The presidential search committee should open discussion of candidates to the entire Harvard community. Predictably, this year's presidential search has been characterized by intrigue, speculation and secrecy rather than substantive dialogue among the Harvard community. The nine-member search committee charged with choosing the University's next president has been extremely close-mouthed regarding possible candidates for the job. Though the committee has solicited mountains of letters and met occasionally with small groups of students, very few people are privileged to know the short list of 30 to 40 names for one of the most respected academic posts in the world.

To spark a thorough and productive discussion about Harvard's future, the search committee should release this list to the Harvard community. It is only appropriate that candidates for the Harvard presidency should be subject to public scrutiny before the decision is made. A clear, open conversation between students, faculty, staff and administrators would ensure that the next president represents an inclusive, University-wide perspective. Harvard's 27th president should be able to legitimately claim a broad base of campus support rather than the sponsorship of the Harvard Corporation and Overseers alone. The campus should embrace Neil L. Rudenstine's successor rather than consider the new president an imposition by the search committee.

Short of including students and faculty on the search committee, releasing the list would be the best step the committee could take toward involving the community in the process. When Derek C. Bok was named president in 1970, the search committee received 1,200 names of possible candidates-almost three times the number that the current committee received. While there are undoubtedly many reasons for the dramatic decline, it seems clear that the community is not nearly as engaged in the search process as it could be. On the other hand, if the community had a chance to comment on the final candidates, interest would immediately increase.

Moreover, there is precedent for releasing an abbreviated list. In 1970, the search committee released the names of the 23 finalists. The main argument against publicizing the names has long been that promising candidates may drop out of consideration to prevent their current employers from learning they might be leaving. But that would seem to be no more applicable today than 30 years ago.

There is also a basic question of fairness. Few committees can conduct their business in perfect secrecy, and the presidential search committee is not one of them. Some candidates on the list, such as Provost Harvey V. Fineberg '67 and Business School Dean Kim B. Clark '74, have long been heralded as frontrunners in the search. Others, such as Harold Varmus and Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers, have more recently received front-page attention. As the search progresses, more names will surface. But it is hardly fair that most candidates on the list have not been mentioned at all in the media. An open, deliberative process would be far preferable to an otherwise-inevitable dribble of information.