If some Harvard administrators have their way, your local Harvard Club will soon be more than just a place to go sip sherry with the boys.

Frustrated with the high visibility of the campaign to elect South African Archbishop Desmond M. Tutu to the Board of Overseers, Harvard officials--themselves bound by a pledge of neutrality--have placed the political battle over University governance in the hands of the Harvard Alumni Assocation.

Specifically, administrators last month named two outspoken critics of Harvard-Radcliffe Alumni Against Apartheid (HRAAA), the pro-divestment group which nominated Tutu, to head the umbrella organization which ostensibly represents all alumni.

And although many alumni sympathetic to HRAAA have cried foul at the apparent politicization of the once-neutral Alumni Association, the group's new leaders say they're prepared to pull out all the stops to keep the divestment candidates off the Board.

University officials have long said HRAAA has unfairly defined the overseer campaign solely in terms of Harvard's $163.8 million in South Africa-related investments--an issue administrators say is not particularly important to the Board.

Top administrators, including President Derek C. Bok, have often warned that electing a Board of "single-issue candidates" would hurt the Overseers' effectiveness as an academic and financial advisory body. And this year, officials such as Vice President for Alumni Affairs Fred L. Glimp '50 are saying somebody has to take a stand and "educate" the electorate.

"We have a responsibility to produce a slate of candidates and to try to explain to the electorate what's going on," Glimp says. "It's probably not only our right but our obligation to do something if we don't think the issues are being addressed."

But Bok and Glimp have encountered public backlash whenever they have entered the political fray. This April, when Glimp helped Stanford University President Donald Kennedy '52 publish an advertisement in Harvard Magazine warning alumni not to support "single-issue candidates," he was widely criticized.

So when those officials were looking for a way to counter the HRAAA campaign, they turned to the Alumni Association, the organization which nominates the University's "official" slate of overseer candidates.

While Alumni Association officials have generally discouraged campaigning, they said they could not prohibit individuals from taking stands when the other side was waging such an effort.

"Campaigning has always been discouraged, but you can't prohibit it absolutely," says Glimp. "That's just not feasible. We can't tell people they can't campaign. You can't do it even if you think the election could be run better [without it]."

Thus, when it came time to select a new president and executive director for the group in May, Glimp and other top administrators tapped two alumni whose contempt for HRAAA was already a matter of public record.

The new president, Charles J. Egan '54, once likened HRAAA's tactics to McCarthyism, calling the campaign a personal effort by HRAAA Executive Director Robert P. Wolff '54 to "float his own social agenda."

And newly appointed Alumni Association Executive Director John P. Reardon '60 this February delivered a long attack on HRAAA at an Alumni Association meeting, asking, "What's to keep them from nominating Fidel Castro next time?"

Neither has been shy about his opposition to the HRAAA since their appointments to the alumni posts.

"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.

And he says that the apparent leftward movement of the official candidates is only an example of the Alumni Association's attempts to offer voters a diverse set of choices.

But regardless of the outcome of this year's campaign, most observers say there are no signs that the political fighting will slow down next year. Just how this campaigning will affect future overseer elections, however, is still uncertain.

Reardon and other Alumni Association officials say the majority of alumni will, once educated about the issues, fall behind the University's official line.

"The more alumni who vote, the more alumni who are aware of what's going on," Egan says. "Once alumni are aware of what's going on, Wolff is doomed."

But Wolff says the Alumni Association will more likely alienate its following if it continues to campaign so vehemently.

"If [Egan and Reardon's comments mean] the Alumni Association is going to engage in red-baiting, I think they will marginalize themselves," says Wolff. "It can very badly hurt Harvard."