When Derek C. Bok announced last month that he intends to resign from the Harvard presidency, he immediately set alumni, faculty and students speculating about a possible successor.

One question that few asked immediately was how that successor would be chosen. After all, the process seems simple enough: a charter in effect since 1650 leaves the choice in the hands of the seven Fellows of the Harvard Corporation, the University's top governing board.

But in fact, the selection of a new Harvard president has never been that simple. Each time the Corporation has set out to choose a president for the University, it has also undertaken an intensive and sometimes painful process of self-scrutiny.

And looking back at previous changes of the Mass Hall guard in search of a clue to the future, one thing is clear: each new president has brought changes in mission and direction to the University--changes that have often been dramatic.

No one is more aware of that than David Riesman '31. A sociology professor who has co-authored a forthcoming book on presidential searches, Riesman has known every Harvard president since A. Lawrence Lowell (Class of 1877).

And no one is more apprehensive than Riesman about the current search.

"It's dangerous, terribly dangerous--it's the scariest thing," he says. "What has been repeated in this century was that the incoming presi- dent had sharp differences from hispredecessor."

From Moralism to Pragmatism

That is certainly true in the case of thecurrent president. In the course of Bok'sselection process in 1970, the most recentprecedent for the 1990 search, the University setout to remake itself in the wake of a period ofuncertainty and discontent.

"In that instance, the times had a lot to dowith it," says John M. Blum '43, a Yale historianwho was then a member of the Harvard Corporation."From the first, we needed someone whosetemperament would restore tranquillity to thetroubled environment and be acceptable to thecommunity of scholars.'

If there was any consensus at Harvard in 1970,it was that new leadership was desperately needed.

To student radicals, then-President Nathan M.Pusey '28 was a rigid reactionary who could not beforgiven for his decision to send in police tobreak up the student takeover of University Hallthe year before. In the eyes of many faculty andalumni, he was an unassertive, unimaginative manwho could not be counted on to take a stand andrestore Harvard to its educational mission.

It was further agreed that the Universityneeded a reorganized administrativesystem--Pusey's small staff in Mass Hall wasunable to handle the demands of the rapidlyexpanding bureaucracy. And faculty members werebecoming increasingly vocal in their calls forredesign of the undergraduate curriculum.

"The student demonstrations were interpreted asa reaction to the general academic environment,"Riesman says. "There was a desire for someone whocould be responsive to undergraduates."

As a result, the search process opened up theusually secretive mechanisms of Harvard governanceto students and faculty to an extent that waslargely unprecedented in recent history. Under theguidance of Senior Fellow Francis H. Burr '35, theCorporation sought the broadest input possible,mailing 203,000 letters asking for advice fromstudents, faculty, and alumni. When undergraduatesproved apathetic, individual Corporation memberssolicited their help by holding dinner meetings ineach of the Houses.