When President Derek C. Bok appointed an outspoken conservative as dean of the ideologically divided Law School in February, many said the decision flew in the face of conventional political wisdom.

"This was the worst possible choice Bok could have made," one left-wing professor said of Professor of Law Robert C. Clark's selection. "There is nobody in the faculty who is more likely to polarize the school."

While Bok's choice mystified most outside observers, those who work closely with the president say he has never been especially concerned with the popularity of his decisions.

"Derek isn't someone who opens a newspaper page every day to see how he came across the previous day," says Vice President for Alumni Affairs Fred L. Glimp '50. "He does his job. If that causes him to come across badly, I think he thinks that's part of the job."

In fact, Bok's colleagues say the 59-year-old president sees himself more as a judge than a consensus-builder, relying on his own intensive legalistic analysis to determine what is right and wrong.

Guided by what many say is supreme confidence in his approach, Bok stands by his conclusions, even--and often especially--when they are criticized. And Bok, after 18 years in office, is so protective of his decisions precisely because he approaches them with a rigid commitment to rational analysis.

Many say Bok's refusal to divest totally of Harvard's South Africa-related investments--despite more than a decade of pressure from campus and alumni activists--is typical of this attitude. The president's stand is so firm that his associates generally refer to divestment as a matter already settled, citing the effort they say Bok has put into examining the issue.

Observers say the key to Bok's confidence is rooted in his method; he demands that large volumes of information be filtered up to him through Harvard's bureacracy whenever a decision is required. When Bok is interested in a subject, he insists that his committees and advisors provide him with a thorough presentation of facts and arguments.

"You find yourself having to provide more information on alternatives than you typically would like to," says former Vice President for Financial Affairs Thomas O'Brien. "He doesn't want to just know your conclusions--he likes to know how you got there."

Bok is also notorious for demanding this information in writing.

"Derek gets his information best by reading, and he knows that," O'Brien says. "He's always been quite a stickler for getting things in writing. That requires a degree of thoughtfulness that is unusual. He doesn't like to handle issues in passing...He must have a deep-seated concern for ever seeming unprepared."

"I think he analyzes well from carefully prepared material," says Stanford University President Donald Kennedy '52, a close friend of Bok. "He's used to working with briefs, and he may have found it's the most effective way to work."

Most say Bok, a labor law scholar, typically handles a problem as he would a legal case. Colleagues like Ford Professor of Social Sciences Emeritus David Riesman '31 describe Bok as a "rationalist philosopher" who shows unusual concern for the structure and consistency of arguments.

Although these analyses are particularly time-consuming, Glimp says Bok "never seems to tire. He can keep up that style more hours a day than anyone else could."

Bok's faith in his own impartial thoroughness, many say, makes him lose patience with those who he feels have not put in the same effort, or those who he thinks fail to present a rational and dispassionate case.