While Harvard may have made its final decision on the General Motors stockholders' challenge, the University's billion dollar endowment may face more serious, though perhaps less overt challenges this Spring.

There have been sporadic attempts through the last decade to challenge the Corporation's investment policy. Each has centered on a narrow perspective in the Harvard portfolio-Harvard's investment in war-related industries, its holdings in South Africa, and other minor individual investments.

The General Motors decision is basically consistent with the University's actions in other issues. George F. Bennett '33, treasurer for the College, said Monday at a special meeting with students that the GM position "represents no change from what has been done before."

NEWS ANALYSIS

Although Bennett argued that the means of challenging GM-a proxy fight-were perhaps more objectionable than the goals of the challenging stockholders, the discussion at Monday's meeting showed that there are fundamental ideological disagreements between Harvard and its challengers.

The General Motors controversy has come down to the question of how well GM is researching anti-pollution devices and complying with safety standards.

Although the Washington-based campaign has included recommendations for hiring more black employees and franchise dealers, dissenting Harvard students are attacking GM primarily on environmental grounds and Bennett has responded with a direct defense of GM's efforts.

Based on private contact with the GM management and the management's publicly announced statement, Bennett points out that GM spent $125 million on research and development in the last three years.

One of the results of their research is a anti-pollution device, marketed last week, which will reduce carbon monoxide emission by more than 50 per cent whenattached to any pre-1966 GM model car. Hydrocarbon emissions on 1970 models are also about 80 per cent lower than 1961 cars and carbon-monoxide emissions are reduced 70 per cent.

Campaign GM says, however, that there are several fallacies in GM's defense of its pollution research. First GM is committed to developing the internal combustion engine and therefore can only develop "gadgets" that will reduce air pollution. The company has done little research into alternate types of engines which might eliminate virtually all automotive air pollution. Campaign GM claims.

GM Trails Others

Secondly, GM has frailed other automotive leaders in recognizing the pollution danger and delayed unnecessarily in correcting the dangers when forced to comply with government regulations.

In regard to the GM figure of $125 million for research and development, Joel R. Kramer '69, a Campaign GM researcher, said "clearly these figures are drastically inflated." He said a GM spokesman admitted that only $60 million of this money went to a research staff of 500 working on new discoveries in that three-year period.

Nader Estimate

General Motors actual research funds therefore come to about $20 million per year according to GM statistics. Ralph Nader, automotive safety crusader, recently estimated that a more correct figure would be about $8 million.

Using GM's statistics, Kramer concluded "and $20 million per year does not compare well with the over $240 million GM spent on advertising in 1967 alone."

Bennett for GM

Bennett, at Monday's meeting with representatives of five student groups, turned down a request to vote with Campaign GM's stockholder challenge.

Campaign GM submitted nine resolutions on "social responsibility" for inclusion on GM's annual proxy statement this April. If the Securities Exchange Commission upholds GM's refusal to put the resolutions on the ballot, Campaign GM has promised to begin a proxy fight with the management next week.

Other Proxy Fights