AS Derek Bok enters his 19th year as president of Harvard, he and his troops dig themselves ever further into their trenches of intolerance. The administrators' consistent refusal to open themselves to dissenting voices has led to a host of embarrassing and disturbing episodes over the past year.

The administration at all levels has been closed to the myriad concerns expressed by alumni, faculty, students and staff members. From the continuing debacle of the Overseers elections to the insensitivity of the College and faculty in the face of worries about minority hiring and security problems, Harvard administrators have shown themselves to be unconcerned with opinions other than their own.

PERHAPS the most startling example of the University's intolerance has been in its ever-deteriorating response to the pro-divestment challenge to the Board of Overseers. The Board--elected by all graduates of the University--was intended as the one voice through which alumni might register their opinions on the governance of Harvard.

As the three Harvard-Radcliffe Alumni Against Apartheid (HRAAA) members on the Board push Harvard to divest its $168.3 million in South Africa-related stock and push the Board to take a more active--and often adversarial--role, the University's response has become more closed and paranoic.

Harvard has chosen to fight the election of any future dissenting overseers. In September, the University announced its full support for the Young Committee's report, which would improve University candidates' chances of election.

But the report has met with unexpected opposition from both HRAAA and other overseers. Discussion of the report has been tabled twice, as the University refuses to have it come to a vote lest it fail.

That the Young Report is in jeopardy is an indication of the changing role of the Overseers, which traditionally has acted as a rubber stamp for the Corporation, which is responsible for all University policy decisions. HRAAA members and other, more progressive University nominees push for the Board to take a more active role in Harvard's governance, and, as a result, the University strives to marginalize them in the Board itself.

This desire to supress more liberal influences could be seen in the effort to convince Peter C. Goldmark '62, a former student activist and the president of the Rockfeller Foundation, to drop out of the running for the presidency of the Overseers earlier this year.

But the most disturbing aspect of the University's conduct is the active campaigning against this year's HRAAA candidates, particularly Archbishop Desmond M. Tutu, by paid Harvard administrators, who should remain neutral in Overseers elections.

Last month, University Vice President for Alumni Affairs Fred Glimp '50 helped introduce Stanford University President Donald Kennedy '52 to an alumnus who would pay more than $9500 to print Kennedy's letter in favor of University candidates in Harvard Magazine. Glimp gave this aid to Kennedy though Bok was severely criticized three years ago for similarly helping to campaign against HRAAA.

In addition, offcials have been quoted as harshly and gratuitously condemining HRAAA and the organization's executive director, as well as the HRAAA candidates themselves. Associate Vice President for University Relations John P. Reardon '60, the new executive director of the Alumni Association, even stooped to red-baiting when he asked in a speech in February, "What's to keep them from nominating Fidel Castro next time?"

This reprehensible behavior must stop. The administration must listen to dissenting voices if the Board is ever to assume its proper role as an active voice for the alumni of Harvard, a role that would contribute to a more open and more wisely run University.

BOK and his administrators had a slightly better record of responding to others' concerns in a recurrent issue this year--the appointments of a new Corporation member and two new deans.

By selecting Judith Richards Hope, the Corporation answered calls for diversity in the composition of the 339-year-old body, which traditionally has been composed of seven white males. But the appointment of Hope, a Washington lawyer with close ties to the Republican party, can hardly be seen as a step towards diversity of opinion on the homogenous board.

Bok did make an admirable move in picking Professor of Government Robert D. Putnam as the next dean of the Kennedy School of Government. The school, which has been rocked by scandals over fundraising and curriculum problems during the past few years, must return its attention to academics, and Putnam is qualified to lead the school in that direction.