THIS afternoon President Bok will welcome me and 1627 classmates into the Company of Educated Men and Women. The traditional words may have been out of place at other Commencements, yet never more so than in 1988. The president's welcome comes at a time of doubt about the possibility that such an elite group exists. There is no longer confidence that a liberal arts education can deliver on its promise to free the mind from prejudice. And so the greeting is the exercise of an authority which may have no grounding.

In a debate nearly two years ago with Secretary of Education William J. Bennett, Bok aligned himself with a movement that questions whether Harvard is capable of teaching anything of value. He defended decreased emphasis on Western Civilization courses, toeing an ideological line associated with opposition to "Great Books"-based curricula.

Those who decry the omissions of Western Civ courses do not mean to weigh the virtues of other systems against those of Western democracy. They intend to impress us with the impossibility of such comparisons. The call for these offerings is not made because certain overlooked books are--by some standard--deserving of attention. The claim for the overlooked books is made out of the conviction that any standard must reflect someone's opinion--and therefore must be replaced by a non-discriminating "openness."

Thus come bombshells like this one dropped at a Princeton colloquium: "None of us is naive enough to believe that the canonical is self-evident, absolute or natural. Scholars make canons."

That teachers decide what books should be read in class once failed to alarm. It was understood that teachers, because of their accomplishments, had a claim to make choices which the uninitiated, by definition, lacked.

IF the disputed issue were teacher's choices rather than the teacher's right to choose, there would be no threat to Harvard; after more reflection, better choices might be made. But the argument is that, in essence, ability, like hair color, is inherited and, like hair color, is unworthy of differential privilege. In this light, "education," in the sense of liberating one from prejudice, is agreed to be impossible and attempts to reward merit are rendered corrupt. Hence there is no reason not to ensure "equality of outcomes" for any population, whether of human beings or books.

If this is true, it's hard to imagine how any university's authority might be justified, or how Harvard could but lose. Yet around here, no one seems to realize what's at stake.

In what may have been the most pathetic episode of the past year, undergraduates in Historical Studies A-25: "The Peopling of America", used allegations of "racial insensitivity" to slander Winthrop Professor of History Stephan Thernstrom. The students took particular issue with the professor's statement in class that some who supported the enactment of Jim Crow laws aimed to benefit Blacks by preventing contact with antagonistic whites.

The students struck at the foundation of the University's claim to moral authority: the freedom of faculty members to teach in their areas of expertise. Thernstrom responded with a rambling explanation in class. Although discussion continued to center on Thernstrom in The Crimson and elsewhere, no professor risked criticism by rallying strongly to a colleague's defense. Dean of the Faculty A. Michael Spence called for discussion of the issue at a meeting of the Faculty. No one spoke.

Students, though, haven't been timid about shaping the University. One might wonder what students at the Law School hope to learn if they believe themselves as able as the faculty to choose the school's leader. Yet students occupied part of Harkness Commons last month to demand that Derrick Bell, a Black professor who later showed up at the sit-in with wine and brie, be given the post. The occupation ended when the administration announced the students' agenda was consistent with the school's aims--but stood firm and refused to promise any of several demanded appointments.

Convictions about the impossibility of education notwithstanding, though, what budding lawyers are doing at Harvard Law School is patently obvious. In a world where education in the traditional sense of liberation from prejudice had no meaning, the Harvard name might still inspire enough respect and command enough money to justify tuition and time in Cambridge.

WITNESS Boston Globe columnist Mike Barnicle's newfound admiration for Harvard's Kennedy School of Government--after, he said, years of believing the K-School was to politics what a K-Mart security guard is to policing. His opinion changed after reading about the K-School's plan to give "Officer of the University" status to a Texas couple in return for a $500,000 "gift." Barnicle then decided that the K-School would be right at home in the world of the State House pol.

If Harvard's loss of confidence is justified, then it can hope to do no better than turn out no-holds-barred competitors. And welcoming graduates into the Company of Educated Men and Women only obscures that fact.