To the Editors of The Crimson:

Your editorial of September 29th states that I "flew around the country explaining the University's position against divestment to Board [of Overseer] members--and urging them against even taking up the issue at their meeting." The facts:

--I did visit Overseers in Cambridge (by foot), Boston (by subway), New York, Washington, and, for the convenience of one Overseer, North Carolina.

--The purpose of my visits was not to discuss the University's or any other position on divestment, and in fact very few Overseers asked me any questions about divestment. I do not recall raising the merits of the issue with any of them.

--I did not suggest to any Overseer that divestment is not a proper subject for discussion by the Overseers or that it should not be considered by them at their meeting last year. It is, in my view, an appropriate subject for discussion and advice to the Corporation. I did express the opinion that simply voting on the issue, as some people were advocating, was not the best way for the Overseers to advise the Corporation or to resolve possible differences between the Governing Boards on the issue of divestment.

I might add that the Board has not "delegated thinking about the issue to a subcommittee..." The Board has agreed to a joint committee (five Overseers and three members of the Corporation) to consider investment issues relating to South Africa. The joint committee will report back to both Governing Boards and then, I expect, there will be plenty of thinking about and discussion of the report. In my experience the Overseers do not delegate their thinking to others. Daniel Steiner '54   Vice President and General Counsel