Moreover, a climate that encourages participation would also have improved the quality of the search. In 1970, when lists were released, the search committee received 1,200 names of possible candidates. In this search, when outside input was largely shunned, only 400 names were sent in. We do not doubt Summers' qualifications, but it is clearly in the University's interest that the search be as wide-ranging as possible.

We may have misjudged the Corporation's commitment to student welfare and its members' interest in student input. For all we know, every question the candidates faced concerned the welfare of undergraduates. But the process the Corporation has overseen smacks more of a fear of what students might say if included meaningfully in the process--a fear that perhaps should be expected from Stone, who has been publicly dismissive of the "kids" the University aims to educate.

We wish Summers the best and have high hopes for his time as president. The secrecy of the search should not detract from the important goals he has already outlined for the future of Harvard. Indeed, some reports have suggested that he was chosen because of his commitment to a better undergraduate experience, a larger faculty and greater tenure odds for junior faculty--all causes close to our hearts. But it is a shame that he must begin his tenure--no matter how strong his qualifications--under a cloud of secrecy and of suspicion.

The intellectual life of a great university rests upon openness and trust. We should like to see these virtues a decade or more from now, when a new search committee returns to Loeb House to choose the next Harvard president.