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 close 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, officials 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.

But the choice of Professor of Law Robert C. Clark as dean of the Law School was as disturbing as the Putnam appointment was commendable. Not only does Clark have little practical experience in fundraising, an essential skill as the school embarks on a massive capital drive in the coming years, but he also has been a vocal opponent of the radical faction of the Law faculty.

The school has suffered a series of extremely divisive tenure battles over the past few years, and members of the Law School community had hoped for a dean who could heal those wounds. As a result, the surprising appointment of Clark was opposed by a substantial percentage of the faculty. Although Clark has shown signs that he will be more tolerant as dean than he was as a faculty member, the appointment reflected an attempt to steamroll over the concerns of the school.

THE year also saw two important challenges to the administration from members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) as well, revolving around the central administration's refusal to take the Faculty's views into account.

In November, Coolidge Professor of History David S. Landes shocked the administration by opposing its plan to build a new hotel on the Mass. Ave. Gulf Station site. Landes pointed out that in light of the shortage of FAS library and office space, the site should be used for academic purposes.

The ensuing controversy highlighted the struggle between the academic pursuits of this University and its constant search for economic gain. Bok later agreed to consult FAS on future real estate plans, and it was decided last month--after Cambridge citizens complained that the University demolished the station before it could be declared a landmark--that FAS would control the former Gulf Station site.

In addition to the Gulf Station debate, the administration and FAS have been accused of watering down a proposal to improve hiring of minority and women faculty members.

The report, presented by a Faculty committee headed by Pforzheimer University Professor Sidney Verba in March, called on the departments to designate affirmative action representatives, who would be responsible for identifying qualified candidates and drawing up reports on the departments' progress each year.

But the response to the report has been less than faithful to its primary goal of creating adversarial voices to spur each department to action. Instead, the Executive Committee of the FAS has proposed that the department chairs be responsible for the affirmative action duties on top of their already heavy administrative loads. Under this version, there would be little guarantee that departments with bad hiring records would improve their practices.

The weakened version of the affirmative action report is not only an attempt to lessen the non-administrative faculty voice, but also a direct slap in the face to a substantial group of students who have been committed to forcing FAS and the University to increase its minority hiring.

BUT the slap was only one of many this year, as Harvard continually turned a deaf ear to students' concerns. This tendency to ignore student concerns was exemplified in the University's refusal to substantially improve campus security.

In December, a staff member was raped in the middle of the afternoon in the Science Center. Harvard police reported that the assailant gained access to an upper floor of the building and held his victim hostage without being caught.

This frightening episode, and two reported incidents of sexual molestation of freshman women, led to increased demands from students and staff members for better security measures around the University. Yet the adminstration only replaced the student guards at the Science Center with armed, professional ones. Harvard refused to lock three of the building's four doors after business hours or limit access to the upper floors before 5 p.m. because such measures would be inconvenient for some faculty members. The administration also refused to increase the number of street lights in the Yard, even after six assaults of students near in the Square in a four-week period, because it would harm the historic value of the area.

Meanwhile, Harvard has yet to procure another car for the escort service. Although some students created a walking escort service in February, the University's response to the problem has been inadequate. Students should not be forced to supplement ineffective or insufficient official services that the University should instead be committed to improving.

THE year, then, has seen a continuation and increase in the administration's refusal to recognize competing voices and claims. But more important, it has seen an number of different groups--dissenting overseers, angry professors, protesting students--calling the University on its insensitivity and intolerance of new views. We welcome these new challenges as possible means of forcing the administration to listen and respond.

The only way for the University to improve its services to the community and to retain its status as one of the country's premier institutions of higher learning is for it to open itself to other voices. It is only in listening to and integrating these voices in the decision-making process that Harvard may continue to grow with its community.