Would Tabak or McLean say the same about other University administrators more directly responsible for undergraduate life? Would they deem "unresponsive" and "authoritarian" Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett's meetings with women over Harvard's date rape policy? Apparently so. When Nader lambasted Harvard's "faceless bureaucrats," his audience pointed with scorn to Dean of Students Archie Epps who was watching the rally from a window in University Hall.

THE antics of Afro-Am demonstrators also raise doubts about the intentions of would-be student participants in the presidential search. Just whose "concerns" would student selectors raise during the process? No doubt, they would be pressured to evaluate candidates according to a political litmus test cooked up by campus activists.

Don't be fooled by the deceptively populist appeal of Nader's rally. Idealistic calls for openness and inclusion were drowned out by a smorgasbord of polemical speeches straight from the latest Politically Correct Platform.

This agenda of this month's meeting between representatives of the council and the search committee could also be dominated by student activists. Athan Tolis, a member of the delegation, told the Independent, "We certainly have every major group that complains about anything on campus represented." But what about the remainder--perhaps the majority--of students who aren't complainers, ideologues, or activists? Will they be represented?

Issue like the future of Afro-Am and minority recruitment certainly merit attention, but they should not determine the selection of Harvard's next president. The University needs a leader who will direct the course of undergraduate education and successfully spearhead its record-breaking fundraising drive.

In light of these tasks, the Corporation's stated preferences for a "recognized scholar" with a "keen sense of management" are more important than the limited, and by comparison, trivial objectives of student political activists.

Some, like The Crimson in its editorials, have suggested that students have "veto power" over the search committee's presidential picks. I can already see the headlines: "Activists Reject Fourth Presidential Nominee: University Scrambles to Meet Demands." If you want a recipe for rancor and deadlock, follow The Crimson's advice.

Or join ranks with York Eggleston. The co-chair of the Harvard Foundation's student advisory committee told his supporters, "We must be willing to shout and rally and protest even when our throats are sore."

Notwithstanding the benefits he may bring to the cough drop industry, Eggleston is a walking argument against student participation in the search. The selection of Harvard's next president requires calm deliberation, not petulant diatribes.

Students will be students. Passionate and idealistic, we will brave rain and snow to protest the latest administrative injustice. We will stamp our feet for a women's center and raise our fists for South African divestment. And so we should. Harvard just wouldn't be Harvard without us.

But without administrators, Harvard wouldn't be anything. Capable of reconciling the immediate concerns of a diverse community with the institutional interests of the University, detached and objective leaders are better able to chart Harvard's long-term future than students whose tenure here is transitory.

Perhaps my trust in "faceless bureaucrats" will never win me a seat on the council, or worse yet, a dinner with Ralph Nader. If so, these are the bitter pills I must swallow for a tempered resistance to misapplied democracy. No doubt, Tocqueville would have agreed.