To the Editors of The Crimson:
They've done it again. Last year, it was Joan Bok's unprededented and improper "electioneering at the polls." This year, instead of crassly putting partisan election leaflets in with ther Board of Overseers mailing to alumni, University powers-that-be had Harvard Magazine print a one-sided interview with Harvard Treasurer Roderick MacDougal, giving the University's antidivestment argument. No rebuttal arguments allowed, no interviews with pro-divestment Overseers candidates.
Both Harvard Magazineand my ballot arrived on the same day. They're a little less ham-fisted this year, but it's the same attempt at maipulatin what purports to be a democratic election process. And just to play it safe, the University again chose as a "neutral vote-counter" its own CPA firm, Coopers & Lybrand.
Keep you eye on the new committee the Overseers have appointed to examine how the Board is chosen. If the pro-divestment petition candidates do well this year, despite these manuevers to manipulate the vote outcome, you can be we'll see all kinds of recommendations aimed at making such challenges to traditional power at Harvard somewhere between difficult and impossible. Chester W. Hartman '57