"I don't think [HRAAA supporters] know what an overseer is supposed to do," says Egan. "They have not demonstrated any awareness of, or interest in, the problems that face the University."

Egan and others say the Alumni Association's newfound political stance is a necessary reaction to HRAAA's highly visible campaigns.

"Mr. Wolff and his colleagues have organized a [36,000-person] mailing in direct opposition to the Alumni Association slate," Egan says. "It is perfectly appropriate for people involved in the Alumni Association to respond in kind. Wolff started this."

And University officials like Glimp maintain that it is important for the Alumni Association to inform alumni about the overseer elections because HRAAA takes advantage of low turnout in Board elections to push through its agenda.

"You've got 170,000 alumni who can vote," Glimp says. "About 30,000 do. You can probably find 10,000 people who feel hot about many things, like abortion counseling or animal rights. You have a real chance of winning on something with little popularity."

Not surprisingly, such rhetoric from the University and the Alumni Association has angered HRAAA officials. Although they say they welcome campaigning from any side in the overseer elections, they say it is unethical to turn the Alumni Association itself into a partisan body.

"The fundamental principle is that all who are involved are alumni and all are members of the Alumni Association," says Wolff. "I think the Alumni Association should adopt the attitude that it is the whole alumni community and should take the neutral attitude that they are an organization of the whole Harvard community."

And Wolff says the University's attacks on the pro-divestment slate are more a paranoid reaction to HRAAA's success than a response to its campaign rhetoric. Wolff says that while several University officials have taken shots at specific HRAAA candidates, his organization has never criticized individual Alumni Association candidates.

"They are perfectly competent to sit on the Board of Overseers," Wolff says. "At no time have we called into question the legitimacy of their interest in Harvard's affairs, and that's just outrageous of [Egan]. Simple decency and courtesy would require him to do the same."

As for the often personal attacks from Egan, Wolff says, "I don't know why he's so hysterical, but I think he's forgotten at the very least what it is to be a Harvard man."

Even Reardon admits the criticisms have been too personal, and he says "it might be nice to cool down on specific attacks."

Still, the recent politicization of the Alumni Association goes beyond personal attacks to include more substantive attempts at countering HRAAA's voting appeal.

For example, the Alumni Association-approved slate for the Overseers this year includes several high-profile candidates--such as Labor Secretary Elizabeth H. Dole, former Democratic Party Chair Paul G. Kirk '60 and actor John A. Lithgow '67.

Many say the visibility of the official candidates puts HRAAA's slate at a comparative disadvantage. And some add that the Alumni Association has picked more liberal candidates specifically to draw votes away from the HRAAA nominees.

Glimp, however, says the Alumni Association's candidates are picked as the result of a "carefully constructed" process designed to offer an official slate with the breadth of experience to advise on many different areas of University policy.