The goal of proxies is raising issues; resolutions are not ends in themselves. In fact, "there is now much discussion among corporate responsibility advocates about deemphasizing the use of the proxy as a mechanism of advocacy and moving on to new structures," the CIC reports.

IRRC may contribute to a problem among institutions like Harvard which have yet to establish strategies to promote corporate responsibility Such shareholders may infer from the IRRC approach that the mere act of voting on resolutions is a sufficient demonstration of social concern.

"As all of us who have been working in this area of corporate responsibility for several years know, the voting of proxies will not, in the act itself, produce social change," the CIC writes. Advocates hope to persuade institutions eventually to adopt more aggressive strategies: introducing original resolutions, speaking publicly at annual meetings, publicizing proxy votes, holding public hearings, and initiating meetings with management to press for what the advocates call needed change.

What evidence is there that the ACSR will adopt an increasingly more important and progressive role? To start, optimists may point to the committee's votes on Caterpillar Tractor and Phillips Petroleum proxies. The ACSR was unanimous in endorsing a request for Caterpillar's disclosure of data regarding South African operations, and in opposing Phillips's exploration for oil off Namibia's coast.

In addition, student, alumni, and faculty ACSR members report general satisfaction with the quality of committee discussion and with the open-mindedness of other members.

"The committee, as a whole, has shown a basic concern for the issues. There's been no question so far on basic principles," said John J. Hogan '73, one of the ACSR's two undergraduate members.

Furthermore, the undergraduate committee of House representatives which last Fall elected the undergraduate ACSR members, has continued to meet and conduct research and to plan possible campaigns for the students' positions.

But at this point, there is at least as much reason for doubt as for hope. Both in terms of the ACSR's operation, and regarding the Corporations's attitude toward corporate responsibility.

Caterpillar and Phillips presented relatively easy issues to deal with. The Corporation had already adopted a policy favoring disclosures. In the case of Phillips, the proxy statement merely argued against investments which the U.S. government has already discouraged.

The seemingly clear-cut aspects of the legal situation in Namibia made a deeper evaluation of relevant moral and political issues unnecessary. Because the problem of Continental Oil is identical with Phillips's, it is likely the ACSR will deal with that question, too, without ever coming forward with an analysis of competing political claims in Namibia. Thus, the Namibian issues provide little basis for predicting the committee's further behavior.

On less clear-cut issues, the ACSR's votes may arouse even more skepticism. The committee voted down a resolution aimed at establishing a committee at General Electric to study the company's conversion to a peace-time economy. There was no need to force G.E. to create a committee already clearly in its interest, the majority reasoned.

But the ACSR vote on the G.E. proxy took the undergraduates by surprise, said Martin J. Auerbach '73 an undergraduate representative. Because they didn't know the vote was scheduled, Auerbach said he was unable to prepare adequately for a thoughtful vote.

Ordinarily, a vote of the student committee representing all the Houses determines the votes of the two ACSR undergraduate members.

The ACSR should have voted to establish the committee because no evidence of real peace-time conversion yet exists, according to Joel Motley '74, chairman of the Undergraduate Committee on Shareholder Responsibility.

"To be reluctant to force G.E. to make every statement, every investigation into what they are doing and why, at this time, is regressive," Motley said.