincreasingly heavy influence on the selection ofthe official candidates to the Board. Thecandidates are nominated by a 14-personsubcommittee of the Board. Members of thesubcommittee are chosen in part by the currentoverseers and in part by President Bok, butprimarily by the Harvard Alumni Association, whichalso serves the subcommittee in an advisorycapacity. In recent years, Harvard Vice Presidentfor Development and Alumni Affairs Fred L. Glimp'50 has been added as a non-voting member of thesubcommittee to advise the group as it selectsfrom some 500 nominations.
Some administrators say that the officialcandidates include several well-known, liberalalumni. Specifically they point to Sen. AlbertGore Jr. '69 (D-Tenn.) who is a strong advocate ofSouth African sanctions and Frances FitzGerald'61, who is a member of the editorial advisoryboard of the leftist political journal, TheNation.
Many overseers do not think the divestmentslates will have much affect on the Board. "Idon't think there's going to be a polarization onthe Board of Overseers," said Board member Jane C.Bradley '49. "Education is what were allabout--we're not about politics."
Most board members interviewed said that whilethe pro-divestment candidates may run onsingle-issue platforms, they thought thatcandidates whose abilities and interest wentbeyond divestment stood the best chance forsuccess. Says Bradley: "I would hop that all whoare going to run have the long-term goals of theinstitution at heart. It's okay to run onone-ticket, but I hesitate to think that anyonecould get elected on the basis of one issuealone."
The divestment issue will not change theBoard's role in serving the University, saysoverseer Peter C. Goldmark Jr. '62. The Board'smain function is to send visiting committees toreport on Harvard's various departments andfaculties.
Some pro-divestment activist have said thatbecause the Board has the constitutional mandateto restrict actions by the Corporation it coulduse its power to force Harvard to divest.
Yet even Sideman says she believes theOverseers functions most effectively in itsadvisory role. "The role of the overseers ispretty subtle. I don't think most people on theBoard would want major eruptions. I think theoverseers are much better at raising question thatin working in other ways."
Seidman said she felt that the entrance ofdivestment candidates into the overseers'elections increased discussion of apartheid.Divestment, infrequently discussed in the past,was placed on the agenda this fall at Seidman'sfirst meeting.
Even if the pro-divestment activists fail toforce Harvard to divest by running candidates forthe Board, they say such political issues areexactly the ones which the Board needs to beaddressing in order to adequately representHarvard's 200,000 alumni.
But there are those who doubt that the activistcan overcome the long tradition or cooperationbetween the overseers and the Corporation.
It has been more than 30 years since the Boardand the corporation have stood in direct conflict,as they would on the divestment issue if AAA hadits way. When Warburg professor of EconomicsEmeritus John Kenneth Galbraith's tenurenomination arrived on the overseers, desks, theBoard balked saying he was communist. Although theproposed tenure had been successfully sent throughnormal channels, awaiting only the Board'scustomary approval, members agreed to exercisetheir long-standing right to deny facultyappointments. The administration was appalled.
Then President James Bryant Conant '14 gave theoverseers a ultimatum. "They could grant Galbraithtenure or find a new president," Says Blum. TheOverseers backed down.
The Galbraith episode, an oft repeated piece offolklore, sounded the acquiescent tone which hasbecome the norm for the Board.
"If the Board was informed of decisions in the making,it was reasonably amicable situation" between theoverseers and the Corporation, said formeroverseer Maurio Lazarus, '37, President of FederatedDepartment store. At the time of the appointmentof President Bok [in 1971, the Board was keptappraised of the process so that there weren't anysurprises."
Concurs Blum: There was always a cooperativespirit between the chief bananas so we didn't haveany spoiled fruit."
The six non-official candidates for theBoard of Overseers, all members of the groupAlumni Against Apartheid, had to submit petitions(like the one pictured below) in order to gain aspot in this year's election.