What a difference a few months make: South African Archbishop Tutu's candidacy for the Board of Overseers created quite a fuss among alumni last year, and both sides of the divestment issue took turns at dishing out the rhetoric. Robert P. Wolff '54, who directs the pro-divestment alumni group which nominated Tutu, often said Tutu's mere presence on the Board could force Harvard to divest completely from South Africa-related investments.

But Wolff quietly changed his tone this week when he learned Tutu would attend his first Overseers meeting tomorrow. South African investments are not on the agenda, so Wolff said Tutu would probably not bring it up.

"He's not coming to make a push for divestment," Wolff said, adding that the bishop just wanted to prove he could be "regular overseer."

"He will be a wonderful addition to the Board. Many [critics] will be surprised by his breadth of knowledge."

--Overseer Peter H. Wood '64, who like Bishop Tutu was nominated for the Board on an independent, pro-divestment slate.

Law School biology: At an open meeting of the Law School's public interest advisory committee Wednesday, several students compared their pursuit of public service careers to the tough journey of salmon swimming upstream. But the students got a little carried away with the analogy, and Professor of Law Christopher F. Edley, a member of the committee, said that the students should be wary of comparing themselves to the upstream-bound salmon.

"They do that before the die," he shouted.

One law student, however, refused to give up, taking the analogy to new depths. She said law students try to spread the word about public interest law, in an attempt to "spawn" new public service lawyers.

Edley, whose background in biology is presumably limited, did not repsond.

"We need some commitment from you and the dean. This committee's studying for another year is not good enough."

--Sarah M. Buel, a third-year law student, upon hearing that the school's special public service advisory committee would not make any recommendations at least until the spring.

"We stopped trying because we spent most of two meetings discussing it. The dean is responsible for figuring out what to do in the short term."

--Professor Edley, explaining why the committee was waiting to make the recommendations.

Need a date? Ask Guhan: They say it's lonely at the top, and nobody knows better than Guhan Subramanian '91-92, chair of the Undergraduate Council. At a recent council meeting, Subramanian announced that he needed a date for the Quincy House formal. Apparently, the responses were not overwhelming, because he made the same announcement at the council's residential committee meeting Monday.

"I'm afraid we're trying to reach a middle-ground to gain political points rather than to get a solution to any problems which might exist in the present system."

--Daniel H. Tabak '91, a member of the council's residential committee, discussing the the council's increasing willingness to accept non-ordered choice as a compromise alternative to the current house assignment lottery.

"The fact that non-ordered choice makes every one happy doesn't make it a bad proposal--it makes it a better one. I like the status quo, but it doesn't seem politically viable--it seems that a minority on the committee seems to be dragging its feet on this issue."

--James M. Harmon '93, vice chair of the council's residential committee and head of the first-year student group which originally proposed the non-ordered choice plan.