Dear President Bok:

Last week I and other members of the Student Advisory Committee on Shareholder Responsibility tried unsuccessfully to meet with you about Harvard's position in the Exxon-Angola proxy fight. We were told that those matters were out of your hands and that Hugh Calkins, Fellow and chairman of the Sub-Committee on Harvard's shareholder responsibility, was the man to see about specific issues. When we later requested a discussion with you on more general questions about Harvard's performance in this area, we were told that you had no time until school closed for the summer or reopened in the fall. Your deflections of our attempts to confront you on these matters have led to some disturbing revelations.

Mr. Calkins outlined for us the Corporation's view of moral issues and shareholder responsibility, the specific topic being Exxon-Angola. At times he gave some personal opinions, otherwise he seemed to present the principles underlying Harvard's position in this Spring's proxy votes.

The gist of his first point was that if moral concern were to keep American oil companies out of Angola and other similarly troubled areas, then the European companies would take their places. What kind of moral concern is this? Since when is true moral restraint compromised by considering what others might do? If we abhor the atrocities which Portugal is perpetrating on the Angolans, how can we condone corporate support of the Portuguese on the ground that European oil companies will pick up where we leave off? There will always be some one willing to make money through direct or indirect participation in criminal activity. We had hoped that Harvard had the moral integrity to restrain itself from certain sources of income. We conceded to Mr. Calkins that all sources of income were open to moral questioning, but we reminded him that there are extremes; that if we cannot distinguish between morally outrageous and morally questionable activity, then we need not have committees to make a show of moral concern. His reasoning on this point was morally bankrupt.

He asked for our reaction to Harvard's "IBM policy," namely that Harvard would condone corporate support of morally repugnant governments (South Africa), if the company provided employment for some black Africans; he even suggested that oil companies could help black Angolans by teaching them to speak Portuguese. Thus he reasoned that the "net effect" of corporate activity would benefit blacks. How can reasonable men, dedicated to social responsibility draw this conclusion? The white South African government is dedicated to oppressing black South Africans in every possible way. How can millions of dollars in tax support to that government, weighted against a few jobs, be calculated as a net gain for blacks? How can millions of dollars and barrels of oil which support the Portuguese effort to slaughter Angolans, weighted against language lessons, be calculated as a net gain for the Angolans? Perhaps Mr. Calkins envisions cooperative funerals, spoken in Portuguese.

A "broad-based" advisory committee, representing Angolans and other interested parties would "interfere improperly with [Exxon] management's decision-making process," according to the Fellows. We feel that in fact the Fellows are absolutely right, for someone has got to interfere with the decision-making process of corporate managers. Ever since John D. Rockefeller hired gunmen to run farmers off "his" oil fields, it has been clear how social concern works in the corporate decision-making process, the current T.V. ads notwithstanding. No institution in our society can claim professional complexity as an excuse for exclusive policy control over activities of far reaching social impact. Such mystification will not hold up in a court of law or in a legislature, and it must not hold up with responsible shareholders.

The Fellows seem to have forgotten the discussion which took place during the Mass Hall takeover. We, the students and faculty concerned about Harvard's posture, took it on faith that Harvard would strive to become a responsible, morally forthright shareholder. You were credited in this newspaper with this change in the University's image. That faith has been violated, and the credit to you was premature. To request an advisory committee, thus encouraging management to take interests other than profit into account would have been a minimal step for a socially responsible shareholder; asking for simple disclosure of information by corporations is not enough. Corporate managers do not have the sensitivity or vision to take moral concerns into sufficient account. Other decisions by the Fellows, which assumed that "self-interest alone would assure close attention to this problem"--namely, the problem of conversion to peace-time production--have been equally naive or narrow.

We are not surprised by the Fellows' reasonings, though we are disheartened by their sluggish attitude toward urgent crises of life and death in Africa and toward the moral integrity of this institution. Their willingness to give management the benefit of the doubt is understandable, since many of them are corporate managers themselves. But from you, because you are the self-proclaimed spokesman for ethical education at Harvard, we expect something entirely different. We believed you when you said that promotion of ethical education was Harvard's most important task, and that which it performed least well. Your silence in the face of the Fellow's positions on these issues leads us to believe that your program for the school is inconsistent at best and, perhaps, hypocritical. If you support the Fellows' principle that we can hesitate to leave South Africa or Angola because Europeans might replace us, then I question your qualifications to lead this University. In fact, if you support any of their principles, which are insensitive to social concerns and which accede to the management status quo, then perhaps you should join them and become president of a business corporation yourself. Go with those who are dedicated to maximizing profit, and let someone else with greater ideals and a stronger moral backbone do a job dedicated to "Veritas." To serve this University you must be willing to assert moral leadership.

If you feel that these criticisms are unfair, if you feel that we have misconstrued or underestimated your commitment to the University's ethical principles, then we are anxious to discuss the problem with you. These problems reflect on everyone in this community; we are all implicated in the economic activities which support us here. Therefore, we seek to have dialogue with you while the community is present, not when many have dispersed for the summer. If you continue to seclude yourself from a group of students concerned about these issues, then our disappointment with you as president will be deep, and our means for pressing these matters will have narrowed significantly. Joel Motley '74

Joel Motley '74 is a major in American History and Literature and chairman of the Student Advisory Committee of the ACSR.