In addition, Farber said, the Center is completing a report on strip mining. Harvard students and other workers for Campaign Continental, an association formed by former Ralph Nader staffers and people from the Miners for Democracy caucus in the United Mine Workers, brought issues related to strip mining before the ACSR last Spring. The issue arose when shareholders in the Continental Oil Company asked for information on the surprisingly high accident rate in the company's Appalachian coal mines.
A NUMBER of precedents emerged from last Spring's stock debates, and it is unlikely that Harvard will break from them quickly, since both the ACSR--chaired by Stanley S. Surrey, Smith Professor of Law-- and the Corporation subcommittee showed interest in preserving continuity in University policy.
Among the precedents are:
The University supports disclosure by companies operating in South Africa of information on their tax payments to South Africa, the average salaries of their black and white workers, the history of their involvement in the country, government control of their operations, and other information relevant to their effect on black South Africans.
The University believes American companies should withdraw from Namibia, in accordance with United Nations and U.S. government recommendations.
The University opposes resolutions for affirmative action by firms with operations in South Africa unless it is clearly stipulated that such activity is not illegal under South African law.
The University is hostile to the idea of study committees, especially committees it considers "one-sided," because it believes they dilute management's responsibility.
The University supports disclosure of corporate political gifts only when the gifts are of proven significance. In other cases, the University abstains from voting, because it says it would be unfair to force corporations to disclose when other institutions such as labor unions and charitable foundations don't have to.
The University opposes resolutions for disclosure of contacts between corporate and government officials.
Time has changed even the most sacrosanct of Harvard's policies, of course, and in some cases these decisions were far from unanimous to begin with (several of them represent overrulings of the ACSR). Some issues become more widely publicized with time; others--military contracting by corporations, for example--recede in public interest. Nevertheless, barring the unforeseen--another building occupation like the one in the Spring of 1972 which helped bring about Bok's new system, or the withdrawal of a large gift by a donor who deemed the University's policies as a shareholder unsatisfactory (this recently happened at Berkeley, according to Farber)--these precedents probably will be the rule of thumb.
With interest in shareholder questions down considerably from the morning two Aprils ago when black students seized Mass Hall, the ACSR and the subcommittee will probably be operating pretty much on their own.
The comment of a Student ACSR member last year, which was made when other members of the group berated him for not seeking the opinions of the students who elected him actively enough, seems typical.
"I ask them about the issues," ho explained, "and they tell me, 'that's all right, just vote your conscience.'"